Three Years Later, the French Solar Road Is a Total Flop

[[If you are tired of arguing about CO2 rises caused by warming, then you need to embrace the idea the rise in CO2 is manmade and natural warming causes only a small portion of the rise.]]

Lol wrong- I’ve read quite a few sites citing natural causes, factoring in variables today that were not present in past etc- it’s an opinion that man is the cause of all the rise- and it;s not shared by all scientists-

not to mention that CO2 is not the driver of temperature rises- "I’ve usually accepted the premise that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans... But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious. " http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/ [[But to argue that the 130 ppm rise, and 2.5 rise every year is natural because warming precedes CO2, is a losing argument.]] I disagree- As stated several times, there are many variables that cause rises in CO2- as mentioned before- We've seen massive rises, over 1000 ppm way before industrial age- to get those conditions based on your stated restrictions that oceans must warm in order for it to be solely natural, the oceans would have become uninhabitablely hot- obviously that didn't happen- so there were other sources of heating that were natural and massive- It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to raise the oceans even 1c "The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required." Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C." https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/ so if that is the case- then it seems that oceans don't have to rise that much to release massive amounts of CO2- volcanoes alone can not explain the massive amounts of CO2 in the past, and we know the oceans did not become so hot that life could not thrive- Again, in the past- ppm were much much higher, and life thrived- oceans live with life- but again- 800-1000 ppm CO2 in atmosphere- I've read that it has been 7000 ppm- obviously our oceans didn't heat up that much to cause this massive rise in CO2 back then, and these rises and drops were pretty quick back then too- There are more than 20 some odd known drivers of climate- again, showing complex variables play a huger role in rising CO2 which is caused by warming To say that man must be responsible for the increase in CO2 is to ignore these facts- [[Therefore the CO2 rise was not and is not being caused by warming.]] That's not what the ice cores show- Oh- and something else not taken into account- animals produce approx 30 GT of CO2 each year- this is likely much higher today than ages past- as more animals have been produced especially owing to warming climates and more livable places- This fact is something I haven't looked into much and don't know the growing impact on atmospheric CO2 levels- but it's something to factor in and to be aware of On a different note: "Delingpole: Global Warming Is Almost Entirely Natural, Study Confirms" "Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now, a study has found. The paper, by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, published in GeoResJ uses the latest big data technique to analyse six 2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic regions. “Proxies” are the markers scientists use – tree rings, sediments, pollen, etc – to try assess global temperature trends in the days before the existence of thermometers. All the evidence suggests that the planet was about a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now; and that there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about late 20th century and early 21st century “climate change”." https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/08/22/delingpole-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural-study-confirms/ --Side note from past research- the past 50 years have had hte highest solar activity in over several thousand years supposedly- Yuo've probably no doubt seen this posted before: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

not to mention that CO2 is not the driver of temperature rises-

"I’ve usually accepted the premise that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans...

But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious. "

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

[[But to argue that the 130 ppm rise, and 2.5 rise every year is natural because warming precedes CO2, is a losing argument.]]

I disagree- As stated several times, there are many variables that cause rises in CO2- as mentioned before- We've seen massive rises, over 1000 ppm way before industrial age- to get those conditions based on your stated restrictions that oceans must warm in order for it to be solely natural, the oceans would have become uninhabitablely hot- obviously that didn't happen- so there were other sources of heating that were natural and massive-

It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to raise the oceans even 1c

"The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required."

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C."

https://principia-scientific.org/chemistry-expert-carbon-dioxide-cant-cause-global-warming/

so if that is the case- then it seems that oceans don't have to rise that much to release massive amounts of CO2- volcanoes alone can not explain the massive amounts of CO2 in the past, and we know the oceans did not become so hot that life could not thrive-

Again, in the past- ppm were much much higher, and life thrived- oceans live with life- but again- 800-1000 ppm CO2 in atmosphere- I've read that it has been 7000 ppm- obviously our oceans didn't heat up that much to cause this massive rise in CO2 back then, and these rises and drops were pretty quick back then too-

There are more than 20 some odd known drivers of climate- again, showing complex variables play a huger role in rising CO2 which is caused by warming

To say that man must be responsible for the increase in CO2 is to ignore these facts-

[[Therefore the CO2 rise was not and is not being caused by warming.]]

