Greenhouse effect observed, why it is minimal

[Jaskalas]

Citation:
Observation: 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade
Hansen: 0.58 Watts per square meter from 2005-2010
IPCC AR5: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C

Points:
Direct measurement of warming is roughly 1/5th of expected.
IPCC expects 3C per doubling of CO2.
1/5th of that is 0.6C.
A change from 300ppm to 400ppm is 1/3rd of a doubling, or 0.2C.

Conclusion:
Therefore, since 1950, human CO2 emissions have increased global temperature by roughly 0.2C. To approach 2C of warming, CO2 would need to double three times. To 600, 1,200, and finally reach over 2,400ppm. With sensible policy there should be no expectation of surpassing 2,000ppm.

I stand in opposition by claiming much of what advocates profess has been exaggerated. I believe Climate Sensitivity is roughly 0.6C and therefore we can take our time in addressing it with sensible policy.

 

[dainthomas]

If you don't support torpedoing the US economy, you are a denier.

 

[Smoblikat]

lol, bringing reason and fact to a climate debate.

Hope your tin foil hats havent been burnt up by all this global warming we are getting, it was in the low 20's this morning!

 

[glenn1]

Citation:
Observation: 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade
Hansen: 0.58 Watts per square meter from 2005-2010
IPCC AR5: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C

Points:
Direct measurement of warming is roughly 1/5th of expected.
IPCC expects 3C per doubling of CO2.
1/5th of that is 0.6C.
A change from 300ppm to 400ppm is 1/3rd of a doubling, or 0.2C.

Conclusion:
Therefore, since 1950, human CO2 emissions have increased global temperature by roughly 0.2C. To approach 2C of warming, CO2 would need to double three times. To 600, 1,200, and finally reach over 2,400ppm. With sensible policy there should be no expectation of surpassing 2,000ppm.

I stand in opposition by claiming much of what advocates profess has been exaggerated. I believe Climate Sensitivity is roughly 0.6C and therefore we can take our time in addressing it with sensible policy.

The forward march of technology is already making it moot like most past "crises." Just as the automobile fixed the problem of unsanitary horse shit covering the streets, nascent technologies will likewise completely trivialize the climate change crisis. From Big Data to artificial photosynthesis and things we haven't even imagined yet, it will quickly become obvious that a clumsy top-down government approaches would actually impede the eventual solutions instead of being a solution itself.

 

[rudeguy]

If you don't support torpedoing the US economy, you are a denier.

But China promised that it would stop increasing its greenhouse gas output within 20 years! Its time to shut down all factories in the US and move them to China! They want to save the planet!!!


Anyone who denies that climate global change warming isn't a for-profit ideology is the true denier.

 

[theeedude]

Citation:
Observation: 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade
Hansen: 0.58 Watts per square meter from 2005-2010
IPCC AR5: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C

Points:
Direct measurement of warming is roughly 1/5th of expected.
IPCC expects 3C per doubling of CO2.
1/5th of that is 0.6C.
A change from 300ppm to 400ppm is 1/3rd of a doubling, or 0.2C.

Conclusion:
Therefore, since 1950, human CO2 emissions have increased global temperature by roughly 0.2C. To approach 2C of warming, CO2 would need to double three times. To 600, 1,200, and finally reach over 2,400ppm. With sensible policy there should be no expectation of surpassing 2,000ppm.

I stand in opposition by claiming much of what advocates profess has been exaggerated. I believe Climate Sensitivity is roughly 0.6C and therefore we can take our time in addressing it with sensible policy.

Sensible policy to which the right is in opposition to.

 

[glenn1]

Sensible policy to which the right is in opposition to.

There's no IPCC scenario which has us going that high. Unless we specifically made efforts to reach 2,000 PPM we'd never get there, and maybe not even then. If the survival of our species absolutely depended on achieving 2,000 PPM in the next 100 years or realistic timeframe we might still not be able to do it.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems very odd to cite an article that talks about measurements two locations, is only focused on one part of the total human contribution to warming, and also mentions that climate model predictions are on track as a reason to believe that climate models are wrong.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

So it seems the authors of the paper don't agree with the conclusions that you're drawing from it. Since you previously thought this paper was a good resource, will you alter your opinion if that turns out to be the case?

 

[nickqt]

It seems very odd to cite an article that talks about measurements two locations, is only focused on one part of the total human contribution to warming, and also mentions that climate model predictions are on track as a reason to believe that climate models are wrong.



So it seems the authors of the paper don't agree with the conclusions that you're drawing from it. Since you previously thought this paper was a good resource, will you alter your opinion if that turns out to be the case?

No where in any of the sources does the conclusion follow. But observable reality isn't really important for their arguments anyway. It's all faith-based.

