Currently, the UN climate summit in Katowice is taking place in Katowice. COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy actions are negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland.
During this summit, conferences are held, discussions are held on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for development of ecological, renewable energy sources in order to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future and ultimately reduce the average annual temperature rise on the Earth's surface. From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop eco-innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, development of electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of this year's UN Climate Summit, the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1) are held. About 20,000 people from 190 countries participate in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.
Perhaps during this UN climate summit important and specific agreements, declarations and signed agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be taken. The present lectures show that in recent years the warming process of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to humans, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world, will increase many times. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.
In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should you think that international cooperation should increase to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth? In addition, another key question arises: how much of this international cooperation is possible, to what extent will real and effective measures be undertaken on the basis of the discussions and declarations undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases?
Please reply. I invite you to the discussion
Data source: http://cop24.katowice.eu
According to the announcement of the President of the World Bank, from 2020 on, the expenditure on pro-ecological activities will be doubled.
Among other things, the World Bank will allocate USD 100 billion for investments in the public sector and additional USD billion for pro-ecological projects on various topics that are supposed to implement and inspire changes in the new green economy to ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth and to slow down increase in average temperature on the Earth's surface.
However, what specific pro-ecological investments should be implemented in order to achieve the intended results? How should those pro-ecological projects be run and in which topics, eg renewable energy sources, creation and implementation of ecological innovations, technologies and pro-ecological materials, etc.?
What pro-ecological activities can and should be implemented by the World Bank to inspire and effectively act on the issue of the sustainable pro-ecological development of the World?
Please reply. I invite you to the discussion
The above discussion inspired me to the following considerations:
Currently, ecological innovations are being developed in many countries, and renewable energy sources are being developed. For max. decades of traditional energy sources based on minerals will be exhausted. Agricultural arable areas are also likely to shrink. Economics will force an increase in the use of secondary raw materials and reductions in more and more expensive emissions of harmful waste. So in the new pro-ecological economy synergies of pro-ecological different activities will be realized. This synergy may perhaps generate the necessary added value. this added value may, at least partly, help to realize the beautiful ideas of sustainable socio-economic development. Will this happen now? But everything should be done to make it possible, if it ever was possible.
Even if it were to prove in the future that Sustainable socio-economic development is not possible, in the 21st century, try to do everything to make it possible to get as close as possible to it. However, everything possible should be done to achieve sustainable socio-economic development. In the context of this issue, the following question arises: Whether as part of taking up actions that could develop new sustainable development, or whether bottom-up social movements will inspire politicians to undertake pro-ecological initiatives in the future. At the moment, international conferences are held, during which debates on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating the processes of generating eco-innovations and implementing renewable energy sources on a larger scale. Perhaps there should be even more of this type of discussion, perhaps the pressure from scientists should be greater than that of politicians, while it is not too late yet? Unless it is too late? But it probably does not make sense to accept, to think that it is too late, but you have to do what you can in the future, in part, be able to implement sustainable socio-economic development. Will humanity survive until the XXII century in comparable living conditions to those present? It is not known, but everything possible must be done to ensure that these conditions are not significantly worsened in terms of the protection of the natural environment and the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth.
In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Is sustainable socio-economic development possible?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
In addition, I note the interesting discussion inspired me to the following considerations:
Should the dimension and scope of ecological knowledge in contemporary education and schooling systems be increased in the context of the growing problems of the modern world?
Contemporary XXI century is, among other things, the age of national and globally recognized growing problems regarding environmental protection, ecology, protection of ecosystems and species of various life threatened by extinction, growing risk of climatic cataclysms associated with the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth, exhausting some categories of resources necessary for development modern industries, the need for energy transformation, conversion of classic sources of energy based on minerals to renewable, ecological energy sources. In view of the above, the question becomes more and more relevant: Should the dimension and scope of ecological knowledge in contemporary education and schooling systems be increased in the context of the growing problems of the modern world?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
It is a big international problem. So obvious to have cooperation. Now a days , we are shifting from competition to cooperation everywhere
Such events as the European Climate Congress and the UN climate summit, the so-called COP (Conference of the Parties), which now take place, confirm the legitimacy of conducting discussions in the following issues:
Will man manage to create innovative technologies of renewable energy sources, which will stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?
Every year new sources of clean energy and technologies are created. New, innovative technologies in the field of renewable energy are being created. The existing technologies of renewable energy sources have been successively improved in the direction of creating more and more economically efficient and energy-saving technological solutions. New patents and innovative technological solutions are being created. New types of materials used in new energy sources devices are being discovered. The main determinant of technological progress in this field should be the process of implementing the most energy-saving technologies on the industrial scale and promoted for industrial implementation and the transport sector should be sources of energy under RES that will emit the least harmful external effects to the planet Earth environment.
In view of the above, the current question is: Will man manage to create and develop on a mass scale in industry and energy innovative technologies of renewable energy sources, through which will stop the greenhouse effect on Earth?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Dariusz Prokopowicz
definitely. otherwise how we will reduce those!
Yes,
Best example is solar alliances.
Further
https://environmentalpaper.org/tools-and-resources/paper-resources/reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
No! Greenhouse gases which do not condense in the atmosphere have little if any effect on anything, except CO2 increase is greening the earth and has increased food production by at least 15%.
The above-mentioned international cooperation should now be intensively developed because the time for necessary pro-ecological reforms is not enough to avoid climate armageddon at the end of the 21st century!
Probably the future of humanity in the 21st century depends probably on the next dozen or so years?
Probably the future of humanity depends on the next decade. If, over the next few years, renewable energy sources replacing traditional energy based on the burning of minerals are developed on a massive scale, it might be possible for humankind to avoid a climatic catastrophe in the 21st century. The international climate agreement that currently (December 2018) concluded in Katowice in Poland may be a late and insufficient agreement, because most countries do not intend to develop high-budget projects for the construction and development of power plants based on renewable energy sources. In addition, changes in the automotive industry, changes leading to the development of motorization in the direction of electromobility are too slow. The problem is serious because it concerns the future of all humanity in the perspective of the next two to three generations, yet the necessary changes and reforms in the implementation of economic principles of sustainable pro-ecological development are too slow. With the current pace of changes, there may be a shortage of time to implement the necessary pro-ecological undertakings, and then the problem of global warming will become an irreversible process and will constantly accelerate!
In view of the above, the current question is: Probably the future of humanity in the 21st century depends probably on the next dozen or so years?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
If, over the next few years, renewable energy sources replacing traditional energy based on the burning of minerals are developed on a massive scale, it might be possible for humankind to avoid a climatic catastrophe in the 21st century. Therefore, in each country, various types of renewable energy sources, electromobility in the automotive industry and eco-innovation should be developed in accordance with the level of development, financial possibilities, climate and economic conditions.
I invite you to the discussion.
Most certainly, the future of the planet depends on close cooperation at the global level for eradicating the impending climatic harms threatening the mother "Earth".
Water vapor is the only ghg that has a significant effect on climate. WV has been increasing about twice as fast as calculated from temperature increase. WV increase is self-limiting but increased precipitation needs to be attended to.
Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG In my opinion, international cooperation should be developed in order to implement and implement transnational greenhouse gas reduction programs more efficiently and efficiently.
Do you agree with me on the matter?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Best wishes
The current (since about 2002-2005) apparent plateau/eventual downtrend and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.
All reporting agencies agree there has been little if any sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002 so if CO2 has any effect on temperature at all it can’t be very much.
Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG
In my opinion, international cooperation should increase, between countries in the scope of undertaking activities aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This should be cooperation at various levels, i.e. in the field of scientific, business and normative cooperation, establishing uniform standards and a calendar of activities in the field of pro-ecological reforms.
Best wishes
One of such events integrating pro-ecological activities in a supra-national scope are annual peaks and climatic conferences organized annually.
At the end of 2018, the United Nations climate summit in Katowice took place in Katowice. COP (Conference of the Parties) on climate policy on Earth. UN climate summits, i.e. COP (Conference of the Parties) are global conferences during which climate policy actions are negotiated. Poland twice hosted them - in 2008 in Poznań and in 2013 in Warsaw. In December 2018, the climate summit is held for the first time now in Katowice in Poland.
During this summit, conferences are held, discussions are held on the need to develop a sustainable development policy and the need for development of ecological, renewable energy sources in order to generate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future and ultimately reduce the average annual temperature rise on the Earth's surface. From the discussions it follows that it is necessary to develop eco-innovations, new pro-ecological energy sources, development of electromobility of transport means. It is necessary to develop and implement on a large scale renewable energy sources. In addition, it is important to increase the scale of afforestation, as forests and the flora contained in them absorb a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of this year's UN Climate Summit, the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), 14th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 14) and the Conference of the Paris Agreement signatories (CMA 1) are held. About 20,000 people from 190 countries participate in the event, including politicians, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and scientific and business spheres.
Perhaps during this UN climate summit important and specific agreements, declarations and signed agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will be taken. The present lectures show that in recent years the warming process of the Earth's climate has accelerated significantly and therefore, in the black scenario of future climate changes, the temperature on the Earth's surface can rise by 4 ° C to the end of the 21st century. If this happened, then the scale of climate-related cataclysms that are dangerous to humans, including droughts, floods, fires and weather anomalies in many places around the world, will increase many times. The problem is very serious globally and therefore a lot depends on whether international cooperation will develop in order to limit these problems and their negative effects.
In view of the above, I would like to ask you: Should you think that international cooperation should increase to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on Earth? In addition, another key question arises: how much of this international cooperation is possible, to what extent will real and effective measures be undertaken on the basis of the discussions and declarations undertaken to reduce greenhouse gases?
Please reply. I invite you to the discussion
Data source: http://cop24.katowice.eu
The report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that greenhouse gas levels on the globe are the highest in 800,000 years. Further emission, which arises according to the authors of the report mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels, will lead to climate changes, which will be the greater, the more intensive will be the release of gases into the atmosphere. The report is a synthesis of earlier findings of the IPCC.
The conducted prognostic analyzes show that if the industrial development proceeds in the same way as before, i.e. without the implementation of eco-innovations, without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. there is a risk that by 2050 the average temperature on the Earth's surface may increase by another one degrees ° C. It would have been an increase in the average temperature on the surface of the Earth from the end of the first industrial revolution, from the beginning of the 20th century by two degrees ° C.
Then the pace of climate change will increase so much that the global warming process can escape any control and then the person will not be able to stop or significantly slow down this process. In such a dark scenario, the average temperature on the surface of the Earth until the end of the twenty-first century may increase by as much as four degrees ° C. Then it will be several times the increase of any negative external effects of climate change on the current state. Slak of emerging climatic cataclysms, including tornadoes, droughts, volcanic eruptions, melting of glaciers in chains of mountain peaks and in the arctic circle region at the Arctic will significantly accelerate.
The melting of eternal decay in the Arctic region will release further millions of tons of methane and the greenhouse effect will accelerate even further and in the XXII century an increase in the average temperature on the Earth's surface can achieve a geometric pace. Then it will be a disaster not only for human civilization but also for a large part of life forms on Earth. Pradoxically, man as a rational, intelligent being who, evolutionarily gained an advantage over all other forms of life on Earth and subordinated the whole planet to itself, may lead to self-destruction. Or maybe it is not too late to implement a new eco-friendly economy to at least try to stop greenhouse gas emissions and reverse unfavorable global warming processes? It is therefore necessary to promote and implement the principles of sustainable development within the framework of the new green economy.
Please, answer the following questions:
What next with the global warming of the Earth's climate?
Please reply.
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
Chart. Global Warming. CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases, a forecast of the increase in the average temperature on Earth. Source: NOAA, NASA.
In view of the above, international cooperation should increase, between countries in the scope of taking actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This should be cooperation at various levels, i.e. in the field of scientific, business and normative cooperation, establishing uniform standards and a calendar of activities in the field of pro-ecological reforms.
Best wishes
A graph that ends at the peak of an el Nino can be quite misleading. This graph, plotted by month, shows the dramatic decline following the el Nino action which started in 2014, peaked in Jan 2016, and is still playing out.
The only greenhouse gas that has a significant effect on climate is water vapor.
Dan Pangburn,
Your water vapor theory lacks reasoning. Why does the water vapor increase in the atmosphere?
it is a global problem and action by all countries is necessary to avoid potentially catastrophic changes to our planet.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/international-climate-cooperation-is-critical-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-might-think/
Dan Pangburn, "A graph that ends at the peak of an el Nino can be quite misleading. This graph, plotted by month, shows the dramatic decline following the el Nino action which started in 2014, peaked in Jan 2016, and is still playing out."
Rather than the 2016 El Nino dragging out the data show the El Nino ended in 2017 and most of the last two years have been more to the side of a weak La Nina.
HRA,
CO2 theory lacks knowledge. Numbers in brackets [ ] are references in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
There is multiple compelling evidence (most identified earlier [2] ) that CO2 has little, if any, controlling effect on climate:
1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].
2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and average global temperature (AGT) [3].
3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].
4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]
5. Since 2001, average temperature uptrend calculated by Global Climate Models (GCMs, aka General Circulation Models) which assume CO2 causes AGW is about twice measured. [13]
6. Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 level follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]
7. Average global water vapor had been increasing about twice as fast as it should be calculated on the basis of increased vapor pressure of water resulting from temperature increase of the liquid surface water. (Section 8 here)
8. The data from all reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in average global temperature since about 2002 (Figure 0.2).
CO2 increased 2002 to 2018 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002
1800 avg. Lawdome, Neftel, Friedli = 281.6 ppmv
2002 avg. Mauna Loa/Keeling = 373.3 ppmv
Nov, 2018 Keeling = 410.0 ppmv
(410-373.3)/(373.3-281.6) = 0.40 à 40%
Given this latest flat (except for el Nino action) temperature and two previous 30+ year downtrends in temperature with relentlessly rising CO2, demonstrate that CO2 has little if any effect on average global temperature.
In the period 1960-2005 water vapor molecules increased more than 10 times as fast as CO2 molecules. Water vapor increase correlates with irrigation increase.
