Quick status update

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 21:39:59

Rookwood wrote:

CO2 has a direct effect on global temperature as a greenhouse gas. I linked you evidence of the correlation above.

I mean the point is not that CO2 is a greenhous gas or not, the question is how much is it heating. Correlation with CO2 and temperature alone is not enough, since more heat means more CO2 out of the oceans in the atmosphere. Just want to be sure, that not some cloud stuff is the real heating reason....

i found now the picture you posted. Yes the graph there seem to look very alarming temerature wise. Up to now i saw mostly diagrams where we reached round about the mediäval warm period.

i remembered more these pictures Reconstructed-Northern-Hemisphere-annual-temperature-during-the-last-2000-years-v2.jpg?itok=RPG6MRlA

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-30 22:18:42)

Rookwood · 2020-08-30 22:01:29

Arcurus wrote:

since more heat means more CO2 out of the oceans in the atmosphere.

Uh... the ocean is actually one of the great absorbers of CO2. CO2 and H2O make carbonic acid. It's what known as ocean acidification.

Here's how it works from NOAA:

pmel-oa-imageee_landscape.jpg?itok=OSCPES7P

Here's an article that estimates that the ocean has absorbed half of all anthropogenic CO2 produced. It also states that the we have already exhausted a total 1/3 of the ocean's potential to absorb this CO2 after which it will no longer act as a sink. This was in 2004.

karltown_veteran · 2020-08-30 22:14:14

Well, I read the first paragraph. There is evidence that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, despite there not being much its enough to make a difference. Of course it's humans because the CO2 levels rose and the warming rose around the time we started burning fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

I'm not reading the rest of the post. It seems like a bunch of misquoted facts and irrelevant quips and filibusters, from someone who thinks they're a lot smarter than they really are. I've seen posts like that before.

Don't involve Cthulhu in your climate change denial, afreespirit. You don't have the privilege to use his name until you've beat him in Arkham Horror, and closed at least 10 gates to R'lyeh. Everyone knows this.

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 22:24:43

Rookwood wrote:

Arcurus wrote:
since more heat means more CO2 out of the oceans in the atmosphere.
Uh... the ocean is actually one of the great absorbers of CO2. CO2 and H2O make carbonic acid. It's what known as ocean acidification.
Here's how it works from NOAA:
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/file … k=OSCPES7P
Here's an article that estimates that the ocean has absorbed half of all anthropogenic CO2 produced. It also states that the we have already exhausted a total 1/3 of the ocean's potential to absorb this CO2 after which it will no longer act as a sink. This was in 2004.

yes, currently with the increase of CO2 the ocean is a big sink of CO2. Im aware of the acidification, but still in the beginning to look into the consequences.

the point was, that in the past when there was a correlation between CO2 and temperature (before the human stuff), that the temperature increased / decrease could also lead to an CO2 increase / decrease from the oceans. So we need to look more deep into on what data the models are based. Since correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 22:32:55

karltown_veteran wrote:

Well, I read the first paragraph. There is evidence that there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, despite there not being much its enough to make a difference. Of course it's humans because the CO2 levels rose and the warming rose around the time we started burning fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

thats an indication, but not a proof. It could also be other mess we did with this planet like destroying the ozone layer.

i would like to see more data about how much radiation heat the new human CO2 is expected to create considering also what water vapor already absorbs.

Dodge · 2020-08-30 23:23:02

"I'm not reading the rest of the post."

It's typical from these type of people they read the data that suits their narrative and all the rest they simply ignore and discard, absolute braindead.

Keyin · 2020-08-30 23:29:59

I, for one, look forward to global warming.
Carboniferous climate>Quaternary climate.

I can't be the only one who wants to see giant dragonflies, right?

Rookwood · 2020-08-30 23:37:19

Keyin wrote:

I can't be the only one who wants to see giant dragonflies, right?

Giant dragonflies need lots of oxygen and the oxygen levels are not going to increase from global warming.

The thing is, on a biological scale, this period won't last long if the PETM is anything to go by. In 100,000 years, the carbon will likely be sequestered by some biological form, likely on the bottom of the sea from gigantic algae blooms so life won't have a chance to radically evolve to a new environment and fill niches. What will happen is that there will be a great extinction event, which we are already in due to other anthropogenic influence, and the majority of modern species will die out. Once the world returns to equilibrium after we are gone, then life will evolve to fill the niche of whatever the state of the world is after we leave.

