Global warming basics.

[Subduction Zone]

I see many people denying anthropogenic global warming. Or if you prefer climate change. I would like to cover the basics of this so that people have more than just denial when trying to argue against the science.

I would like to start with the greenhouse effect which was universally accepted before this became a political issue. So would anyone care to learn how the greenhouse effect works?

Others who understand the science better than I do, and I am sure that there are those here, are more than welcome to chime in.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Here is a neat little app that lets one play around with different scenarios:

The Greenhouse Effect

 

[UpperLimits]

I'm guessing "The Truth" is now revealed.... It wasn't a meteor after all - The dinosaurs apparently farted themselves to death.

Look. Nobody actually believes the climate can't, or isn't, changing. Where we disagree is that A) Mankind is responsible for that change (Note that it was warmer for the dinosaurs than now) B) Carbon is the "temperature control" of the planet. It's a bit more complex than that. (BTW, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during past Ice ages than now) and that C) Taxing ourselves into poverty through a world-wide wealth redistribution program is actually going to solve the problem - IF (and that's a pretty BIG "IF.") the so-called "problem" actually exists. (Politicians should just stay the heck out of the argument - period.)

If Al gore was correct back in the 1990's, then the oceans should probably have boiled off the planet by now....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Didn't take long.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I'm guessing "The Truth" is now revealed.... It wasn't a meteor after all - The dinosaurs apparently farted themselves to death.

Look. Nobody actually believes the climate can't, or isn't, changing. Where we disagree is that A) Mankind is responsible for that change (Note that it was warmer for the dinosaurs than now) B) Carbon is the "temperature control" of the planet. It's a bit more complex than that. (BTW, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during past Ice ages than now) and that C) Taxing ourselves into poverty through a world-wide wealth redistribution program is actually going to solve the problem - IF (and that's a pretty BIG "IF.") the so-called "problem" actually exists. (Politicians should just stay the heck out of the argument - period.)

If Al gore was correct back in the 1990's, then the oceans should probably have boiled off the planet by now....

Hello. You are wrong on A) at least among scientists studying this.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

The evidence that the current warming is caused by humans is quite clear. You can cite none to the contrary.

 

[Woberts]

In the interest of keeping the thread rolling, I would like to learn how the greenhouse effect works, @Subduction Zone.

 

[Woberts]

Apologies for derailing the thread, but @Regiomontanus you're a Christian and a socialist?
That's not something you see everyday.
Most Christians vehemently oppose Socialism.
What a weirdo!

 

[sun rise]

Look. Nobody actually believes the climate can't, or isn't, changing. Where we disagree is that A) Mankind is responsible for that change (Note that it was warmer for the dinosaurs than now) B) Carbon is the "temperature control" of the planet. It's a bit more complex than that. (BTW, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during past Ice ages than now) and that C) Taxing ourselves into poverty through a world-wide wealth redistribution program is actually going to solve the problem

A). That mankind is releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is beyond dispute.

B). You're right that is more complex than CO2. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gas The effect of humans on all of those is taken into account and from the EPA Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA including human impact on the various gases.

C). There are conservative solutions to the problem. If conservatives would start proposing them in Congress, I think they'd find a lot of support from the environmental community. A search reveals many conservative sites with ideas: https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+greenhouse+gas+solutions

So which conservative solution do you favor?

 

[Regiomontanus]

Apologies for derailing the thread, but @Regiomontanus you're a Christian and a socialist?
That's not something you see everyday.
Most Christians vehemently oppose Socialism.
What a weirdo!

My wife would agree with you about me being a weirdo

Yes, among fundamentalists/evangelicals it is not common. But the first Christians lived that way. Jesus was a SOCIALIST!

/back to climate change

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm guessing "The Truth" is now revealed.... It wasn't a meteor after all - The dinosaurs apparently farted themselves to death.

Look. Nobody actually believes the climate can't, or isn't, changing. Where we disagree is that A) Mankind is responsible for that change (Note that it was warmer for the dinosaurs than now) B) Carbon is the "temperature control" of the planet. It's a bit more complex than that. (BTW, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere during past Ice ages than now) and that C) Taxing ourselves into poverty through a world-wide wealth redistribution program is actually going to solve the problem - IF (and that's a pretty BIG "IF.") the so-called "problem" actually exists. (Politicians should just stay the heck out of the argument - period.)

If Al gore was correct back in the 1990's, then the oceans should probably have boiled off the planet by now....

That is why you need to learn the basics. By the way, Al Gore made no such claim.

I am not sure if I like some of the "cures" for global warming. Aimless taxing is not ideal. Taxes used to subsidize a fix would be much better. Since you do not understand the subject are you interested in trying to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the interest of keeping the thread rolling, I would like to learn how the greenhouse effect works, @Subduction Zone.

Thank you very much. To understand it one must first understand the Greenhouse Effect, as I already mentioned. And to understand that it is best to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

To keep it really simple, if one places an object in a vacuum and exposes it to energy that object will heat up. That is obvious. The question is how much? And the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is an attempt to explain how much an object heats up or loses heat in a vacuum. The Earth is after all just a large object in space, or a vacuum. It receives energy from the Sun. What we are concerned with is the average temperature. The Moon's temperature varies widely as it rotates since it rotates slowly and it is in a pure vacuum so its daylight side gets straight undiluted sunlight and its night side has nothing to keep the energy in.