Water vapor is both cause and effect of temperature change. In any event it is self-limiting as is average global temperature. Meanwhile, CO2 continues its relentless rise mitigating its still impoverished state.
Dan Pangburn ,
If you refer to real references by the numbers please state them. My university's standard firewall warns the homepage link you refer to is false!
#1) So there was high CO2 in the Ordovician and it got warmer. Still scientific literature describes that there are other factors that work together to determine the global temperature. I think if you read the relevant literature there the information is found or just overview texts you also find an explanation such as that the sun's output was weaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician
"At the beginning of the period, around 485.4 million years ago, the climate was very hot due to high concentration of CO2 (4200 ppm) in the atmosphere, which gave a strong greenhouse effect. "..." Marine water temperatures are assumed to have averaged 45 °C (113 °F), which restricted the diversification of complex multi-cellular organisms." ... "The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm). The dip was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks, which draw CO2 out of the air as they erode."
#2 No Scientist claim CO2 alone determine the global temperature!
#3 This was predicted by climate modeller James Hansen a decade before it was experimental discovered. The mechanism he suggested fits the data and the well known fact that CO2 doesn't alone determine the global temperature.
#4 Amazingly this is also explained the well known fact that CO2 doesn't alone determine the global temperature.
#5 Many climate models predict the current warming very well. The bloated climate denier Kenneth Towe predicted the Arctic sea ice cover would double in 2016 compared to 2008. As the evidence for this prediction was wrong is clear this proves - I guess - that deniers are always and generally wrong at all times!
#6 There is no qualified reason to draw that conclusion.
#7 An alternative theory is that you are not able to calculate the vapour correctly, which is proven by that you cannot get your nonsense past peer-review.
#8 This is flatly a lie. The global temperature has increased from the mid-1970es until today in all data sets.
Perhaps irrigation increase correlate with number of people that need food. People also burn fossil fuel.
I wonder what criteria your firewall uses. The site has received over 19,000 visits since it started in 2016 and still gets about 500 per month.
Here are the Refs:
2. 2008 assessment of non-condensing ghg http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html
3. Phanerozoic AGT & CO2: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
13. Epic fail of ‘consensus’ method http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means
30. MacRae assessment of dCO2/dT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Dan Pangburn , Your 'references' are blog postings and a non-reviewed opinion text you wrote yourself. Facts are measured and reported in peer-reviewed literature. Blogs just spread gossip.
In the absence of actual references from you, my reply to your statements remain the same:
#1) So there was high CO2 in the Ordovician and it got warmer. Still scientific literature describes that there are other factors that work together to determine the global temperature. I think if you read the relevant literature there the information is found or just overview texts you also find an explanation such as that the sun's output was weaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician
"At the beginning of the period, around 485.4 million years ago, the climate was very hot due to high concentration of CO2 (4200 ppm) in the atmosphere, which gave a strong greenhouse effect. "..." Marine water temperatures are assumed to have averaged 45 °C (113 °F), which restricted the diversification of complex multi-cellular organisms." ... "The late Ordovician glaciation event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm). The dip was triggered by a burst of volcanic activity that deposited new silicate rocks, which draw CO2 out of the air as they erode."
#2 No Scientist claim CO2 alone determine the global temperature!
#3 This was predicted by climate modeller James Hansen a decade before it was experimental discovered. The mechanism he suggested fits the data and the well known fact that CO2 doesn't alone determine the global temperature.
#4 Amazingly this is also explained the well known fact that CO2 doesn't alone determine the global temperature.
#5 Many climate models predict the current warming very well. The bloated climate denier Kenneth Towe predicted the Arctic sea ice cover would double in 2016 compared to 2008. As the evidence for this prediction was wrong is clear this proves - I guess - that deniers are always and generally wrong at all times!
#6 There is no qualified reason to draw that conclusion.
#7 An alternative theory is that you are not able to calculate the vapour correctly, which is proven by that you cannot get your nonsense past peer-review.
#8 This is flatly a lie. The global temperature has increased from the mid-1970es until today in all data sets.
Perhaps irrigation increase correlate with number of people that need food. People also burn fossil fuel.
HRa,
As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
The situation wrt climate is particularly egregious. Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each other’s papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. My work is ‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature.
Your apparent lack of engineering/science skill has made you gullible to assertions by people whose paychecks depend on continuing to misguide the public. EPA is complicit. The government grants end if they admit there is no AGW problem.
#1 You say it cooled down in late Ordovician because CO2 was reduced by silicate rocks from volcanos and the sun was cooler. Why do you ignore that it warmed up again? What caused the CO2 to increase again?
2# If you had read my stuff you would know that an equation with 3 factors explains reported measured average global temperature 98+% since it has been reasonably accurately measured world wide (my assertion 1895). CO2 is not one of the three. You probably have access to a device that does not go through the firewall.
#3 That’s not the only thing Hansen got wrong. He also screwed up Bode’s feedback analysis theory.
#4 Besides water vapor (which needs to be specified explicitly) the other two important factors are 1) net ocean oscillation and 2) the effect quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies. I have not heard that US GCMs include either one.
#5 The only man-made climate model that does well that I know of is the Russian one. The only complete and precisely accurate computer of global climate is the planet itself. I don’t speak for others.
#6. Certainly true for that time period.
#7 I suspect that you have inadvertently hit on one of the mistakes in the GCMs. They try to CALCULATE the water vapor. I use MEASURED water vapor as reported by NASA/RSS. Apparently you missed, or failed to grasp, the notation on the above graph which says “WATER VAPOR NASA/RSS”.
#8. Ignoring that the temperature data includes the aberration of an el Nino is bad science. What matters is that the WV level trend is self-limiting so the WV contribution to warming is self-limiting. Both of the other two factors are in down trend so eventually the average global temperature down trend will be apparent. That will take a while because a steep down trend of average global temperature is only about -0.2 K per decade.
---
I am sure that irrigation increased because it was cost effective to do so, i.e. they could sell at a profit what they grew. Irrigation contributes about 86% of WV added by humanity; about 11% is added by cooling towers for electric generation. Everything else accounts for the rest. (The detail analysis is in the document you won’t read)
Some questions you might ask yourself: What happened to the energy missing at the notches in graphs of TOA radiation flux vs wave number? What happens to the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules below about 10 km? Hint, CO2 relaxation time is about 5 microseconds but thermalization (absorbing radiation energy and sharing it with surrounding molecules) starts in about 0.0002 microseconds. What happens with the radiation from WV molecules which decline from average about 10,000 ppm at sea level to about 32 ppm at 12 km?
Dan Pangburn,
You properly didn't understand the point of the citation by Richard Horten. It is not surprisingly that you show your conspiracy theories as this is usual with deniers.
#1 I showed a reference for the cooling down during the Ordovician. The reheating you suggest I have missed (no evidence) might be a fantasy that you have used to replace the late Ordovician glaciation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Ordovician_glaciation). Your evidence that the CO2 increased also seems to be missing.
#2 You know I am not going to read your blog crap. I remember you often post on RG your own climate prediction figure that indicate the global temperature should decrease from about 2005 which it obviously has not. E.g. the last figure in Article Viewpoints and Technical Communications: Climate Prediction ...