 

[Subyman]

Temperature increase lags CO2 increase by sometimes several decades. They are coupled, but not directly. CO2 levels have never increased this fast in the historical records, so we don't know exactly how the Earth will respond to such drastic changes. The ocean is a great buffer and has been sequestering a lot of carbon, but as we approach capacity then the ppm in the air may begin to increase more rapidly.

Some deniers may be interested in aerosols, which actually cool the planet. China has an increasing output of aerosols that can stifle certain global warming effects. However, aerosols can not be produced in perpetuity because of their terrible side effects like acid rain. China is already beginning to limit their output.

Anyway, the main problem is that CO2 levels are steadily rising, but we will not see the effect of this for several decades. The Earth is a large place, it takes time to warm. Ice undergoing its phase change from solid to liquid absorbs energy, etc. Under such large perturbations, it may take many decades to come back to a natural steady state temperature even if we quit producing right now.

 

[Genx87]

I think the problem we cant completely account for is the advancement of middle classes in India, China, and across the globe. As these people build wealth they will desire to consume vast amounts of fossil fuels either directly from cars\transit or via products they want to purchase. While I believe the West can and will see a slowing of their carbon foot print per person. I think we will see a drastic increase in developing countries.

 

[OverVolt]

Temperature increase lags CO2 increase by sometimes several decades. They are coupled, but not directly. CO2 levels have never increased this fast in the historical records, so we don't know exactly how the Earth will respond to such drastic changes. The ocean is a great buffer and has been sequestering a lot of carbon, but as we approach capacity then the ppm in the air may begin to increase more rapidly.

Some deniers may be interested in aerosols, which actually cool the planet. China has an increasing output of aerosols that can stifle certain global warming effects. However, aerosols can not be produced in perpetuity because of their terrible side effects like acid rain. China is already beginning to limit their output.

Anyway, the main problem is that CO2 levels are steadily rising, but we will not see the effect of this for several decades. The Earth is a large place, it takes time to warm. Ice undergoing its phase change from solid to liquid absorbs energy, etc. Under such large perturbations, it may take many decades to come back to a natural steady state temperature even if we quit producing right now.

Oh right the lab repeatable 30 years from now hypotheses.

 

[Subyman]

Oh right the lab repeatable 30 years from now hypotheses.

Global climate change was never said to be demonstrated in a laboratory. Large scale systems take time to react to perturbations. Such as, when you set ice out on the counter, it does not instantly turn to water.

 

[Paratus]

If you don't support torpedoing the US economy, you are a denier.

So in the last 40 years the only time global carbon emissions didn't increase was during a major economic meltdown. Last year global carbon emissions held steady under the global economic meltdown, err I meant healthy 3% growth.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/global-carbon-emissions-due-to-energy-stalled-in-2014/

The IEA tracks emissions due to energy use; as such, factors like deforestation and concrete production could still have led to a small increase in emissions. Still, as far as energy is concerned, carbon dioxide emissions were the same in 2013 and 2014: 32.3 billion tonnes (each tonne is 1,000kg). This came despite the fact that the global economy expanded by a healthy 3 percent in 2014.

There were three previous instances where the IEA has seen falling emissions: the early 1980s, 1992, and 2009, all of which were associated with economic downturns.

How could this be? Every one on the right 'knows' anything green must trash the economy. Let's face it only the U.S. would try anything green anyways. China never would it's not in their best interest. Right?

"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," said incoming IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. The agency ascribes the change to expanded use of renewable energy in China and developed economies. China is also shifting away from coal in an attempt to get its pollution under control, while developed economies have emphasized energy efficiency as part of a general effort to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions.

Don't you guys ever get tired of talking out your ass and getting caught?

I mean Jasklas even if he doesn't understand it, basically linked to a study that proves increasing CO2 increases heat retention proving global warming is happening and our fault.

And this report shows it's possible to divorce a growing economy from increasing CO2.

 

[Paratus]

There's no IPCC scenario which has us going that high. Unless we specifically made efforts to reach 2,000 PPM we'd never get there, and maybe not even then. If the survival of our species absolutely depended on achieving 2,000 PPM in the next 100 years or realistic timeframe we might still not be able to do it.

Here's some food for thought, just for you.

Are the share prices of energy companies partly based on their proven reserves?
If so is that part of the share price based on the assumption that those reserves will be sold and used?
How many barrels of oil, tonnes of coal, cubic meters of natural gas are in reserves globally?

When they've all been burned to justify their share prices, how many PPM of CO2 will we be at?

 

[Jaskalas]

If you don't support torpedoing the US economy, you are a denier.

That part should give anyone pause. There is a hefty price meant to be extracted from us in order the "save" the world. I mean... if proponents could get what they wanted at a low cost, we'd probably give it to them just to close the book and move on.

To imagine the cost they ask of us, we first have to agree how much warming could be reasonably permitted. There has previously been a 2C target, and under my view of a minimal Climate Sensitivity, that goal can be achieved. Problem is... that target is no longer popular.

