Hillary Clinton: Climate changing 'no matter what deniers may say'

Unless you can show that CO2 in such small amounts is able to absorb significant amounts of heat, increase the temperature somehow, and radiate it back to earth at that same temperature, where it then gets released in a hotter temperature in which to affect global temperatures- then your5 argument has stalled I’m afraid- And you’ll have to explain why temperatures rise FIRST, and then CO2 rises later- and then you’ll have to explain why temps haven’t risen in 2 decades DESPITE man pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere if CO2 is the ‘cause of’ climate change? IF CO2 is responsible for temp rises- then the past 2 decades should have seen steadily increasing temperatures worldwide since the world has pumped out more CO2 every year than in the years of previous decades-

No doubt those are challenging points to counter, but there is one simple explanation for a lot of them which is that the earth's equilibrium temperature depends mainly on weather, not CO2 or other GH gases. Specifically the earth absorbs a huge amount of solar energy and tries to get rid of it. GH gases retard the outgoing radiative losses to some extent but any increase in convection bypasses that effect. That is because convection lifts (latent) heat high into the atmosphere where it is released in the zone where GH gases cool rather than warm (net). IOW the increase in GHG plus a sufficient increase in convection would lead to global cooling.

But as I said it is weather and weather regimes that determine that cooling. For example the much ballyhooed "crazy jet stream" which is improperly attributed to Arctic warming (it is not, climate models say the opposite) is a weather effect that cools the planet net. That means the natural effect of a wavering jet stream, caused, in all likelihood by lower solar activity, increases global cooling. But it is important to recognize that the global cooling caused the natural change in weather patterns is being offset somewhat by the rise in GHG warming. So that's basically an oversimplified explanation of the lull in warming.

There’s no doubt man is creating CO2- there IS however doubt, serious doubt, that our insignificant creation of CO2 is causing global climate change- ESPECIASLLY WHEN global climate change has ALWAYS happened, even before the industrial age- at even greater change than we see today- one could almost state that man’s contributions of CO2 has SLOWED naturally occurring cyclical climate change since we seem to be experiencing LESS drastic climate change...

My guess is that there will be less drastic "climate change" due to mankind's GHG contribution. For one thing, the climate models really do predict a less wavering jet stream although some of the alarmists have forgotten that result and the media has no clue. Another thing to keep in mind is that warming is a net benefit. Lower death rates, lower heating costs (which exceed cooling costs by about 3 to 1), longer growing seasons, etc. There could well be a dampening of the natural variations in weather patterns.

This is because of the effect I tried to explain above. The earth is a giant radiator trying to get rid of the sun's heat. Weather pattern changes make that heat loss highly variable. However, any global warming leads to greater heat loss. That's because one of the main results is that it increases convection and therefore heat loss in the tropics. So starting from a slightly higher average temperature the earth will be sloughing off more heat on average and thus the natural variations will have less of an effect in terms of jet stream variations, storms, etc. We could thus expect milder and more benign weather. That is also true from a reading of history. The Medieval Warm Period was generally less stormy than the Little Ice Age.

That is Vostok. The caveat is that the data points are spaced centuries apart or even 1000 or 2000 years apart in some cases. But the higher resolution Greenland cores (as good as annual resolution) match up pretty well for the last 20,000 or so years.

There seems to be an awful lot of circular reasoning going on, as the attempt is made to solve for far more variables than there are equations to be had. Few seem to be even cautiously cheering the boost in CO2 as a potential boost in O2...

True, but very small. I am certainly not a fan of the gloominess of environmentalists as I am always pointing out facts like cold mortality being 10 times greater than heat mortality in some studies, e.g. http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7262/670 or 2:1 winter to summer in a CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf

Add to that the 500 deaths every year in the US from faulty heating equipment and billions in damage. It's basically impossible to be killed by a faulty air conditioner.

[[That used to be true, but right now man’s contribution far exceeds the natural rise we would have seen.]]

What does that matrer? The fact still is that temps rise first, then CO2 rises- the mechanism for CO2 rising must include warming planet- the fact that man is pumping outm ore CO2 is meaningless- because the world is already warming- the increased CO2 is NOT causing the warming

[[There is about 90ppm rise in CO2 with about 8C rise in temperature:]]

Hmmm0- the hockey stick graph? As well- you have doen nothing to show CO2 is causing the warming- the CO2 is risning AFTER the warming as you can see by the beginning of the graph- temps are rising, CO2 follows LATER

[[No doubt those are challenging points to counter, but there is one simple explanation for a lot of them which is that the earth’s equilibrium temperature depends mainly on weather, not CO2 or other GH gases.]]

