Right again , that's twice today. The normal C02 greenhouse raises the globe from about -150 to about 15 C. So rising by 2 degrees is about 1/80 of normal - call it 1%. Burning is .01% of solar heat. Without the sun and just fuel burning, the temp rise would be 160/10,000 degrees or 1/60 degrees. That's cool man., only the extra makes a difference
.
Probably because there is a very clear distinction between "black body" energy absorption and the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases.As a concept it's readily dismissed as trivial compared to heat from the sun. Oddly that dismissal comes from the same people who tend to be very focused on CO2 having increased from 0.25% to 0.41% of the earth's atmosphere.
Why would you need to calculate an amount of energy which IS trivial.It might turn out to be trivial but in the absence of any proper calculations, and by that I mean a serious effort as with the CO2 issue, it would seem foolish to dismiss the effects that adding heat (as distinct from trapping it) may be having since it won't be zero.
I've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?One point where you are misled @Smurf
Wind and hydro would have ended up as heat as well, as you pointed so we just borrow that energy, it should have no impact on the balance
It's interesting when water falling inside Greenland's caverns 3.6 kms high are assisting with melting. Little molecules get bounced around like..like.. greenhouse radiation..water simply falling naturally produces heat?
.
Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%Another way to express it is that over 8,000 times more energy is received by the planet than is consumed by humans each hour.
Ok a link between .01% and 99.9%. I'd link such odds at Melbourne cup to a good bet , unless it means a .01 cent payout. but where's the beef?consider that a link between the two is plausible
Can you please walk me through this:
"Basic physics when applied to gases (denied by some one here ) states something will change."
Which laws of physics?
(I agree with you, but would like to know your understanding of it)
Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?Thus far the increase in temperature on the earth's surface seems to be from approximately 287'K to 288'K or 0.36%
Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.
Relative to the observed temperature increase that's not huge but it's enough to consider that a link between the two is plausible especially given that warming is the expected outcome of adding heat.
Now can anyone tell me exactly what effect changes in albedo have had? The IPCC seems to see it as of significance, particularly in so far as carbon and other contaminants add heat directly to ice thus bringing about melting and the loss of ice itself results in less light reflected thus creating a positive feedback loop, but so far as I'm aware hasn't put precise figures on it.
Ice is white and in the overwhelming majority of cases whatever's under it will be a darker colour.Carbon on ice may raise the melting but what is the loop? Maybe in algae on ice where more algae grows as temp rises? But it doesn't itself add any heat..?
Which part of my maths is flawed?Would you like me to point your dodgy maths out, or can you work it out yourself?
The concept seems to be settled in that greenhouse gases trap heat.While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.
Yes frictionI've never managed to grasp exactly how, exactly, water simply falling naturally produces heat?
Presumably due to friction?
Not something I've really thought about to be honest.
You have used the Kelvin temperature scale as a yardstick to propose the change in temperature, instead of the average temperature of the body.Which part of my maths is flawed?
The earth's average surface temperature has increased from approximately 287'K to 288'K. For clarity that's the air temperature not anything else.
That is an increase of 0.36%.
Try moving along the decimal point.Given that the vast majority represents a release of very long term stored energy, fossil fuels or nuclear, your 1:8000 ratio means that we've added 0.0125% to the earth's present day energy input.
This is true, and the IPCC provide error bars in their projections.The exact magnitude seems to have some uncertainty noting that the IPCC and other researchers themselves have applied different figures in different studies. Not drastically different but there's a range or window of estimates and calculated values.
The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.2 things irritate me most: the pretence that the world as a whole will reduce co2 emissions whereas India and China plus smaller players like Indonesia, Pakistan,all overpopulated places are the ones in control and do not give a ****
Rubbish - stop making up shyte!Then the real obsession on co2 without even trying to see if any other phenomenon is actually in play
Your religion appears to be ignorance. If you disagree, then quote the science you rely on, because you have never yet done this.This is religion not science
Nonsense, the first step is to to test your ideas for how you believe things happen by undertaking research and examining the evidence. Try googling the "scientific method" and posting that here rather than your misconceptions.The first consideration in scientific processes was to admit we do not know, otherwise, we would still believe the sun turns around us
The IPCC has published 5 reports over the past 30 years, and you think they do not care?If people actually cared about this earth, they would try to find answers, not join a religion of CO2 fanatics
Sounds like your understanding is far better than mine. I need a refresher in chemistry 101Apologies Klogg missed you question.
I was talking about a closed system containing gases and the laws around temperature, volume and pressure and the interactions of gases, change any one of those states the environment in the closed system will change.
Hadn't gotten to the so called greenhouse gases and their behaviour which was well answered by Bi-polar and Rederrob but simlar principal applies as the volume of CO2 increases.
Simplistic and obvious I know but reading some of the comments here you wouldn't know it, I have spent 30 years in the chemical manufacturing industry many a day arguing about the measurement, composition or behaviour of gases in a closed process system one of the gases was actually CO2.
While I am here on another note to to bore (up on the soap box) you one factor, or one of many that frustrates me is the narrow points argued applied to the whole tactics used often when applied to CC obfuscates (tobacco industry / NRA) our need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels tactics highly funded by vested moneyed interests unfortunately wealth is the basis of power and in this "climate" has been relatively effective.
I remember being utterly dismayed when the US Republican party made the decision to reject the science purely for political reasons (wealth and power again) not because of the science it was a bipartisan issue.
China is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.The fact that China is the world leader in renewable spend suggests you are clueless.
You also exhibit racist and elitist tendencies: why not instead name the nations with the greatest per capita emissions?
Or, why not show the countries which have been responsible for the cumulative emissions we now have?
That would be because....Rubbish - stop making up shyte!
These data are freely available so start educating yourself rather than ranting on with your misinformation.Your religion appears to be ignorance. If you disagree, then quote the science you rely on, because you have never yet done this.Nonsense, the first step is to to test your ideas for how you believe things happen by undertaking research and examining the evidence. Try googling the "scientific method" and posting that here rather than your misconceptions.
The IPCC has published 5 reports over the past 30 years, and you think they do not care?
From your posts here it is doubtful you have ever looked at any of them.
When the younger generation reads ill conceived ramblings such as yours, their actions make a great deal of sense.
Your ignorance on climate matters is palpable, yet you keep posting.
Agree that darker ice melts quicker but question how that is a feedback loop to bring more carbon to the ice or more CO2. Melting permafrost is a positive feedback loop for methane and CO2 (but not a loop for more carbon dust on the ground).a greenish piece of land has been replaced with a black one.
Doomed Planet - Dear Greta, You Won’t Mind Being Unplugged…
22nd September 2019 - Quadrant Online: Christopher Heathcote: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/dear-greta-you-wont-mind-being-unplugged/
..Dear Greta Thunberg,
It’s one thing organising mass protests of children during their school holidays, and delighting in jamming up major cities, but why don’t you initiate some grass roots action to reduce carbon emissions internationally?...
60pc emission by India and china alone last yearChina is roughly 1/3 of emissions I thought. Some of the places over there are toxic to breathe in. Theres a lot of fudging of figures. "Per capita" on a nation of 1bill people hides the amount of sht they pump out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?