UN's 2C target will fail to avoid a climate disaster, scientists warn

Nor is it possible if their claimed Climate Sensitivity is anywhere near accurate. Many believe it is far too late to make any changes.

Which brings us to an interesting cross roads. If proponents are entirely correct - then there may be nothing to be done. If I'm correct, we have plenty of time. If they admit their mistakes and meet somewhere in the middle... there'd be a lot more to discuss.

lol, bringing reason and fact to a climate debate.

Hope your tin foil hats havent been burnt up by all this global warming we are getting, it was in the low 20's this morning!

Are you telling me you could tell the difference between a 20 degree morning 60 years ago, and a 21 degree morning today? You do not simply look out your window and see Climate Change. Weather events are a poor distraction away from science and reasoned discussion.

The forward march of technology is already making it moot like most past "crises." Just as the automobile fixed the problem of unsanitary horse shit covering the streets, nascent technologies will likewise completely trivialize the climate change crisis. From Big Data to artificial photosynthesis and things we haven't even imagined yet, it will quickly become obvious that a clumsy top-down government approaches would actually impede the eventual solutions instead of being a solution itself.

My approach, to insist that we develop better energy infrastructure, could be torpedoed if we act too rash and lose our healthy economy. It is our wealth that can fuel R&D.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sensible policy to which the right is in opposition to.

The topic is polarized when snow is a thing of the past... hurricanes are now global warming... droughts and climate changes are now our doing, despise them periodically happening, sometimes to far greater extremes in the past.

I caution that the media exaggerations and misuse of weather are used to harden the opposition.

When I envision a pragmatic approach, it finds opposition from both sides. The left has worked hard to stop nuclear energy. Yet modern reactors, especially thorium, could go a LONG ways towards reducing CO2 emissions.

If we approached this as an energy infrastructure project... taking us from natural gas, to fission, to solar, all the way to fusion someday... A modern Manhattan project fashioned under the dream of American leadership, American jobs, and American independence from foreign oil... if we had a sensible approach inspired by true leadership, a kind America is sorely lacking... There is much I hope we could get done together.

There is a future out there, waiting for us to seize the initiative.
CO2 can be part of the reason we reach for it, sprinkle on a few other motivations and progress can be ground from the middle despite either side.

 

[trenchfoot]

I think it rather funny how the deniers are totally ignoring all of the efforts that have already gone into reducing greenhouse gases.....with the measurable effects these efforts provide being interpreted as proof those efforts weren't needed to begin with.

 

[cliftonite]

If I'm correct, we have plenty of time. If they admit their mistakes and meet somewhere in the middle... there'd be a lot more to discuss.

And what are the odds of you being correct vs actual scientists? I will take my chances with them vs some arch chair qb like you.

 

[jhbball]

And what are the odds of you being correct vs actual scientists? I will take my chances with them vs some arch chair qb like you.

0%.

 

[Moonbeam]

But China promised that it would stop increasing its greenhouse gas output within 20 years! Its time to shut down all factories in the US and move them to China! They want to save the planet!!!


Anyone who denies that climate global change warming isn't a for-profit ideology is the true denier.

Well I guess it's good to see there are those who willing to help wipe the human plague off the planet.

 

[Thebobo]

Anyone who denies that climate global change warming isn't a for-profit ideology is the true denier.

How can anyone with any reasonable sense of the real world truly think that?

Its simple, very simple, Who here has more to lose and the resources to guide the direction? Those evil scientist or huge mega corporations?

 

[Thebobo]

lol, bringing reason and fact to a climate debate.

Hope your tin foil hats havent been burnt up by all this global warming we are getting, it was in the low 20's this morning!

The 20s is weather, you going to show us your snow ball to? You sir are not very learned.

 

[OverVolt]

And what are the odds of you being correct vs actual scientists? I will take my chances with them vs some arch chair qb like you.

Oddly enough their models are probably calculated to 95% confidence and then they are wrong by an order of magnitude it calls into question the model eh?

Just kidding the IPCC is still going strong. The more of their predictions don't work out the more they rely on rhetoric (re: deniers, renaming it climate change, etc). How very scientist like of them. They are like the chief scientist of the salem witch trials at this point. Their credibility is smashed in my eyes. None of their predictions were right. So their models are wrong. But they never really rebuilt the model, just tweaked a few variables and called it fixed. But if you have to keep manually altering the model, the math behind it is incorrect somewhere. Its just common sense. Which as we all know is a fucking superpower on the internet.

 

[maluckey]

Ok, so let's say I believe in Manmade climate change. Now what?

I can accept that CC is real and that weather patterns will destroy half the worlds population. I can also accept that we (mankind did it).

We are stupid, we overpopulated the planet; polluted and abused the land that gave us life. Now we look for ways to put the so-called genie back into the bottle while doing the SAME thing over and over.

Tell me which plan to follow in order to break the cycle of waste and pollution and I'm in.