Hmmm, that is contrary to global warming alarmists claims

[[This is because of the effect I tried to explain above. The earth is a giant radiator trying to get rid of the sun’s heat.]]

Heat rises, as heat rises, it cools, and unless CO2 is capable of acting as some sort of massive super furnace mechanism, able to super heat the rising temperatures (which have cooled by the time it reaches the atmosphere), it is impossible for it to back radiate that air efficiently enough to cause any sort of warming, especially given the fact that only a very tiny fraction of the rising heat gets absorbed because there is only a very tiny fraction of CO2 in our atmosphere- the vast majority of heat goes right past the oversaturated tiny amount of CO2 and is not infact trapped because the tiny amount of CO2 is already saturated and not able to absorb any more- I would venture that only approx. 0.04% of the escaping heat gets trapped and only a small portion of that gets actually radiated back toward earth since heat radiates in all directions and only a fraction gets radiated toward earth— and no doubt cools by the time it reaches earth again-

So, unless CO2 acts as some sort of giant furnace In the atmosphere- it seems there can be no way it can heat the escaping heat enough to ensure that it is hotter than when it actually started rising when it reaches the earth again

Very simply, and these figures are nowhere near scientific facts, but to illustrate

The globe is average of 100 degrees

Heat rises from the earth and immediately begins to cool-

By the time it reaches atmosphere, it’s much cooler- say around 70 degrees (or wherever it would be- let’s just use 70 for the example)

CO2 absorbs it, then radiates it out in all directions- a tiny fraction of the small amount radiated gets shot back towards earth at a temp of say 80 due to some mechanism which heats the air somehow when it’;s being radiated back

it cools on it’s way back to earth which is still 100 degrees

By the time it reaches earth, it’s back down to say 70 degrees- this cooler air mixes with the hotter surface temps and has a net cooling effect- not warming effect-

Unless I’m missing something the whole premise of heat being trapped in atmosphere, then radiated back towards earth and causing global warming makes no sense at all

It seems much more l likely that some furnace in the sky is shooting heat towards earth in varying amounts at different times of year- (The sun) and that during high sun spot activity, the earth becomes warmer, and during lower sun spot activity, it become cooler-, and those who try to blame something that isn’t even sensible when looked at logically, are perpetrating a colossal lie that WILL... Make that IS causing massive financial hardships on people for soemthign they are NOT responsible for

The Vostok core picture above shows that is impossible in this case. If the CO2 rise were natural and caused by warming, the world would have had to warm 10C on average since the Little Ice Age in order to produce the 280 to 400 rise. In order to produce the rise of about 25 ppm per decade, the oceans would have to be warming 2C per decade at least. That is simply not the case.

Hmmm0- the hockey stick graph?

Yes, a type of hockey stick, but accurate in this case. The ice core CO2 measurements are very crude by having only one CO2 measurement every few centuries (in the oldest cores) and having diffusion burring that measurement. So there could well be prior hockey sticks in CO2 that cannot be visible due to those factors. But there is no other evidence for CO2 hockey sticks in the past, not in the low resolution cores, and not in the high res cores from Greenland going back to the last ice age. The CO2 hockey stick is unique.

It is quite true that CO2 rises follow temperature rises, nobody disputes that. What is also true is that a temperature rise of 1C produced about a 10ppm CO2 rise some number of centuries later. But we have a 120ppm rise and still going up 2-3 ppm per year.

Hmmm, that is contrary to global warming alarmists claims

Quite true. Climate alarmists mostly do not understand the way earth's temperature is regulated. Greenhouse gas gives us a very rough range of temperature but the actual temperature is determined by weather. The simple fact that the earth's average temperature can rise or fall 0.1 or 0.2C in a couple of weeks should make that obvious. That is the equivalent of decades of CO2 rises theoretical contribution to temperature.

Heat rises, as heat rises, it cools, and unless CO2 is capable of acting as some sort of massive super furnace mechanism,

You are mixing up convection and radiation. Air that has been heated by the sun at the surface rises. That is convection. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do not hinder convection in any way. In fact an increase in convection can easily offset an increase in GHG.