That's not what the ice cores show-

Oh- and something else not taken into account- animals produce approx 30 GT of CO2 each year- this is likely much higher today than ages past- as more animals have been produced especially owing to warming climates and more livable places-

This fact is something I haven't looked into much and don't know the growing impact on atmospheric CO2 levels- but it's something to factor in and to be aware of

On a different note:

"Delingpole: Global Warming Is Almost Entirely Natural, Study Confirms"

"Most global warming is natural and even if there had been no Industrial Revolution current global temperatures would be almost exactly the same as they are now, a study has found.

The paper, by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, published in GeoResJ uses the latest big data technique to analyse six 2,000 year-long proxy temperature series from different geographic regions. “Proxies” are the markers scientists use – tree rings, sediments, pollen, etc – to try assess global temperature trends in the days before the existence of thermometers. All the evidence suggests that the planet was about a degree warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now; and that there is nothing unnatural or unprecedented about late 20th century and early 21st century “climate change”."

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/08/22/delingpole-global-warming-is-almost-entirely-natural-study-confirms/

--Side note from past research- the past 50 years have had hte highest solar activity in over several thousand years supposedly-

Yuo've probably no doubt seen this posted before:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

dang formattign got messed up bad- links didn’t coem out- sorry- they are there- just not clickable-

interesting comment in the following site’s discussion, abotu an interesting article (Which i don’t have accesss too the full offsite article- but the site briefly touches on the key points)

One fella below in comments said

““Hermann is right. The additional sunshine hours of the 80s and 90s dried out volcagenic soils which then emitted far more CO2 than volcanoes do directly into the atmosphere. This post I made in 2012 has some useful info”

There’s a source right there for CO2

https://cliscep.com/2019/07/22/maybe-only-15-of-co2-increase-since-1750-due-to-us-an-unsettling-result-for-those-on-board-that-luxuriously-funded-liner-called-the-ss-climate-consensus/

Here’s another site talking abotu essentially the same issue of volcanoes beign underestimated as source of rising atmospheric CO2

A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.

Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts.

Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

As Well:

“I think that in the light of the evidence from Cardinelli et al (whose work is only available as an abstract from the EGU proceedings so far), this whole line of argument needs reconsidering. If we managed to miss 90 Gigatons of emission from volcanic lava in our estimates, then our knowledge of the carbon cycle is woefully lacking. Sinks are obviously much bigger than previously estimated too, and human emission is an even smaller part of the overall carbon cycle than the 5% previously believed”

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/uncertainty-the-origin-of-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

The Roy Spencer link was interesting: "And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming." And Ferdinand's reply was interesting:

attributed to temperature: +52 ppmv
added by humans: +110 ppmv
observed: +60 ppmv
to be removed by unknown (natural) sinks: 102 ppmv

In other words they are both correct, when there is ocean warming there is surface ocean warming, there is about 80 ppm rise in CO2 per degree of warming as pointed out by Roy. There's a nine month lag from the warming to the rise in CO2. Ferdinand points out what I've been saying, which is there's about 8-10 ppm rise in CO2 per degree of warming with an 800 year lag. The reason they are both right is the Roy effect is temporary. As soon as the surface ocean cools again (e.g La Nina) the CO2 goes back into the ocean at the same high rate. But the deep oceans take centuries to warm and cool and the CO2 released or absorbed by the deep oceans is essentially permanent.

so if that is the case- then it seems that oceans don't have to rise that much to release massive amounts of CO2-

It's the opposite. The oceans have to warm a lot to produce the CO2 rise. That matches up exactly with the ice cores showing the lag. There's a 10 degree rise in ocean temperature over 1000's of years (caused by solar cycles, etc). Then with an 500-1000 year lag, there's a 100 ppm rise in CO2. Here's Willis demonstrating how the CO2 varies with seawater temperature (Roy's short term effect): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/27/co2-in-the-air-co2-in-the-seawater/ "But in fact, many parts of the ocean are 50 ppmv lower than the CO2 concentration of the overlying air, and many other parts of the ocean have 50 ppmv or more of CO2 than the CO2 in the air above." What that shows is on average the surface ocean can release a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere in a short time. Ferdinand's reply in the comments is interesting