Last edited by Rookwood (2020-08-30 23:40:58)

sigmen4020 · 2020-08-30 23:37:25

Lmao. How did a status update thread by Jason turn into a multi page climate debate.

Keyin · 2020-08-31 00:02:53

Rookwood wrote:

Keyin wrote:
I can't be the only one who wants to see giant dragonflies, right?
Giant dragonflies need lots of oxygen and the oxygen levels are not going to increase from global warming.

Why would it not? Doesn't burning fuels made from oxygen increase oxygen levels?

antking:]# · 2020-08-31 00:19:59

What have I done...

DestinyCall · 2020-08-31 02:13:55

Keyin wrote:

Rookwood wrote:
Keyin wrote:
I can't be the only one who wants to see giant dragonflies, right?
Giant dragonflies need lots of oxygen and the oxygen levels are not going to increase from global warming.
Why would it not? Doesn't burning fuels made from oxygen increase oxygen levels?

No, fossil fuels are composed primarily of hydrocarbons, which are converted into carbon dioxide and water during combustion.

You actually use up oxygen when you burn something. You don't make more of it.

Rookwood · 2020-08-31 02:41:52

Keyin wrote:

Why would it not? Doesn't burning fuels made from oxygen increase oxygen levels?

Burning carbon fuels is just an oxidation reaction where O2 is being combined with carbon. CO2. So no, it consumes oxygen but the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is tremendous, compared to the amount of CO2, and this doesn't have a major effect on the amount of oxygen, to my knowledge.

DestinyCall · 2020-08-31 02:47:46

Arcurus wrote:

as afreespirit outlined the current theory is, that clouds have a net cooling effect. Therefore if CO2 makes more heat, which makes more clouds, they should cool in average and not heat more as in the current models, if there is no other effect involved.

Who's theory is this regarding "the clouds" having a net cooling effect? I don't think there is a strong consensus on clouds. The clearest answer I have been able to find is that they can do both cooling and heating. Many other factors are likely involved than just "more clouds = cooling effect", so the net effect of significantly increasing cloud cover is ... kind of cloudy.

Arcurus wrote:

To water vapor and CO2 itself as afreespirit outlined, both seem to reflect in the same bandwidth and there is an limit on how much radiation there is to reflect. Therefore as afreespirit outlined it could be that CO2 itself has not an big impact, since water vapor itself is already dominant. Any more input to that?

You might want to check some of afreespirit's sources before trusting all of his "facts". Not surprisingly, real climate researchers do consider this stuff when looking at carbon dioxide.

Water vapor and clouds are bigger contributors to the overall greenhouse effect, but carbon dioxide still provides approximately 20% of the greenhouse effect, more than all the minor greenhouse gases combined. And since it is more evenly distributed across the atmosphere, compared with clouds and water vapor, rising carbon dioxide will lead to significant increases in greenhouse gas radiation.

Despite the power of water vapor, it is NOT the most important green house gas because water vapor is not a "driver" of the greenhouse effect, like carbon dioxide. Instead water vapor acts as a feedback loop. Carbon dioxide is much more stable in the atmosphere and temperature insensitive. It can stay in the atmosphere for centuries. This makes it a better predictor for global warming, because when carbon dioxide increases, you know that water vapor will be coming along for the ride, too.

Increased water vapor levels will NOT drive up carbon dioxide levels. Rising temperature does not impact the carbon cycle to the same degree as the water cycle. But higher carbon dioxide levels WILL drive up water vapor and the effect will be rapid and significant. So even a small increase in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) will have a magnified effect on the overall greenhouse effect.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

https://news.mit.edu/2017/explained-gre … 20dioxide).

Arcurus wrote:

If we look at the historic CO2 levels, we must also look more further back then last 400K years, there CO2 levels seems to be quite higher.
Of course for us human we could argue, that our time like the last 100k years is more important for our evolution.

"The last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u … n%20record.

Arcurus wrote:

Also i want to see more science about which temperature and which CO2 level is considered "good".

