Fellas, you are obviously needlessly concerned about the Earth’s future. It is also obvious that you haven’t been keeping up on the latest available information regarding CO2 emissions and its effect on the planet. I feel much relieved after reading my favorite reactionary rag of a newspaper, the good old WSJ. Read their editorial opinion and reference to the latest in climate technology.
Apparently the rest of the scientific community has been smoking dope or, maybe, just not doing the right (wing) type of analysis that best highlights the facts of the issue.
Don’t fall for the scare tactics. The y axis scale on your graph is “parts per million.” So we’ve gone from 300 max parts per million, to 400 parts per million. Or .0003 to .0004 percentage CO2. This is statistically insignificant. Plus, as Jack pointed out, there “little correlation with global temperature.”
This graph backs up Jack’s point over a longer time frame; and also shows that we are historically at a low in atmospheric CO2:
Sammy,
I didn’t know that I had made any point as described by you. Was it not obvious that I was only referencing the latest corporatist propaganda? Or is there some other Jack that you are referring to?
I keep trying to break myself of calling people idiots. It is, after all a sin.
But you don’t seem to have the vaguest idea what “statistically significant” means. And one tenth of one part per million of curare is enough to kill you. 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite enough to raise the earth’s temperature back to what it was in the Jurassic. You won’t like it. It wasn’t a good time for grasses or mammals.
But don’t worry, you are not the only person who makes stuff up and then believes it.
The real problem is that there are enough of you to vote for the idiots we have running Congress, and, sadly, to vote for the (bleep) we have for President.
Ah yes. Open threads are Sammy threads. I remember that now. Tell me, is his stuff automatically generated by a script or something now? Wouldn’t take much.
Surely you’ll agree the argument that materials in systems are safe as long as their concentrations are small is erroneous. There are many examples where tiny amounts will derail proper operation.
But, to your specific point, the fact that CO2 concentration is, as Richard Alley calls it, The Biggest Control Knob of Earth’s climate is due to a simple confluence of hree physical facts.
First, blackbody radiation from a body at Earth’s temperature happens to have the bulk of its outgoing radiation in the region of the infrared spectrum between 400 per cm and 1000 per cm.
Second, CO2 happens to have a broad absorption between 550 per cm and 750 per cm.
Third, CO2 happens to resonate strongly at 667 per cm and, when it goes to ground state, reemits photons with frequencies very close to that. CO2’s cross-section for 667 per cm photons is very high. Thus, a stray photon at 667 per cm will in all likelihood be reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.
This means about 2/3 of the radiation in the 550-750 per cm band gets captured by CO2, and the stronger the concentration, the more thorought the lasing effect of emission and reabsorption.
The net of this is that about 1.8 Watts per square meter are re-radiated from CO2 in the lowest 100 meters of atmosphere all around the planet. 1.8 Watts per square meter times the area of the Earth is about 690 Terawatts. That energy has to go somewhere, and does, boosting convection in atmosphere and oceans, as well as being conveyed in the water evaporation and condensation cycle, which essentially serves as a heat pump. Some goes into deep ocean, raising its temperature and weakening its ability to absorb CO2.
The greater differences in energy density, as always, demand equalization, so the poles warm more, percentagewise, than the tropics and intermediate lattitudes. This 690 Terawatts increases to 2000 Terawatts at 700 ppm CO2.
There is no trending or paleoclimate evidence needed to establish this. This is simple physics. It would be truly remarkable if 690 Terawatts of additional forcing had no effects upon Earth weather.
They who might be interested in more details regarding this should monitor my blog,
where a 4-part lecture describing these mechanisms and the reason we know atmospheric CO2 increases are due to people’s actions, namely fossil fuels, will be described in detail, probably some time this summer.
Facts are, many corporations have tremendous exposure to climate change risks, primarily to their supply chains, which they are beginning to take seriously, and adapt accordingly, whether or not there is government support. This is additional backup for the idea that investments in fossil fuel companies are increasingly risky, should a sudden event convince large numbers of players that divestment is the best position.
in case you missed it, yesterday we breached 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide…
all you need to know in just one chart…
it’s nice to have a milestone for those who can’t see the dead ecosystems alongside the road.