I am attaching the actual figure to this post (from journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.999) as I have noticed you improved your publication by uploading on RG a later version of your paper with convenient data addition and adjustments. Predictions are obviously easier with hindsight, but still you fail as it is hotter now than it was in 2005.
#3 It seems you completely lack any evidence for James E. Hansen's prediction of the global temperature development not being very precise.
#4, #5: Your own failure to predict the global temperature from 2005 forward as mentioned #2 proves your understanding is wrong.
#7 Water vapor increase is a function of the temperature. You forgot that you failed in proving that irrigation cause it.
#8 You are right water vapor is self limiting. The limit is defined by the temperature that is forced by the non-condensing greenhouse gasses and the sun. Obviously your failed prediction of global cooling since 2005 is a bit delayed.
Your questions seems to reflect that you need a spectroscopy and physical chemistry course at an university - or just take a good look in the textbooks.
RHA,
I listed some questions you might ask yourself in by previous post. Here is another: Why do clear nights in the desert cool faster and farther than clear nights where it is humid?
I started out in 2006 foolishly believing the prominent spokespeople at that time that CO2 caused global warming. My first assessment, made public in March 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html using mostly paleo data concluded that “carbon dioxide does not cause significant climate change”. The 9-year old graph you showed (strange that you could access this obsolete stuff but claim you can’t see my current stuff) corroborated that conclusion by demonstrating a match to measured irrespective of including CO2 or not.
Nearly three years ago I became aware of the increasing global average water vapor, numerical data reported on line by NASA/RSS. Replacing CO2 in the equation with WV and updating through 2018 resulted in this graph with measured 5-year smoothed temperatures.
Obviously clouds slow the cooling in the night. There is no change in that, while the global temperature has increased as predicted based on the increased CO2.
It is amusing that you recently have updated your prediction figure to predict constant temperature from 2005 to 2040, while before you predicted a drastic decrease and uploaded the updated version under the old non-reviewed article post on RG. Obviosuly prediction is easier if you can go back and change the prediction as facts develop. Still the observation is a drastic temperature increase in the period since 2005 so you fail at prediction the climate which suggest your mechanisms are not correct.
That you can get the water vapor to correlate with temperature is not surprising as evaporation increase with temperature. It is just that correlation does prove the cause for the change and in this case there is no reason water should force temperature.
A click on the graph shows the ongoing decline from the peak of the last major el Nino. Stay tuned… as I will.
Some people were aware that CO2 is a ghg and assumed that it was causing GW. Since then they stopped trying to find out what was causing GW and instead have focused on trying to prove it is caused by CO2. That nonsense fooled a lot of politicians who provided funding. It also fooled a lot of the public and needlessly frightened a lot of children.
Humanity has wasted over a trillion dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it.
I have presented several items to help you try to understand why CO2, in spite of being a ghg has little, if any, effect on climate. It is because the small increase in warming by CO2 at the surface is compensated for by the increased cooling by CO2 at high altitude (above about 15 km).
It is obvious that you are blinded by your commitment to this political mind set and simply ignore anything that does not agree with it. I wonder how long a sustained down trend will be needed for you to begin to perceive that perhaps you have been misled.
Dan Pangburn
James Hansen predicted back in the 1980'es the current about 0.9 °C warming and you predicted a drastic decline in global temperatures from 2005 until 2040. Who seems to have most prediction power?
Your certainty are as futile as Henrik Svensmark's wain wait for decades for the cooling he predicted shortly from the cosmic radiation.
You seem blinded by your lack of skills in working with climate data and understanding of Earth physics, physical chemistry and simple spectroscopy so much that to have ignored how much evidence there is for the current CO2 driven warming, while you have no data to support your irrational claim irrigation is causing the warming.
RHA,
Measurements made after that 9-year old graph show that I guessed wrong 9 years ago. Guessing is (according to Feynman) how you begin.
Apparently NASA didn’t do well either given the ‘adjustments’ they made between 1999 and 2015.
The GCMs which assume CO2 causes warming also got it wrong. They are showing temperature increase rate about twice measured. The slope of the heavy blue line is the average difference 2002 - Feb, 2019. The separation between the average of GCMs and measured will increase as the ongoing weak el Nino plays out.
You mentioned that WV increases with temperature, which of course is true because the vapor pressure increases with temperature. But go a step further. During 1960 – 2002 WV increased about 7% which is twice as much as calculated from the temperature increase.
WV is about 1.7% higher than the 2002-2014 average. There is a lot of ‘head room’ for it to go higher (40,000 ppm at equator compared to 10,000 ppm global average) but we are near the peak of a mild el Nino and the last tick was down. It is new territory (at least for me) so future direction is uncertain. NASA/RSS reports monthly.
Dan Pangburn, Considering how wrong your prediction of the global temperature development from 2005 has been so far and how well Professor Hansen's predicted the temperature development based on CO2 as a main driver in his 1988 study, it is obvious you don't have any understanding of the Earth's climate.
Article Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction
Actual scientist are supposed to work to produce new data and publish new studies. Obviously NASA and Professor Hansen's large effort to understand Earth climate better, results in new knowledge which is published in peer-reviewed studies. You, on the other hand seem to get back and correct your predictions so they appear less wrong, rather than publish a new study.
Hansen’s Scenario B was adjusted down 30% for the graph that you copied from the Guardian article. Scenario B assumed emissions would be held constant but they have increased; more like Scenario A. Also, Hansen assumed two significant volcanos and there was only one (Pinatubo). He assumed no major el Ninos and there have been two. Without the second volcano and two el Ninos the difference would be even greater.
The model used by Hansen calculated the amount of water vapor instead of using measured and extrapolated values. During 1960-2002 water vapor increased more than 6 WV molecules for each added CO2 molecule. The model is also fundamentally wrong because it assumes “conservation of…water vapor” while water vapor has increased as reported by NASA/RSS. Comparison of Scenario B to measured temperatures has little relevance. https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
https://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf
Other failed Hanson predictions include:
1988 – Lower Manhattan will be under water by 2008-2018.
1988 – Great Lakes water level will decline.
Actual: GL water level is near record high.
2008 – Arctic will be free of ice by 2013-2018.
Actual: Arctic has lots of ice and its volume is increasing. Same for Greenland and Antarctica.
Hansen sometimes appears to entertain the folksy idea that warmer means dryer “…heat wave drought situation…”. Perhaps he is overlooking that warmer water has higher vapor pressure and warmer air can hold more water vapor.
The agenda of the IPCC is revealed by this statement from a previous co-chair of the IPCC “…we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy”
Hansens scenario B assumed linear increase in CO2 emission as we have experienced. The 30% is the decrease in concentrations of CFCs. Thus result is with the actual concentrations of GHG as input which is fair as the model did not claim to predict if humans would select to emit more or less. Likewise it doesn't claim to predict when La Nina's or volcanoes occur, but both have no long term effect.
The model is fundamentally correct and thus it can calculate water vapor which is dependant on the other forcing climate parameters.