I don't know about you, but I consider temperatures that are suitable for sustained human existence are the best temperatures. Other temperatures are different degrees of "bad". As for CO2 levels, I'm inclined to believe that CO2 levels that are closer to the fairly stable level for the last 400,000 years, prior to the Industrial era, would be great.

That would put the carbon cycle pretty much in balance.

Arcurus wrote:

"(in the GISS climate model, at least) the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well."
this sounds interesting to look into how they came to this prediction, that clouds amplify the CO2 heating effect. Anyone looked at the data? If clouds would not amplify the heating, then as outlined above the net heating would be 4 W/m2 not 20 W/m2, which a big difference.

You are comparing apples and bicycles, Arcurus.

But if you want to look at the data, I provided the link to that article. Feel free to read more about it.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2020-08-31 04:13:32)

Guy · 2020-08-31 03:37:42

sigmen4020 wrote:

Lmao. How did a status update thread by Jason turn into a multi page climate debate.

People wanna argue, Mods should've locked this thread by now tbh.

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 10:31:09

Keyin wrote:

I, for one, look forward to global warming.
Carboniferous climate>Quaternary climate.
I can't be the only one who wants to see giant dragonflies, right?

what about a comeback of this lovely creature?

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 10:32:35)

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 11:04:05

Guy wrote:

sigmen4020 wrote:
Lmao. How did a status update thread by Jason turn into a multi page climate debate.

People wanna argue, Mods should've locked this thread by now tbh.

we have mods?

by the way, there seem to be an free course about the hole topic here, sounds interesting:
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense … nce-denial

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 11:42:24)

DestinyCall · 2020-08-31 14:12:36

I thought you were talking about a course explaining how global warming works, but it is a course explaining why climate change denial is a thing?

Jesus ... wouldn't that basically just be a single sheet of paper that says "math is hard" in large font? Not sure that's a topic that really deserves a full 7-week course. You could hit all the major discussion points in about thirty minutes. Maybe the rest of the hour could be spent explaining anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and Holocaust deniers. But then what do you talk about for the next six weeks?

karltown_veteran · 2020-08-31 15:53:58

“These types of people” what, the ones who have a life, dodge?

The fact that that’s what you want to comment on shows me that you really don’t have a counterargument, you just like to be contrary.

No, Arcurus, it’s proof. We know for a fact that burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide, sorry I didn’t make myself clear.

Dodge, as a last ditch attempt here is Climate Change for children. It’s not detailed because I’ve already explained that springs don’t cancel it out, it’s faster than before, and it’s happening.

But I think your type of person could benefit from it all the same. Enjoy

https://www.c2es.org/content/climate-basics-for-kids/

Edit: oh, and destiny covered afreespirits argument fairly well

Last edited by karltown_veteran (2020-08-31 15:55:51)

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 16:33:58

DestinyCall wrote:

I thought you were talking about a course explaining how global warming works, but it is a course explaining why climate change denial is a thing?
Jesus ... wouldn't that basically just be a single sheet of paper that says "math is hard" in large font? Not sure that's a topic that really deserves a full 7-week course. You could hit all the major discussion points in about thirty minutes. Maybe the rest of the hour could be spent explaining anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, and Holocaust deniers. But then what do you talk about for the next six weeks?

hey they talk about climate, at least the climate of Lord of the rings middle earth is in there!

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 17:25:09)

DestinyCall · 2020-08-31 16:55:58

Why didn't they lead with that?

If there are hobbits, I am interested.

Dodge · 2020-08-31 17:23:23

Yeah wathever if you refuse to read what is posted and keep insisting that CaRbOn DiOxIdE = EvErYtHiNg and that climat is something as basic as that, enjoy living in that mindset.

NO MORE ICE IN 50 YEARS!!! +10ºC !!! NORTH AMERICA TURNS INTO A DESERT!!!

With these type of people you can try explaining as much as you want, show data, graphs, reasonnable thinking, everything but it just wont change anything, they stick to one piece of information, unable to see the bigger picture and how there's multiple elements interacting with each other and not just a few ones.

They prefer looking at data made for 12 year olds.