"The main reason that there are differences between ocean pCO2 and air pCO2 are:
– temperature
– biolife
– migration speed

In other words Roy is correct, that ocean biology affects ocean CO2 which affects atmospheric CO2. In the simplest sense, less oceanic algae means more oceanic CO2 and then ocean warming releases that CO2 into the atmosphere (with about a 9 month delay). However the measurements Willis is talking about point to another important fact, that oceanic CO2 varies a lot by location. In some locations there is a lot of extra CO2 and that can be released into the atmosphere. But in other locations there is a lot less CO2 than the atmosphere. In those locations the ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere

I wrote that in bold, because that is the most important fact that Roy misses. There are more locations where the ocean has less CO2 than the atmosphere. The result is that there is currently net flow of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean from decade to decade although it varies year to year. Some years have more CO2 flow from the ocean to the atmosphere, mainly warm super El Nino years like 1998 and 2016

Other comments below Willis's article point out that the input of calcium into the ocean (e.g. from the chalk cliffs in England) and ocean life are two of the important reasons that CO2 hasn't taken over and turned the earth into Venus. Instead what happens is the organisms turn calcium and CO2 into the limestone in my back yard.

The bottom line is that in the current era there is more CO2 entering the ocean from the atmosphere than vice versa. Because of that, there is a drop in ocean pH, about 0.02 pH units per decade "This decline is consistent with the long-term effects of ocean acidification based on estimates of CO2 uptake by surface waters due to rising atmospheric levels." https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/18205/2/01_d'Olivo_Coral_records_of_reef-water_pH_2015.pdf

There can't be a decline in ocean pH if the oceans are the source of atmospheric CO2. The only way there can be a decline in ocean pH is if some other process is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere is putting CO2 into the ocean.

"The Total Myth of Ocean Acidification: Science! Edition" [[The phrase “ocean acidification” was literally invented out of thin air in 2003 by Ken Caldiera to enable liberal arts majors to sound sciencey when scaring the bejesus out of the scientifically illiterate masses. The geochemical process has been well-understood for about 100 years… But didn’t get a crisis-monger nickname until 2003. While the Station ALOHA pH trend does exhibit a negative slope and correlates well with pCO2 (R² = 0.8646), most of the values fall within 2δ of the 1994-2005 mean. Over the past 29 years the pH has dropped from 8.1 to 8.1, rounded to 1 decimal place. Acidic water not only destroys their shells, but it also makes it harder for them to build new ones. Katie Camero, Liberal Arts major Good fracking grief! Seawater can’t become acidic, at least not under real world conditions. A study of seawater pH near active volcanic CO2 vents in the Mediterranean (Kerrison et al., 2011) found that the pH immediately adjacent to the vent was still alkaline, despite being subjected to the equivalent of nearly 5,600 ppm CO2. ]] As for Roy Spencer- Not sure i trust some of what he states, as some things he says seem to have been debunked- but some of what he states is correct- so take his site with a grain of salt- He seems quite knowledgeable about certain issues- but soem he misses the mark- but the bottom line is- there is no consensus on what is causing the rise in CO2- there is a much stated 'alarmist consensus' but there are also many who dispute it and who have studied the issue and bring up areas that were completely ignored, or hidden by the IPCC 'investigation' into the rise in CO2- Oceanic CO2 isn't the only source of CO2 as you know- and we're finding out that there are sources that have massive output that were not included in IPCC- There is likely much we haven't discovered yet- And the point keeps coming back to the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been much much higher in the past- and to state that man must be the reason for elevated CO2 now ignores this fact- Again, I don't wish to devote a lot of time to this discussion- you and i have been round and round with this issue many times in the past- Your contention that man is responsible for the rise is at odds with scientific information that shows that perhaps only a small % is due to man- - And you've never addressed the issue that such a small amount of CO2 in the massive atmosphere can be the cause of global climate change- despite my asking many times- only a very tiny fraction of escaping ir is ever back radiated to earth- and the atmosphere hasn't nearly enough to blanket the earth nowhere near enough - infact there is so little, that it would be the equivalent of pouring 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees- and claiming it is causing catastrophic warming of the pool (Yes, someone figured out what 0.00136% of an olympic pool's volume would be and it worked out to 4 five gallon pails) The water from the pails quickly reaches equilibrium- so too does the small fraction of back radiated heat from CO2 towards the now cooler earth (remember, the Ir is escaping up, getting trapped by the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and while this is happening, the earth cools some, and by the time the back radiated heat hits the earth, it's now cooled to equilibrium very quickly because there simply isn't enough- nowhere enough to overwhelm the cooler temps-) And to suggest that the small amount of CO2 traps the heat in the upper atmosphere causing a net warming effect globally, ignores the fact that there is so little CO2 that it couldn't possibly do so To counter that argument- alarmists claim that the pool scenario 'doesn't accurately resemble the CO2 model, because it doesn't trap heat like CO2 is capable of doing' and claim that 'even a small amount can have very dramatic consequences' Nonsense! It can have no more a dramatic consequence than the 4 five gallon pails have in the pool- EVEN IF adding the water created a blanket of warmer air directly above the pool- it would still be so small that it couldn't possibly affect the water;s temps to the any degree at all- remember back to the quote i posted about showing how much it would take to warm waters-