Radiation specifically infrared is what is hindered by CO2, water vapor, clouds, etc. Take a look at this satellite photo: which is false color, but the clear areas are warm (lots of outgoing infrared) and colored areas are less outgoing IR. The blues are cold cloud tops, hence little outgoing IR, one of the many ways that earth's temperature is regulated by weather. This IR measurement has decreased on average over the years:

but it is highly seasonal and very variable based on the average of global weather. This is yet more evidence of the relatively small role of CO2 in setting the global temperature. The best explanation for the decrease in OLR over the years is increased CO2. The specific spectral components also point to CO2 along with increased H2O, the latter can be completely natural.

The rest of your post mixes up convection (heated air rising) with radiation (heat lost to space at the speed of light). It is the case that radiation in certain wavelengths is absorbed by CO2, H2O and other GHG. Those newly warmed molecules nearly instantly transfer their heat to the O2 and N2 surrounding them. When there is more CO2 and H2O there is more capture and more warming. Those same molecules also release extra heat in the exact same quantities that they absorb it. The thing is, they release it both up and down so some goes back down to the surface.

[[It is the case that radiation in certain wavelengths is absorbed by CO2, H2O and other GHG. Those newly warmed molecules nearly instantly transfer their heat to the O2 and N2 surrounding them.]]

At much lower temps than when they left the earth’s surface- and in such infinitesimally small amounts that it can’t [possibly be affecting global temperatures here on earth- soemthign I’ve brought up several times which you hgaven’t addressed

[[When there is more CO2 and H2O there is more capture and more warming. ]]

‘More capture’? More than the saturation point for the CO2? How is that possible? And the CO2 is heating the cooled ‘warm surface air’ that has cooled before it made it’s way to the atmosphere? How much is it heating it up? Enough to cause surface temperatures to change globally? How much warmth is released into the atmosphere compared to the surrounding COLD atmosphere? Would such a small amount be instantly cooled by overwhelming amounts of COLD atmosphere? You state that it instantly warms the atmosphere- but fail to tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is ‘warmed’ and how long that warmth remains before beign overwhelmed by the overwhelming mass of cold atmosphere

[[It is quite true that CO2 rises follow temperature rises, nobody disputes that.]]

Actually global warming alarmists dispute it, and htsoe that don’t add a clause “But even htough CO2 rises after temps rise, CO2 ‘still causes warming’ (and this despite the evidence to the contrary)

[[The thing that bothers me is when the AGW hysteria finally blows over and gets revealed as the largest scientific fraud in history,]]

I don’t believe it’s going to blow over- it is becoming alarmingly clear that this massive lie is about to become law with leaders acting behind our backs, and the fact that much of the world now thinks man is destroying the world

it is my personal belief and opinion, and something which is separate from this actual discussion of the facts- that somehow the whole global warming issue is going to be the hammer with which the AntiChrist controls the masses- once this gets steamrolling full steam ahead, you are going to see governments continually upping the fines and charges claiming ‘we just aren’;t doing enough to stop the devastating effects of global warming’ (as temperatures refuse to react to the massive amounts of money that is thrown at the ‘problem which isn’t a problem) and the people will be powerless against those scam artists in power and we WILL BE financially crushed- We are already being affected financially by this issue- but it’s going to get much much worse once it becomes law- The bible talks about the end times that He is going to send a powerful Delusion that people will fall for- believing a lie rather than the truth- And this whole global warming issue is such a massive fraud/lie that one sits back and wonders how it is possible that so many people are falling for it- Even the GOP are now jumping on board because they realize now what a massive power grab and financial windfall this whole scam is going to be

I would say that this issue of ‘man-caused’ global warming fits the bible’s description of a ‘powerful delusion’, and will be an issue the leaders can use to control the masses financially- You WILL SEE one law after another formed and enacted in the name of ‘saving the planet’ that WILL severely hamper the lives of the masses- We are already seeing laws come about which outlaw previously legal acts/practices/techniques/jobs etc, in the name of ‘saving the planet- and again, the laws now are fairly ‘benign’ but they are going to get much much worse and more severely restrictive as these politician’s see that the masses aren’t powerful enough to stand up against them-

We’re seeing a massive water-testing with the current president ignoring law, ignoring the constitution, etc and defying it’s own congress and will of the people- the change from just 7 years ago is staggering and unbeleivable

I addressed it by pointing out you are referring to convection. The photons that leave the earth's surface have the exact same energy all the way to infinity, they can't lose energy or cool. The CO2 molecules are made a little warmer by absorbing those photons. It is a small amount of warming since the same molecules release photons in all directions. But before they can release their photons the CO2 molecules are statistically much more likely to bump into a neighboring O2 or N2 molecule and warm it up. Correspondingly all the O2 and N2 molecules will warm CO2 molecules which will then release photons. But the trick is that the photons are released in all directions, some downward, keeping layers beneath warmer than they would be otherwise. Increasing the amount of GHG increases this effect.