Your claims of other failed predictions by Professor Hansen are obvious lies that are typical on the blogs. Show the real source there Professor Hansen has made these predictions. If you put up a link to a blog it is evidence that you are a liar.
RHA,
The exact quote for Scenario B is “…linear growth of trace gases”. A linear growth in quantity of trace gases results when the emission rate is held constant. This interpretation appears reasonable in exploring an assumption between A and C.
An attached graph shows the measured WV. It would be interesting to see the calculated WV.
The attached news article clips are the basis for claims of some Hansen predictions.
I have been in relentless pursuit of the truth for more than a decade. I have no reason to lie. I have identified explanations for all observed phenomena that I am aware of.
Apparently the only thing that might convince you (and many like thinkers) is a sustained decline in average global temperature in spite of continuing increase in CO2. Stay tuned.
Dan Pangburn Obviously it is good to read the text of the paper which states scenario B is not constant emissions from 1988, but gradual leveling off towards constant emissions.
Still Hansen's Scenario A predicts the development much better than your predictions. NOAA shows 2018 was 1.3 °C hotter than 1958 and I think your prediction show 0.25-0.45 °C in your 3 scenarios. I indicated the actual temperature on Hansen's figure, but it was not possible to do so on your figure as the axis only extend to 0.6 °C.
How do you explain these predictions you claim were made are not mentioned in actual papers or the congress hearings testimony by Professor Hansen from the same years?
It is to late for any discussion , human behaviour leads to cruise in disastrous conditions for the future of earth 🌎
Thanks Peter Schaefer - That's the bottom line of global warming.
In the context of the progressive warming of the Earth's climate, the following question is of particular importance:
What should be the use of pro-ecological reforms derived from the conclusions of UN reports on the global warming process?
What should be the actions in the field of national economic policy and pro-environmental reforms in relation to the UN reports published on the adverse effects of the ever-faster global warming process?
What should be applied in the field of national economic policy and pro-ecological reforms regarding UN reports on adverse effects of increasing climate change, temperature increase at the Earth's surface, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, global warming process progressing faster, increasing environmental pollution , declining areas of natural habitats, depletion of natural biological ecosystems, extinction of many species of flora and fauna, falling biological diversity on Earth, etc.?
Currently (mid-May 2019) a UN report appeared, which shows that the species extinction process accelerates and is no longer invertible, it is not possible to stop this process. However, if humanity quickly implements pro-ecological reforms, implementation of sustainable environmentally friendly development consistent with the green economy concept, it is possible to significantly slow down the process of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental pollution and unfavorable processes in nature.
Do you agree with me on the above matter?
In the context of the above issues, I am asking you the following question:
What should be the actions in the field of national economic policy and pro-environmental reforms in relation to the UN reports published on the adverse effects of the ever-faster global warming process?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Thank you very much
Best wishes
A graph of annual average data that ends at the peak of the 2015-2016 el Nino can be very misleading. The monthly data since 2002 is informative:
Dan Pangburn, It is good that you are against misleading graphs. The hottest years are still in this decade.
HRA.
It is unclear where your graphs are from. The important action is after 2002. My graphs were constructed from the monthly numerical data at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt for GISS and http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt for HadCRUT4.
My recent analysis matches measured HadCRUT4 98+% 1895 thru 2018 which corroborates that there is no significant influence from CO2. The derived influence from the participating factors is shown in the attached graph. The resulting match is shown in the other attached graph. Detailed analysis with source references for reported data are at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
HRA,
The GCMs (except the Russian one) are calculating an average temperature about twice the temperature rise actually being measured; even when assuming that the aberration of the el Nino should be included.
Amir,
The dominant cause of the warming has been the increase in water vapor. This increase is self-limiting. The other two contributing factors are in downtrend. Your life is not threatened by global temperature change.
The world has been lied to by politicians who seek to control its inhabitants. The irony is that CO2 has no significant effect on warming and has increased crop yield by about 15% or more. About 69% of GW has been from water vapor increase which is accurately measured worldwide via satellite. WV increase correlates with irrigation increase.
Dan Pangburn: "HRA. It is unclear where your graphs are from. "
The first figure is my simple x-y plot of GISTEMP yearly average data until 2018 downloaded from: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/customize.html (which is indicated in the graph)
The HadCRUT4 figure is from crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempdiag.htm (The information that leads to it is actually also included on the graph).
In the past I have asked why the figure of global temperature that you calculate combining GISS and HadCRUT4 have a different shape than the (quite similar) temperature data series you claim to combine. Do you have an explanation now?
Dan Pangburn: "My recent analysis matches measured HadCRUT4 98+% 1895 thru 2018 which corroborates that there is no significant influence from CO2."
- “A prediction (Latin præ-, "before," and dicere, "to say"), or forecast, is a statement about a future event. A prediction is often, but not always, based upon experience or knowledge.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
- ”Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe ..” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
It seems you have updated your prediction graph once again since the version you put in the tread in April, which was a drastic update of your model/figure that previously showed that you predict the global temperature should be decreasing starting in 2005 and the decrease should be going on at least to about 2035.
HRA,
Thanks for the link. It does lead to the graph that you showed. The previous info led to the GISS web page but I could not find that graph.
I plotted the data from that graph on my graph which discloses a puzzling difference. Why does that graph from GISS differ from the numerical data they also publish which is plotted as my graph?
An obvious reason is that the LOWESS-5 smoothing masks the slope change in the trend which occurs in 2002-2005.
Perhaps the ~ 0.2 K offset is evidence of the data tampering at GISS discussed here https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
Perhaps also it is to continue to hoodwink the gullible into believing the mistake started by their earlier leader the astronomer Hansen and continued by their current leader the mathematician Schmidt that CO2 has caused the planet to warm. Good science is to challenge your previous perceptions (that sometimes leads to better predictions) not to spin and sometimes even change the data to corroborate an agenda.
Continued research has identified the simple causes of what has been going on with the climate since the depths of the LIA. This has led to a do-it-yourself procedure which is displayed at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com
Dan Pangburn, If you are find a constant difference of 0.2 °C then comparing your own calculated 5-month averages of GISTEMP with GISTEMP yearly averages it seems very obvious the base period is selected differently.
You refer to more blogs with lies. The temperature data sets behind the large calculations of global temperatures have been revised many times as errors are corrected and methods of calculation are updated, as well as then datasets are added from other sources. These corrections are done after discussions in international conferences and many of them are described in peer-reviewed literature.
HRA,
The difference shown is the year average from GISS numerical data subtracted from the GISS data in the graph that you used. It is pretty obvious that the two data sets used different reference temperatures. You could have checked that yourself but you didn’t and instead jumped to the conclusion that I had done something wrong. In spite of my request, you gave no indication of the source of the graph you presented. Apparently it is old data and they are now using a reference temperature that is about 0.2 K higher. That would be consistent with the ‘adjustment’ history described by Steve Goddard in his blog linked above.
With all those folks examining the ‘consensus’ model it is disturbing that apparently no one thought to consider the increase in water vapor. Surely you are aware that WV is a ghg. Perhaps ‘all those folks’ jumped to the conclusion that TPW has not increased. The EPA is apparently unaware. It is measured by satellite and numerical data reported monthly on line by NASA/RSS. I have graphed their data as Figure 3 in my blog linked above.