"The Total Myth of Ocean Acidification: Science! Edition"

[[The phrase “ocean acidification” was literally invented out of thin air in 2003 by Ken Caldiera to enable liberal arts majors to sound sciencey when scaring the bejesus out of the scientifically illiterate masses. The geochemical process has been well-understood for about 100 years… But didn’t get a crisis-monger nickname until 2003.

While the Station ALOHA pH trend does exhibit a negative slope and correlates well with pCO2 (R² = 0.8646), most of the values fall within 2δ of the 1994-2005 mean. Over the past 29 years the pH has dropped from 8.1 to 8.1, rounded to 1 decimal place.

Acidic water not only destroys their shells, but it also makes it harder for them to build new ones.
Katie Camero, Liberal Arts major

Good fracking grief! Seawater can’t become acidic, at least not under real world conditions. A study of seawater pH near active volcanic CO2 vents in the Mediterranean (Kerrison et al., 2011) found that the pH immediately adjacent to the vent was still alkaline, despite being subjected to the equivalent of nearly 5,600 ppm CO2. ]]

As for Roy Spencer- Not sure i trust some of what he states, as some things he says seem to have been debunked- but some of what he states is correct- so take his site with a grain of salt- He seems quite knowledgeable about certain issues- but soem he misses the mark- but the bottom line is- there is no consensus on what is causing the rise in CO2- there is a much stated 'alarmist consensus' but there are also many who dispute it and who have studied the issue and bring up areas that were completely ignored, or hidden by the IPCC 'investigation' into the rise in CO2- Oceanic CO2 isn't the only source of CO2 as you know- and we're finding out that there are sources that have massive output that were not included in IPCC- There is likely much we haven't discovered yet-

And the point keeps coming back to the fact that atmospheric CO2 has been much much higher in the past- and to state that man must be the reason for elevated CO2 now ignores this fact-

Again, I don't wish to devote a lot of time to this discussion- you and i have been round and round with this issue many times in the past- Your contention that man is responsible for the rise is at odds with scientific information that shows that perhaps only a small % is due to man- -

And you've never addressed the issue that such a small amount of CO2 in the massive atmosphere can be the cause of global climate change- despite my asking many times- only a very tiny fraction of escaping ir is ever back radiated to earth- and the atmosphere hasn't nearly enough to blanket the earth nowhere near enough - infact there is so little, that it would be the equivalent of pouring 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees- and claiming it is causing catastrophic warming of the pool (Yes, someone figured out what 0.00136% of an olympic pool's volume would be and it worked out to 4 five gallon pails)

The water from the pails quickly reaches equilibrium- so too does the small fraction of back radiated heat from CO2 towards the now cooler earth (remember, the Ir is escaping up, getting trapped by the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and while this is happening, the earth cools some, and by the time the back radiated heat hits the earth, it's now cooled to equilibrium very quickly because there simply isn't enough- nowhere enough to overwhelm the cooler temps-)