More than the saturation point for the CO2? How is that possible?

Good question. There is saturation since the thickness of the atmosphere is much larger than the mean free path. However the satellite picture addresses that nicely. There are very dark clear areas right next to light colored clouded areas. In the dark areas warm ground is radiating IR photons directly to space captured by the satellite sensor. In the clouds immediately next to those clear areas there is significantly less radiation. The difference is that the cloud tops are invariably colder and radiate less IR. But also the clouds are capturing the outdoing IR.

Clouds capture outgoing IR and radiate some back to earth. That is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. CO2 does the same thing with a lot less effectiveness since CO2 has little ability to warm on those clear nights.

And the CO2 is heating the cooled ‘warm surface air’ that has cooled before it made it’s way to the atmosphere?

The amount of surface air that rises has nothing to do with the effectiveness of CO2. However, more convection (rising warm air) does bypass the CO2 / H2O greenhouse.

How much is it heating it up? Enough to cause surface temperatures to change globally? How much warmth is released into the atmosphere compared to the surrounding COLD atmosphere?

Photons captured by CO2 heat to some extent. The quantity is small and a doubling of CO2 lead to less than a 1C increase in the atmosphere globally. The alarmist add a ton of positive feedback to that number (3 or 4 to 1) based upon the theory of more evaporation at surface. (They neglect convection increases).

Would such a small amount be instantly cooled by overwhelming amounts of COLD atmosphere? You state that it instantly warms the atmosphere- but fail to tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is ‘warmed’ and how long that warmth remains before beign overwhelmed by the overwhelming mass of cold atmosphere

If you put energy into the cold atmosphere the atmosphere becomes less cold. (Conservation of energy). The only quantity I can state is the theory above about a doubling of CO2. But we don't even know if there are negative or positive feedbacks, so there is lots of uncertainty about the ultimate effect.

Actually global warming alarmists dispute it,

No they do not. They simply add a clause that CO2 also warms the earth. They are correct that warming increases CO2 (small amounts, see chart above). They are correct that CO2 increases global warmth, subject to feedbacks and uncertainties. Most also acknowledge that "runaway" warming is impossible although a few nutcases say it is possible. But it is obviously impossible since the planet has had far higher CO2 levels and never had runaway warming. Therefore the warming from CO2 must (1) be small and (2) diminish with increasing amounts of CO2. Those are both true.

To be anti-CO2 is to be anti-plant.

I agree with that point. Earth was in a state of CO2 starvation especially during ice ages. Nature responded by evolving certain grasses that can utilize CO2 more efficiently thereby leading to even more starvation (of other plants).

CO2 is heavier than air.

True but they measure CO2 throughout the atmosphere at various altitudes and find general coherence. The measurements are so well repeated it is now old established science that nobody disputes. There are some variations to be sure, but those are mainly local from more plants, fewer plants, ocean vs land, human created CO2 pockets, etc. There is no consistent finding of more CO2 at the surface than aloft.

You should see the places these idiots put sampling tubes for CO2.

Obviously you are referring to Mauna Loa. Here are the daily average CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa for the past year:

There is some effect from the volcano from time to time, but not much, The overwhelming sinusoid pattern comes from the absorption of CO2 by plants in the northern hemisphere from spring through fall and the release of that CO2 from fall through spring. There is also some contribution from the warming global average temperature in northern hemisphere summer releasing CO2 in the ocean surface, the reverse in NH winter. The sinusoid also demonstrates decent mixing of CO2 throughout the atmosphere since there is not much seasonal vegetation on the top of Mauna Loa.

CO2 has a bonafide hockey stick, probably the highest in millions of years although that can't be proven since the ice cores have such poor resolution. But certainly a sharp rise since about 1950 using a combination of high res ice cores from the last 20k years from Greenland and the atmospheric measurements.