You say I refer to “blogs with lies”. That is a vacuous assertion. I defy you to identify any specific thing therein which is even misleading.
As to the more than a hundred GCMs, they predicted temperature increase about twice what has actually occurred. How much longer do you expect to continue to cling to that failed approach?
Dan Pangburn, The constant difference of 0.2 °C is completely on you as you don't write that your reference period is and you downloaded the yearly GISTEMP data from NASAs homepage where you can define the reference period in this homepage. Obviously a constant 0.2 °C difference doesn't address the difference in the shape of the figure I asked about.
To be very specific I can as an example of the difference reformulate my question if I e.g. take your statement " The important action is after 2002." Why is the temperature you indicate in your own figure is from GISS the same in 2002 and 2018 then the GISTEMP data at NASAs homepage show more than 0.2 °C increase from 2002 to 2018?
I added some arrows to your figure and the simple plot of GISTEMP to help you stay on topic.
HRA,
Apparently you are blinded by your preconceived notions and are too stubborn to actually look at the data. Everything I have plotted is exactly as reported to the public by GISS at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt . They specify the base period as 1951-1980 at the top of their data base which reports by month and also the average for the year. The graph you are using does not state the base period that was used. As a result of my checking, it appears to have been about 0.2 K colder (making the anomalies 0.2 K more) than what they currently use.
What you think you discovered is actually what happens when you compare the 5-month smoothed data to year average data. You should have noticed your mistake but instead jumped to the conclusion that I must have done something wrong. The correct 0.2 K difference is found by comparing year average from current GISS data with ‘your’ graph which is apparently also year average.
This is all clearly stated on my graph of the comparison posted May 29 (5 days ago).
Dan Pangburn, It seems your focus on the base period has not brought you closer to explaining your graph. No matter the base period selected for the anomaly the official data and graph from GISTEMP show 2018 0.2 °C warmer than 2002 and your graph show the same temperature for the two. It seems difficult to get rid of your focus on the base temperature for the data set so I hope you agree that your link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt leads to a table (with a base period 1951-1980) that indicate the average temperature anomaly was 0.62 °C in 2002 and 0.82 °C in 2018 consistent with the 0.2 °C difference.
I think I figured out how your figure was fabricated but since you are so focused on that I must not say you did something wrong I think you should explain.
HRA,
Did you not read ‘5 month smoothing’ at the top of the graph?
Do you not know what that means?
Are you not aware that would produce the graph that says 5 month smoothing?
You are apparently unable to grasp that a 5 month smoothed curve could be different from year average values. This is clearly shown in my May 29 graph.
Since you appear to be baffled by the graph with 5-month smoothing, I have added a graph of the same data with no smoothing.
I use year average in all analyses. A monthly graph with a smoothing option is merely to show some detail, the multi graph is to compare sources.
I think you are able to answer your 3 questions yourself and you understand that your statement is untrue: "You are apparently unable to grasp that a 5 month smoothed curve could be different from year average values".
Your explanation lacks the scientific reason for selecting 5 months smoothing and why the first point is exactly November 2001 to Marts 2002. If you tried real peer-review you would be asked this.
So all this fuss results from the way EXCEL handles smoothing at the beginning and end of a data set. I was (and am) not interested in the beginning and did not attend to how EXCEL deals with the start of a data base when smoothing. The data continues after the end of the graph so that end is OK. I should have just not shown the first months of the smoothing. I apologize for the confusion. Also, there is inconsistency in the way public data is presented. It is usually unclear about exact date. When data is presented for 2018 is it the average from Jan-Dec 2018? If so it should be posted at year 2018.5. If it is posted at 2018 it should be the average from July 2017 to July 2018. This nit doesn’t matter much in the big picture of what causes climate change and I simply ignore it.
There was/is no scientific reason for picking 5 months smoothing. It was simply to make the graph of the several sources being compared more readable. This is what it looks like with no smoothing and with 9-month smoothing..
Dan Pangburn Obviously selecting just the 5 months (November-Marts) you choose for your starting point you included 5 of the 6 warmest of the 24 months in 2001 and 2002 creating a very high starting point for your curve. In the absence of a scientific reason for starting just januar 2002 and the averaging period of 5 months - it looks a lot like you were picking the ripest cherry.
You might not remember this discussion started with your critique of Dariusz Prokopowicz . Your statement was: "A graph of annual average data that ends at the peak of the 2015-2016 el Nino can be very misleading. The monthly data since 2002 is informative:"
“It is DIFFICULT to get a man to understand something when his SALARY depends on him NOT UNDERSTANDING IT”. Upton Sinclair in the intro to An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically this is true also when applied to ‘warmers’.
Dan Pangburn, As pointed out by K. Karthik
earlier in the thread the economic benefit and negative impacts of GHGs are unevenly distributed between developed and developing nations. Would these people who's salary depend on understanding climate change be the farmers in the developing world who are going to lose their crops more frequently?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change
HRA,
The misinformation, propaganda and ignorance are widespread. If you were motivated enough to do real research on your own and challenge the consensus you might discover that you have been hoodwinked.
The irony is that curtailing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase because of China and India.
The increased crop yields and continued greening of the earth as a result of the CO2 increase is good news. More good news is that the increased water vapor is countering the planet cooling as a result of the quiet sun and might prevent another Little Ice Age which the quiet sun portends.
"Svante Arrhenius was the first person to quantify global warming as a consequence of a doubling of CO2. ".." Arrhenius used the observations of radiation emitted".." to estimate the amount of radiation that was absorbed by water vapour and CO2. He then assumed relative humidity would stay the same under global warming as a representation of the water vapour feedback." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Historical_estimates
Dan Pangburn There is a lot of misinformation about climate science. Some is professional fraud, propaganda, paid for by the coal and oil industry. A lot more comes from amateur experts producing misinformation by writing blogs based on their lack on knowledge which copies their misunderstandings back and forth in an echo chamber leading to that they believe their fantasies are widespread well known facts.
Your persistent claim that water vapor isn't included in the understanding of the greenhouse effect is one of the purest examples of ignorance.
HRA,
I wonder if you ever have an original thought. I got curious about GW in about 2005. I started out with the perception that increasing CO2 causes GW. My first document made public at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html is still on line. It was a bit naive but is still mostly valid (several of the sub-links are now dead). It asserts that “The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change.”
Where can I see your original work on climate?
Given all the conflicting assertions back then, I decided to ignore them all. Data sources were challenged/verified by comparing them with other sources. The current equation is third generation. Each one is an application of conservation of energy. The first two were effectively static while the current one is a true dynamic assessment and includes input data (SSN & TPW) through 2018.
I don’t know where you got the idea “Your persistent claim that water vapor isn't included in the understanding of the greenhouse effect.” I am also fully aware of their bizarre perception that WV is only a feedback initiated by CO2 warming (which is wrong). WV (TPW) depends on more than liquid water temperature and air temperature and needs to be explicitly input.