Before I get too far here is a link to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

In its most basic form it deals with an ideal black body. An object that absorbs all energy that hits it and is the same temperature everywhere. Physics quite often simplifies problems by dealing with the ideal first.

The energy hitting the Earth is easy to calculate. I am not going to copy and past, but it is in the linked article. That starts here:

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

If the Earth was a perfect black body its temperature would be about 6 C. But the Earth is not a perfect black body. One can adjust the Stefan Boltzmann Law to take that into account by adding a factor for the albedo, the amount of energy reflected back out to space without being absorbed. Using that the average temperature of the Earth is -18 C. Most people are quite aware that the Earth is not that cold. Right now it is about 14.6 C or 32 degrees Celsius warmer than that predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Clearly something is wrong.

Any questions before we go on?

 

[UpperLimits]

Since you do not understand the subject

That's just a wee bit presumptuous.

are you interested in trying to learn?

Depends. Are you actually interested in explaining and answering questions in detail? Or are you simply promoting environmentalism as a religion?

That is why you need to learn the basics. By the way, Al Gore made no such claim.

You're not off to a good start if you want to seriously give answers. What Al Gore said is quite on record. And I would think a reasonable person should be able to tell the difference between what he said and a flippant comment in extrapolation of what he said.

I am not sure if I like some of the "cures" for global warming. Aimless taxing is not ideal. Taxes used to subsidize a fix would be much better.

I have ALWAYS been in favor of the discovery of cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The problem is: Aimless taxation is the government norm. And it's being promoted by the environmental groups at the expense of the industries that are best qualified to perform that very same research and development.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's just a wee bit presumptuous.

No, not really.

Depends. Are you actually interested in explaining and answering questions in detail? Or are you simply promoting environmentalism as a religion?

The point is to go over the science of AGW here. Don't accuse others of your flaws.

You're not off to a good start if you want to seriously give answers. What Al Gore said is quite on record. And I would think a reasonable person should be able to tell the difference between what he said and a flippant comment in extrapolation of what he said.

Oh my, there goes another irony meter. Yes, what Al Gore said is on record. That is why I know that you are the one that is not arguing accurately. And why refer to Al Gore anyway? He is not an expert in the field, he only made this problem well known. He got some of his claims wrong. He got some of his claims right. That is what happens when total lay people make definitive claims.

I have ALWAYS been in favor of the discovery of cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The problem is: Aimless taxation is the government norm. And it's being promoted by the environmental groups at the expense of the industries that are best qualified to perform that very same research and development.

I agree that is aimless taxation is not an ideal solution to this problem. I too would favor a conservative solution. Taxation has to be part of the solution. Change has to come about and taxation does two things, It gets people to pay closer to the real price of fossil fuels (if the damage that they cause is not paid for then the price one is being charged is too low) and it can supply funds to find a fix for it. I am totally against taxation that is used to fill the coffers for other projects. That would be counterproductive in my view.

 

[Shaul]

I see many people denying anthropogenic global warming. Or if you prefer climate change. I would like to cover the basics of this so that people have more than just denial when trying to argue against the science.

I would like to start with the greenhouse effect which was universally accepted before this became a political issue. So would anyone care to learn how the greenhouse effect works?

Others who understand the science better than I do, and I am sure that there are those here, are more than welcome to chime in.

I see many people that have a skepticism about AGW, not denial. Don’t start your case with false dichotomies. Furthermore how much AGW is occurring and what should be the best response is the more important discussion. The real problem with the AGW debates usually aren’t the “deniers” [sic], more often it is the AGW extremist alarmists. We can deal with any AGW without fear mongering and intrusive statist “solutions”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see many people that have a skepticism about AGW, not denial. Don’t start your case with false dichotomies. Furthermore how much AGW is occurring and what should be the best response is the more important discussion. The real problem with the AGW debates usually aren’t the “deniers” [sic], more often it is the AGW extremist alarmists. We can deal with any AGW without fear mongering and intrusive statist “solutions”.

You have to learn the difference between skepticism and denial. There are very few skeptics. Most simply deny the evidence and what it tells us. But the point of this thread is to go over the basics first and work up from there. Right now the changes in the climate will continue and can only get worse. At this time we are trying to limit the damage.

 

[suncowiam]

This best explains climate change.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Isn't it true global warming causes an ice age? Most people will survive global warming but most people don't survive an ice age. Can you speak to this point please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't it true global warming causes an ice age? Most people will survive global warming but most people don't survive an ice age. Can you speak to this point please?

Not that I know of. In fact we still are in an ice age. Global warming may end it. That would mean no more Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets and massive sea level rise. But that would take hundreds of years. We won't be around for that but our great great grandchildren might see it.

 

[sun rise]

We can deal with any AGW without fear mongering and intrusive statist “solutions”.

What specific solutions do you propose that work the way you want them to work?

 

[BSM1]

I see many people denying anthropogenic global warming. Or if you prefer climate change. I would like to cover the basics of this so that people have more than just denial when trying to argue against the science.

I would like to start with the greenhouse effect which was universally accepted before this became a political issue. So would anyone care to learn how the greenhouse effect works?

Others who understand the science better than I do, and I am sure that there are those here, are more than welcome to chime in.

Soooo...how much has the globe warmed since Al Gore started making millions of dollars promoting this nonsense?

Here is a neat little app that lets one play around with different scenarios:

The Greenhouse Effect

Sooo...how much has the troposphere warmed up since Al Gore started making millions promoting this nonsense?