“CO2 has a bonafide hockey stick, probably the highest in millions of years although that can’t be proven since the ice cores have such poor resolution. But certainly a sharp rise since about 1950 using a combination of high res ice cores from the last 20k years from Greenland and the atmospheric measurements.”

Disagree. Nothing bonafide about it. CO2 isn’t a ‘greenhouse’ gas. CO2 definitely settles, there’s no science saying it does otherwise. We had kickplates in our CO2 rooms PRECISELY because it settles.

Smokestacks are there to ensure whatever heavier-than-air gasses settled somewhere other than the local environment. Regardless how high you make the stack, the NOX, SOX, and CO2 always settles to the ground. That is science, and its repeatable in a lab anywhere on earth.

Regardless how high you make the stack, the NOX, SOX, and CO2 always settles to the ground.

In a sealed room with no circulation CO2 will eventually settle in the lower part of the room but that takes hours. Outdoors there are almost no weather conditions under which that can happen. But going back to Brewer (1949): http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/students/Q_J_Roy_Meteor_Soc_1949_Brewer.pdf we can see that CO2 mixes (rises) in the stratosphere with the very slightest bit of turbulence in that stratified layer. In the troposphere the air is mixed enough vertically to cause an even distribution of CO2 (and all other gases) with altitude.

The only exception I can find to that is a very slight decrease of CO2 with altitude, e.g ftp://wxmaps.org/pub/klinger/CLIM690/thoningetal89.pdf of about 2ppm (in summer) over a rise of 13,000 feet.

[[The difference is that the cloud tops are invariably colder and radiate less IR. But also the clouds are capturing the outdoing IR.]]

A very small portion of outgoing IR- most escapes, much is radiated out toward space- some is radiate back

[[CO2 does the same thing with a lot less effectiveness]]

and much less effectively than clouds because there simply is nowhere near enough CO2 in atmosphere to cause anything on a global scale

[[Photons captured by CO2 heat to some extent. The quantity is small and a doubling of CO2 lead to less than a 1C increase in the atmosphere globally.]]

And you know this 1 degree increase would be due to CO2 and not some other factors how? Based on charts that show warming has happened? If so as stated before, warming happens first, then COI@ rises- so how is warming of atmosphere being linked to CO2 when clearly other factors have caused the warming?

Basically the warmists are disingenuously claiming “Warming has occurred, CO2 is increasing, therefore, man is causing warming- that would be like me stating that because I pissed I n the ocean during a massive global rainstorm that it caused massive worldwide flooding- my pissing I n the ocean doesn’t amount to a pisshole I n the snow in terms of global consequences no more so than adding 3.4% CO2 to the equally inconsequential total atmospheric CO2 level of 0.04% causes global warming

No, not based on charts. There is no doubt the warming after the Little Ice Age was natural and that includes most warming through the 30's. After that we had the highest solar in centuries from the 50's through the 90's (with a short break in the 70's) plus we had some natural ocean cycle warming, two huge El Ninos and lots of smaller ones in the 80's and 90's. So there was some combination of increased CO2 and natural factors.

The actual estimate of 1C (or maybe a little less) comes from single column of air models. Those are simply models that put in 280ppm, then 560ppm to see the difference. They leave everything else alone, no extra convection, no cloud changes, etc. Sometimes they will do columns with clouds and without clouds to get a better average. But none of these simple models can account for weather or weather changes due to (slight) warming.

The more thorough climate models are not trustworthy since they have not panned out and do not model weather but instead parameterize it. The bottom line is that the 1C is a very crude estimate and can't be used for much more than part of a range of possibilities depending on feedback.

Mankind has raised CO2 from 280 to 400 although it would have gone up a bit naturally due to natural warming (maybe from 280 to 285 or so). So the CO2 added is not trivial and will eventually double on current trajectories. So we will double the CO2, so what?

The temperature effect could be inconsequential as you imply. There is no way to separate natural and warming caused by more CO2. However with the current small temperature rise (about 1C per decade and dropping) despite the continued rise in CO2, and somewhat neutral natural conditions, it appears that manmade warming is modest. The next decade or so should make that abundantly clear as solar activity continues to slump. Slight warming could end and turn into cooling. In any case it is quite clear that the warming alarmists are desperate to get their agenda in place sooner rather than later. Even continued modest warming (rather than cooling) will result in the masses realizing that warming is not a threat but in fact a benefit. It is more likely to lead to more benign weather as it has throughout history.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.