I have yet to see anything, other than my work, which explains how thermalization makes possible the redirection of energy absorbed by CO2 to WV molecules which radiate it to space. Thermalization helps explain the ‘notches’ in TOA graphs of radiation flux vs wavenumber.
Instead we see the arrogance of the elite who think that only they can understand climate (in spite of missing measured average global temperature trend increase rate by about 100%) and assert that anyone that disagrees with their claims is “ignorant”.
Dan Pangburn,
You are correct that water vapour depends on both surface and air temperatures. (Low air temperatures and the water vapour condenses.) The surface temperature is mainly set by solar, and lack of solar, energy. During the day, the sea surface warms and during the long nights in the polar regions it cools enough to form ice.
The solar short wave radiation (SW) passes through the air, but the long wave radiation(LW) from both the solid and liquid surface of the earth heats the air. This was shown in the 18th Century by Horace-Benedict de Saussure, and the mechanism, which is by the absorption of LW radiation by "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide was discovered in the 19th Century by John Tyndall. In the 20th Century it was found that the greenhouse effect is a result of Quantum Mechanics.
In the tropics water vapour is the main greenhouse gas but in polar regions there is little water vapour and so carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas there. In the temperate regions, both H2O and CO2 are effective, so an increase in CO2 leads to more H2O which leads to even more H2O, i.e. a positive feedback occurs.
Hope this helps.
ABM,
Close.
How do you rationalize the seven compelling observations listed in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com which demonstrate that CO2 has little, if any, effect on average global temperature?
Also, how do you explain that the average global temperature increases about twice as fast as it would if temperature increase (which causes vapor pressure increase) of the liquid water was the only factor?
I doubt that Tyndall was aware of the population decline with altitude of WV from average 10,000 ppmv at surface to 32 ppmv (about negative 50°C) above the tropopause. CO2 is about the same ppmv all the way up.
At very high altitude (15-50 km) the atmosphere warms up again. The CO2 molecules get far apart and increasingly their emission makes it all the way to space. More CO2 molecules there mean more molecules to emit to space. Apparently, because CO2 has no significant effect on average global temperature, the increased emission at high altitude effectively counters the increased absorption near the surface.
Dan Pangburn, "I wonder if you ever have an original thought. ".. "Where can I see your original work on climate?" I published 18 peer-reviewed papers last year, many research applications and I hold several patents. What is the evidence for your scientific level and ability to make original work?
Your self published fantasies about science states nonsense such as that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, but you consistently fail to provide any evidence or even rationale why this would be so.
Aleš Kralj, I do mind. Your question is irrelevant for the subject of the thread. Post it as a question to the patent and one of the authors might answer.
HRA,
You didn’t identify anything related to climate but I respect your accomplishments in your area of specialization.
As a mechanical engineer I got a lot on understanding power and energy, heat transfer, boundary layer theory, kinetic theory of gases, and thermodynamics all of which are important in understanding climate. Since retiring I have picked up a lot more on spectroscopy, the rudiments of quantum mechanics, the absorb/emit wavelengths of water vapor and other ghg, thermalization in gases, and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of energy among atmospheric gas molecules.
Peer reviewed papers on climate are essentially worthless. Peer review of climate related papers has substantially morphed into an academic cult approving each other’s papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring. My work is ‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature.
Both the evidence and rationale that CO2 has no significant effect on climate are included in my blog/analysis at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com with more at the much longer paper linked therein as Ref 2. I welcome specific comments pointing out defects. General complaints like it’s ‘nonsense’ aren’t helpful.
Dan Pangburn,
The blog article you mention begins with the paragraph:
“A very powerful understanding of the influence of water vapor (WV) on planet warming can be obtained from being aware that cloudless nights cool faster and farther when absolute water vapor content of the atmosphere is lower. This simple observation demonstrates thermalization (GHG molecules absorbing radiant heat from the surface and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules), that water vapor is infrared electromagnetic radiation (IR) active which makes it a so called greenhouse gas (GHG) and that the misleadingly named greenhouse effect (GHE) exists.”
That statement is misleading. It is not the water vapour which affects the cooling. It is the clouds which are water aerosols, and being liquid emit blackbody radiation. Their energy comes from the latent heat of condensation of water vapour. This is a totally different mechanism than the greenhouse effect. Note clouds cause warming at night, but cooling during the day when they block solar radiation from reaching the ground, and increase planetary albedo.
Later you write “The main contenders [for climate change] were carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (WV), and solar. Solar is quantified by a proxy which is the sunspot number (SSN) record.”
But there, you have missed out planetary albedo from that list. It is affected both by snow and ice and by clouds. Moreover, you seem to be assuming that these contenders are mutually exclusive and only one causes climate change. In fact all can and do cause climate change together and separately.
With regard to your seven points:
1. “In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level {3}.” Ans. That was probably due to an increase in planetary albedo caused by mountain building during the Caledonian Orogeny.
2. “Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT {3}.” Ans. As already explained, CO2 is not the only factor affecting climate, but there is a rough correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels, especially during the Cenozoic.
3. “During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend {2}.” Ans. Yes, the temperature was driven by the Milankovitch cycles, but it caused CO2 to rise which further increased the temperature in a “runaway” positive feedback.
4. “Since 2001, average temperature uptrend calculated by GCMs (aka General Circulation Models) which assume CO2 controls climate is about twice the measured uptrend. {13}. (Measured data is extended to Feb 2019 in Fig 0.1 of Ref 2 here)” Ans. 18 years is too short a time to see a significant change in CO2 driven temperature change so it is not surprising that it is being affected by other factors.
5. “Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 level follows temperature and not the reverse. {30} Ans. Correlation does not prove causation!
6. “Average global water vapor had been increasing about twice as fast as it should be, calculated on the basis of increased vapor pressure of water resulting from temperature increase of the liquid surface water. (Section 8 in Ref 2)” Ans. That is based on the temperature rise in the troposphere, but the water vapour is mainly produced at the surface of the oceans (70% of the Earth's surfacr).
7. “The monthly data from all reporting agencies agree there has been little or no sustained change in AGT since about 2002 (Figure 1).” Ans. 18 years is too short a time to see a significant change in CO2 driven temperature change.
Re you other points: Tyndall wrote “Regarding the earth as a source of heat, no doubt, at least 10 per cent of its heat is intercepted within ten feet of the surface [Tyndall, J. (1870) Heat considered as a mode of motion, D. Appleton and Company. p.404] So what happens at the top of the atmosphere is irrelevant.
Hope this answers your questions.
Yes certainly, it should increase. Because with more discussion only we may come to know about what kind of lacunas is prevailing in the action of implementation and at the same time new constructive way to reduce CO2 emission in the atmosphere will come up.
And for more details you may also please follow my ongoing discussion on "What are likely scientific ways to curb CO2 in the atmosphere OTHER THAN the policies covering sustainable growth via the use of renewable resources?"
Cheers,
Dan Pangburn , You are right – Like you I have no scientific publications on climate change so we are even. I studied mostly atmospheric chemistry and chemical analysis in my university studies and initially worked on ozone depletion and radical reactions in clouds. You cannot find any publications on my specific work because it was for industry and we eventually learned that the chemicals we investigated should not be commercialized. As it became clear the Kyoto protocol is effective and shortly after the 1995 Nobel price on atmospheric chemistry I decided to change my work onto chemicals in water as my professorship is on.
