GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

32 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Read it out loud for yourself.  Turn you thermostat of your house up from 70F to 78F and say it's insignificant.

Your example is wrong again.

This is only the greenhouse impact, which is probably small in total, and 90% of which is not related to CO2.

There is also the solar variable impact, which is much more important than the Greenhouse impact, and drives the atmospheric levels of H2O.

Miniscule. CO2 gets bullied by solar variables impacting upon H2O in the atmosphere. 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

The rest of the world disagrees. The consensus remains.

No, there is no "consensus", that is a pipe dream which only cult followers of the sacred cow will swallow.

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

The authors of your favourite paper sure make it sound like there is an established consensus.

 

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K. It is also widely accepted that the two main atmospheric greenhouse gases are H₂O and CO₂."

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

So CO2 is only 10% of a tiny part of the whole picture of temperature change.

 

 

 10% is huge.  Give me 10% of your money it's just a tiny part.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

8 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

 10% is huge.  Give me 10% of your money it's just a tiny part.

 

No, that is 10% of the Greenhouse effect, which itself is only a small part of the overall picture dominated by solar variables acting through atmospheric H2O. There is also a strong short-term effect from changing particulate levels. That is the "shade" effect, which is strongly impacted by particulate levels. The H2O impact consists of a combination of Greenhouse effect and shade effect.

So 10% of 10% (I am being generous there to you) might be about 1% of the total picture.

The dominant actors are solar acting through atmospheric H2O.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

23 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is 10% of the Greenhouse effect

Wrong again it says 10% of the temperature change not 10% of the greenhouse effect. 

You are trying to confound the situation with other variables to downplay your error.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Wrong again it says 10% of the temperature change not 10% of the greenhouse effect.

No, that is clearly 10% of the temperature change attributable to the greenhouse effect. Which is only a small part of the temperature change attributable to all factors. You missed the context again.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is clearly 10% of the temperature change attributable to the greenhouse effect. Which is only a small part of the temperature change attributable to all factors. You missed the context again.

That is not what the paper says.  It says 3.3K of the 33K warming. They don't even mention all your other theories.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

That is not what the paper says.  It says 3.3K of the 33K warming. They don't even mention all your other theories.

 

You really are confused, here is the full context showing that this is only related to the greenhouse effect. "Atmospheric absorption" refers to the greenhouse effect.

" The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO₂, but also CH₄ and N₂O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations. "

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

Because you struggle with words sometimes:

con·found

verb

mix up (something) with something else so that the individual elements become difficult to distinguish.

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

Keep posting that paper, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I like it.

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

1 minute ago, TailingsPond said:

Because you struggle with words sometimes:

con·found

verb

mix up (something) with something else so that the individual elements become difficult to distinguish.

Anyone who studies this material understands that "atmospheric absorption" refers to the Greenhouse effect. I guess you just found out?

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Anyone who studies this material understands that "atmospheric absorption" refers to the Greenhouse effect. I guess you just found out?

You started bringing in particulates and solar radiation yada yada (confounding).

The paper says 3.3K (or 10%) of the warming is from CO2. Full stop. 

It might suggest that all the warming is from the greenhouse effect, but you don't agree.  So once again you do not agree with your own reference.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Anyone who studies this material understands that "atmospheric absorption" refers to the Greenhouse effect. I guess you just found out?

How would you know then?  You don't do climate research.

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

You started bringing in particulates and solar radiation yada yada (confounding).

The paper says 3.3K (or 10%) of the warming is from CO2. Full stop. 

It might suggest that all the warming is from the greenhouse effect, but you don't agree.  So once again you do not agree with your own reference.

 

No, it says all of the warming attributable to the greenhouse effect. That is clear, I have just quoted it to you.

But that is good news for you, you can go and fill your gas tank with a clean conscience.

The other sources of warming such as solar variables and particulates have been known for a long time.

This article was from 2021, long after solar and particulates were brought into the mix.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

Dude, stop replying to an ignorant of basic physics EMS spectrum and black body radiation.  It is hopeless.

He is a cult member

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

17 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

How would you know then?  You don't do climate research.

You mean you didn't know that until I explained it to you? Here is the explanation of atmospheric absorption relating to the greenhouse effect.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/how-does-the-greenhouse-effect-work/

"A greenhouse gas is called that because it absorbs infrared radiation from the Sun in the form of heat, which is circulated in the atmosphere and eventually lost to space."

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, it says all of the warming attributable to the greenhouse effect.

It says the warming is due to greenhouse effect, it does not talk at all about any other causes of warming.  So, in this paper, all the total warming equals the portion from greenhouse warming.  Get it?

If you don't agree with that -and want to confound their data with your BS- then you are discrediting your own reference.

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

It says the warming is due to greenhouse effect, it does not talk at all about any other causes of warming.  So, in this paper, all the total warming equals the portion from greenhouse warming.  Get it?

If you don't agree with that -and want to confound their data with your BS- then you are discrediting your own reference.

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K.

 

No, he only studies the greenhouse effect here, and this is in 2021 by which time the other causes of temperature change such as solar variables and particulate levels were known. This is just a small part of the whole picture.

He makes it clear that this is only relevant to "atmospheric absorption" effects. That is greenhouse effect only. That net 33K is due JUST to greenhouse, the remaining earth temperature of 255K was due to other factors. So that means only about 12% is due to greenhouse in this calculation. Those numbers of 255 and 33 are not cast in stone. but involve various assumptions.

"determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations. ""

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

That is greenhouse effect only.

They attribute all the temperature change to greenhouse effect.

They even break down the fractions for you! Read the paper

 33K total = 29.4K (water) + 3.3K (CO2) + 0.3K (CH4, N20, rest)

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K."

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

9 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

They attribute all the temperature change to greenhouse effect.

They even break down the fractions for you! Read the paper

 33K total = 29.4K (water) + 3.3K (CO2) + 0.3K (CH4, N20, rest)

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K."

No, I showed you above that only 33K of the 288K is assumed here to be greenhouse. That is about 12% in this estimate. The remaining 255K includes other factors such as solar variables and particulate levels, and of course changes in those variables also impact temperature.

If you bother to look at those percentages you quote, they consist of H2O, CO2, CH4, N20, in other words the greenhouse gases. They comprise the 33k attributed to the greenhouse effect.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, I showed you above that only 33K of the 288K is assumed here to be greenhouse. That is about 12% in this estimate.

They divided up 33K of change.  Where the baseline heat or "effective earth temperature " of 255K came from is not in discussion here only the change (33K) and they say the observed temperature changes are from greenhouse gasses.  You must be able to read that.  You are drawing conclusions they did not make.

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K."

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K."

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

This is where you argue that the baseline temperature is wrong and the authors of your favourite paper are idiots.....

Edited August 16, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,480]

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

They divided up 33K of change.  Where the baseline heat or "effective earth temperature " of 255K came from is not in discussion here only the change (33K) and they say the observed temperature changes are from greenhouse gasses.  You must be able to read that.  You are drawing conclusions they did not make.

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K."

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K."

Yes, the 33K is the greenhouse, the 255K includes solar and particulates, BUT NOT GREENHOUSE just as I said.

The 255K is without the greenhouse ("atmospheric warming")

255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming,

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, the 33K is the greenhouse, the 255K includes solar and particulates, BUT NOT GREENHOUSE just as I said.

255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming,

 

lol

They are saying without greenhouse effect warming the temperature would be 255K.  They attribute all the change to greenhouse effect, they even break it down for you.

33K total = 29.4K (water) + 3.3K (CO2) + 0.3K (CH4, N20, rest)