Fellas, you are obviously needlessly concerned about the Earth’s future. It is also obvious that you haven’t been keeping up on the latest available information regarding CO2 emissions and its effect on the planet. I feel much relieved after reading my favorite reactionary rag of a newspaper, the good old WSJ. Read their editorial opinion and reference to the latest in climate technology.
“The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323528404578452483656067190.html?mod=trending_now_2#articleTabs%3Darticle
Apparently the rest of the scientific community has been smoking dope or, maybe, just not doing the right (wing) type of analysis that best highlights the facts of the issue.
rjs,
Don’t fall for the scare tactics. The y axis scale on your graph is “parts per million.” So we’ve gone from 300 max parts per million, to 400 parts per million. Or .0003 to .0004 percentage CO2. This is statistically insignificant. Plus, as Jack pointed out, there “little correlation with global temperature.”
This graph backs up Jack’s point over a longer time frame; and also shows that we are historically at a low in atmospheric CO2:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=CO2+over+time&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=F13D874C4502CF62C6C7A3A8DB2764DBC4C2E038&selectedIndex=1
Sammy,
I didn’t know that I had made any point as described by you. Was it not obvious that I was only referencing the latest corporatist propaganda? Or is there some other Jack that you are referring to?
Sammy
I keep trying to break myself of calling people idiots. It is, after all a sin.
But you don’t seem to have the vaguest idea what “statistically significant” means. And one tenth of one part per million of curare is enough to kill you. 400 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite enough to raise the earth’s temperature back to what it was in the Jurassic. You won’t like it. It wasn’t a good time for grasses or mammals.
But don’t worry, you are not the only person who makes stuff up and then believes it.
The real problem is that there are enough of you to vote for the idiots we have running Congress, and, sadly, to vote for the (bleep) we have for President.
Ah yes. Open threads are Sammy threads. I remember that now. Tell me, is his stuff automatically generated by a script or something now? Wouldn’t take much.
@Sammy,
Surely you’ll agree the argument that materials in systems are safe as long as their concentrations are small is erroneous. There are many examples where tiny amounts will derail proper operation.
But, to your specific point, the fact that CO2 concentration is, as Richard Alley calls it, The Biggest Control Knob of Earth’s climate is due to a simple confluence of hree physical facts.
First, blackbody radiation from a body at Earth’s temperature happens to have the bulk of its outgoing radiation in the region of the infrared spectrum between 400 per cm and 1000 per cm.
Second, CO2 happens to have a broad absorption between 550 per cm and 750 per cm.
Third, CO2 happens to resonate strongly at 667 per cm and, when it goes to ground state, reemits photons with frequencies very close to that. CO2’s cross-section for 667 per cm photons is very high. Thus, a stray photon at 667 per cm will in all likelihood be reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.
This means about 2/3 of the radiation in the 550-750 per cm band gets captured by CO2, and the stronger the concentration, the more thorought the lasing effect of emission and reabsorption.
The net of this is that about 1.8 Watts per square meter are re-radiated from CO2 in the lowest 100 meters of atmosphere all around the planet. 1.8 Watts per square meter times the area of the Earth is about 690 Terawatts. That energy has to go somewhere, and does, boosting convection in atmosphere and oceans, as well as being conveyed in the water evaporation and condensation cycle, which essentially serves as a heat pump. Some goes into deep ocean, raising its temperature and weakening its ability to absorb CO2.
The greater differences in energy density, as always, demand equalization, so the poles warm more, percentagewise, than the tropics and intermediate lattitudes. This 690 Terawatts increases to 2000 Terawatts at 700 ppm CO2.
There is no trending or paleoclimate evidence needed to establish this. This is simple physics. It would be truly remarkable if 690 Terawatts of additional forcing had no effects upon Earth weather.
They who might be interested in more details regarding this should monitor my blog,
http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com
where a 4-part lecture describing these mechanisms and the reason we know atmospheric CO2 increases are due to people’s actions, namely fossil fuels, will be described in detail, probably some time this summer.
Thanks.
Business-not-as-usual: Climate change from a business perspective … http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/governance-risk-compliance-consulting-services/resilience/publications/business-not-as-usual.jhtml
Facts are, many corporations have tremendous exposure to climate change risks, primarily to their supply chains, which they are beginning to take seriously, and adapt accordingly, whether or not there is government support. This is additional backup for the idea that investments in fossil fuel companies are increasingly risky, should a sudden event convince large numbers of players that divestment is the best position.