Because I have extensive experience with scientific publications from writing 100 papers and reviewing many more as well as a professional experience with atmospheric chemistry and physics it is easy to see you still have not produced any scientific evidence for your claim that CO2 doesn’t warm the globe. You just repeatedly state the idea without any evidence or attempt to quantify anything. It might not be helpful for you, but the technical term for this in the review process remains nonsense.
In the absence of scientific peer-review your self-published knowledge of global temperature has been "‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature". I noticed you predicted the global average temperature would decrease from 2005 to about 2040, but the first 15 years of your prediction seems also to have been rejected by Mother Nature.
No because it's a more political issue than climate/Environmental issue.
ABM,
Apparently you missed “…cloudless nights…”
The factors explicitly considered explain 5-year smoothed average global temperature 98+% over the period of reasonably accurate average global temperature reporting 1895-2018. This statement in Section 19 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com accounts for all other factors: “Coefficients in Equation (1) which were determined by maximizing R2 identify contributions for each of the factors explicitly considered. Factors not explicitly considered (such as unaccounted for residual (apparently random) variation in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained residual, and/or by occupying a fraction of the effect otherwise accounted for by each of the factors explicitly considered.”
Thanks for your comments. They are similar to challenges that I have made to my work. I offer the following responses to your Ans:
1. Probably not. Albedo would need to increase to make it colder and then decrease for it to warm up again.
2. The three factors that I include account for 98+% of average global temperature change. CO2 is not one of them.
3. The shortest Milankovitch cycle is about 25000 years. Most trend direction changes take place in much less time than that.
4. My analysis which matches measured average global temperature is for the period 1895-2018. That’s 123 years with no influence from CO2.
5. It is not considered proof. It is “compelling evidence” i.e. corroboration.
6. Actually, as you are probably aware, most of the water vapor comes from TROPICAL oceans. That tropical source WV made the planet warm enough for life as we know it to have evolved. The added WV, mostly from crop irrigation at otherwise arid locations, has contributed to the natural warming.
7. See 4.
Most of the radiation to space is from WV molecules below the troposphere. The following explains why CO2, in spite of being a ghg has little if any effect on climate: “Well above the tropopause, [additional to that from WV below the tropopause] radiation to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you assume there has been no increase in water vapor (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km) accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure is 442/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.4%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming and might even cause cooling.”
A lot has been learned since Tyndall (1820-1893). See Section 4 of my blog/analysis.
HRA,
Here are 1350 peer reviewed papers that agree with me that burning fossil fuels is not a significant cause of climate change. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htm
I don’t believe that your repeatedly showing that 9-year old graph adds much to understanding climate. About the only thing valid about that graph is that measured temperature could be matched by calculated whether CO2 was considered or not.
I have learned a lot since that early graph. The main thing was learning in 2016 of the increase in water vapor and replacing CO2 in the equation with WV. I had known for some time that the method was essentially a static analysis. I had rationalized that it was OK because climate changed so slowly (32 year trends) compared to the time constant for the planet (5 years) and R2 was very high. The main shortfall of the static analysis is that early data has as much influence as recent data. The WV trend increased substantially around 1960 but the static analysis considered the average for the entire period 1895-2018. In spite of being a static analysis, the projection to 2037 was less than 0.2 K low.
The current analysis is a true year-by-year numerical integration, i.e. a true dynamic analysis. The main difference from the static analysis is the relative influence of WV and the effect quantified by SSN anomalies. The influence of WV increases from about 37% to about 70%. The method, results and links to data sources are at http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com
I gave up trying to get something peer reviewed and published in a major journal.
They only publish about 10 % of submittals.
It takes years.
It is difficult to fix mistakes or update work.
I found them weak in heat transfer analysis.
They reject outright papers that disagree with their beliefs.
Dan Pangburn, You write "Here are 1350 peer reviewed papers that agree with me that burning fossil fuels is not a significant cause of climate change. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.htm "
Then I follow your link I get the message "... does not exist." !
Ahh the mysterys of Microsoft and Google. The link did not work for me either so I went back to where I had it bookmarked. Try this. Copy and paste it in your search engine: Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism (Feb 2014, 2017)
This worked from WORD: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I think, if we may somehow increase the level of sustainable THINKING then the probability to reduce the global warming may also increase.
Cheers!
Bakshi Hardeep Vaid
Dan Pangburn, Microsoft and Google are not the only mysteries – why do denialist repeat debunked falsifications?
I can find the blog you refer to with the list of reviewed papers. It is just that it is not “1350 peer reviewed papers that agree “..” that burning fossil fuels is not a significant cause of climate change”.
Just picking one of the lame falsifications of actual work: Johannessen et al. 2005 Article Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
which was made famous by Christopher Monckton's misuse and eventual total debunking. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM start 11:30).
Actually the article is headed “1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”.
ACC/AGW alarmism is based on burning fossil fuel being the cause. Fossil fuels are denounced by some because of the CO2 produced when they are burned. Some places mistakenly believe that eliminating fossil fuels will stop climate change. It won’t. Apparently the step was too large for you.
Perhaps you might have understood better if I had said ‘1350 papers, none of which show that burning fossil fuels is a significant cause of climate change.’ You could counter this by naming all the credible papers that prove that CO2 causes GW or even climate change except for the fact that there aren’t any.
.. and the example I picked proves the list doesn't contain papers that actually support that either. It is just a case of people who don't have enough education to read scientific papers.
Ola M. Johannessen et al. (2005) find the glacier on central Greenland are getting higher which can be expected with hotter average temperatures there are more humidity thus more snow is formed then the air is cooled over central Greenland. It is just that the same higher temperatures melt, break off and evaporate far more ice from the other regions of Greenland resulting in the ice mass decreasing drastically.
Article Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
- See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM start 11:30
Aleš Kralj, Thanks for agreeing. I don't follow how thicker ice in the middle of Greenland increase the albedo. It is km deep solid ice and it just becomes a tiny bit thicker.
The Greenland glacier thickness is generally more than 2 km and over 3 km at its thickest point. Ola M. Johannessen describes in his paper an increase of 5.4
cm/year which would could give an increase of 5 m in the next 100 years on top of the 2-3 km ice already there.
Article Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
Aleš Kralj , Then I concede to be thinking too narrowly. I have seen it come with age in my fellow professors, so why not me too. If it goes on I might even loose my tooth for grilling elderly academics some day.
We are safely on track with the climate crisis for now. Johannesens 2005 paper is well outdated and recent overview work from DTU colleges of the combined satellite data for Greenland ice with calibration problems solved show the ice is shrinking all over. So it was only temporarily the precipitation increase was ahead of the melting increase in the central regions.
Article 25 years of elevation changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet fro...
Article An Integrated View of Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Changes Based...
I strongly believe global cooperation or diplomacy is needed to reduce greenhouse gases. Without international diplomacy, realizing the goal of reducing GHG emissions would be difficult
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change