If you want to read something that is not made for infants and disproves your co2 model: https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/g … 2-2009.pdf

But hey NASA says that our Co2 makes the world greener: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 … ning-earth

So i'm gonna go burn some good ol' gasoline cya

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 17:26:35

DestinyCall wrote:

Why didn't they lead with that?
If there are hobbits, I am interested.

hope there are

Lool, the course catcht me. Need to rely on climate scientists, since i need keep track of all the characters of game of thrones

In one of the first videos, i dont fully agree, that evidence that there is less radiation from earth is necessarily evidence that it was CO2.

Its evidence, that there is some kind of green house effect going on. Look forward to see if they dig deeper in the clouds topic...

If i look back to my Astrophysik study, it must possible to see which kind of radiation is absorbed more now. I guess it must be doable to separate radiation trapped by co2 from water vapor from clouds and so on through looking at the spectrum which was absorbed.

Lol when i hear about consensus, i always remember the consensus from the bitcoin core developers about blocksize. Kick all out, that not agree with the consensus...

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 17:40:45)

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 18:53:45

Dodge wrote:

If you want to read something that is not made for infants and disproves your co2 model: https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/g … 2-2009.pdf

interesting paper. The more i look into it the more i see i dont know yet enough to have a strong opinion on climate change.

would be interesting to see the counter arguments to this paper above.

i though it was proven by satellites, that more radiation is trapped by earth atmosphere and that sun radiation is not increasing.

How can then be a similar heating happen on other celestial bodies in our solar system?

To the outlined CO2 / temperature graph. Before human CO2 it looked as if CO2 is following the temperature and not the other way round in the near past.
(that which El Gore was misleading, it is as if you consider something as truth, and then suddenly find out exactly the opposite seems to be true).
In the longer time scale at least in google graphs pop up where CO2 and temperature is not related at all. So i wonder where then the connection between CO2 and temperature comes from (in the longer time scale and not the correlation through the ocean CO2)?

i really want here to understand the details of the argument / the data, otherwise i cannot have an strong opinion on it.

At least this does not look like correlation to me:

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 19:09:04)

Arcurus · 2020-08-31 19:52:52

lol, so funny: "I rely on their data not on their opinion"
https://youtu.be/Bt7fS2Q2ylQ?list=PL49C … A602&t=259

when i saw Rookwoods graph with the "hokey stick" i wondered what happened to the medeval warm period which i remembered from other graphs....
maybe there is an explenation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97rBCVt … 02&index=6

sorry, its just so many things that i took as true and then suddenly after seeing other facts i cannot take the correlation from CO2 and temperature El Gore showed true anymore. Wonder what in truth happend to the medieval warm period?

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-31 21:35:23)

One Hour One Life Forums

#101 2020-08-30 21:39:59

Re: Quick status update

#102 2020-08-30 22:01:29

Re: Quick status update

#103 2020-08-30 22:14:14

Re: Quick status update

#104 2020-08-30 22:24:43

Re: Quick status update

#105 2020-08-30 22:32:55

Re: Quick status update

#106 2020-08-30 23:23:02

Re: Quick status update

#107 2020-08-30 23:29:59

Re: Quick status update

#108 2020-08-30 23:37:19

Re: Quick status update

#109 2020-08-30 23:37:25

Re: Quick status update

#110 2020-08-31 00:02:53

Re: Quick status update

#111 2020-08-31 00:19:59

Re: Quick status update

#112 2020-08-31 02:13:55

Re: Quick status update

#113 2020-08-31 02:41:52

Re: Quick status update

#114 2020-08-31 02:47:46

Re: Quick status update

#115 2020-08-31 03:37:42

Re: Quick status update

#116 2020-08-31 10:31:09

Re: Quick status update

#117 2020-08-31 11:04:05

Re: Quick status update

#118 2020-08-31 14:12:36

Re: Quick status update

#119 2020-08-31 15:53:58

Re: Quick status update

#120 2020-08-31 16:33:58

Re: Quick status update

#121 2020-08-31 16:55:58

Re: Quick status update

#122 2020-08-31 17:23:23

Re: Quick status update

#123 2020-08-31 17:26:35

Re: Quick status update

#124 2020-08-31 18:53:45

Re: Quick status update

#125 2020-08-31 19:52:52

Re: Quick status update

Board footer