And to suggest that the small amount of CO2 traps the heat in the upper atmosphere causing a net warming effect globally, ignores the fact that there is so little CO2 that it couldn't possibly do so

To counter that argument- alarmists claim that the pool scenario 'doesn't accurately resemble the CO2 model, because it doesn't trap heat like CO2 is capable of doing' and claim that 'even a small amount can have very dramatic consequences' Nonsense! It can have no more a dramatic consequence than the 4 five gallon pails have in the pool- EVEN IF adding the water created a blanket of warmer air directly above the pool- it would still be so small that it couldn't possibly affect the water;s temps to the any degree at all- remember back to the quote i posted about showing how much it would take to warm waters-

sorry bout post 67= not sure why the formatting is coming out messed up-

yet another scientific research that states that oceans, despite not warming to the degrees necessary for the assumptions of climate scientists regarding releasing CO2 into atmosphere, somehow released CO2

"Study: CO2 rise after last ice age didn’t need man-made influences, just the deep Pacific Ocean"

Anthony Watts / August 13, 2018

Scientists trace atmospheric rise in CO2 during deglaciation to deep Pacific Ocean

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Long before humans started injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, the level of atmospheric CO₂rose significantly as the Earth came out of its last ice age. Many scientists have long suspected that the source of that carbon was from the deep sea.

But researchers haven’t been able to document just how the carbon made it out of the ocean and into the atmosphere. It has remained one of the most important mysteries of science.

A new study, published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, provides some of the most compelling evidence for how it happened – a “flushing” of the deep Pacific Ocean caused by the acceleration of water circulation patterns that begin around Antarctica.

The concern, researchers say, is that it could happen again, potentially magnifying and accelerating human-caused climate change.

“The Pacific Ocean is big and you can store a lot of stuff down there – it’s kind of like Grandma’s root cellar – stuff accumulates there and sometimes doesn’t get cleaned out,” said Alan Mix, an Oregon State University oceanographer and co-author on the study. “We’ve known that CO₂in the atmosphere went up and down in the past, we know that it was part of big climate changes, and we thought it came out of the deep ocean.
“But it has not been clear how the carbon actually got out of the ocean to cause the CO₂ rise.”

Lead author Jianghui Du, a doctoral student in oceanography at Oregon State, said there is a circulation pattern in the Pacific that begins with water around Antarctica sinking and moving northward at great depth a few miles below the surface. It continues all the way to Alaska, where it rises, turns back southward, and flows back to Antarctica where it mixes back up to the sea surface.

It takes a long time for the water’s round trip journey in the abyss – almost 1,000 years, Du said. Along with the rest of the OSU team, Du found that flow slowed down during glacial maximums but sped up during deglaciation, as the Earth warmed. This faster flow flushed the carbon from the deep Pacific Ocean – “cleaning out Grandma’s root cellar” – and brought the CO₂ to the surface near Antarctica. There it was released into the atmosphere.

“It happened roughly in two steps during the last deglaciation – an initial phase from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, when CO₂ rose by about 50 parts per million, and a second pulse later added another 30 parts per million,” Du said.

That total is just a bit less than the amount CO₂ has risen since the industrial revolution. So the ocean can be a powerful source of carbon.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/13/study-co2-rise-after-last-ice-age-didnt-need-man-made-influences-just-the-deep-pacific-ocean/

Regarding oceanic PH- I won’t post excerpt here- but here’s a site that states that it’s not necessarily all due to CO2 or even mostly-

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/21/temperature-dependence-of-ocean-ph-shows-co2-may-not-be-driver-of-ocean-acidification/

“It happened roughly in two steps during the last deglaciation – an initial phase from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, when CO2 rose by about 50 parts per million, and a second pulse later added another 30 parts per million,” Du said.

That total is just a bit less than the amount CO2 has risen since the industrial revolution. So the ocean can be a powerful source of carbon.

The total since 1850 is 130 ppm. The findings suggest that there could be more natural flux in the mix. The findings also explain nicely why there's a 500-1000 year delay between surface warming and CO2 increases. It's because it takes 500-1000 years for the warming to reach the "root cellar". The increases now can be partly from some warming 500-1000 years ago. But IMO only a small portion of the current rise (2.5 ppm per year).

When we first started arguing this point here I pointed out that the rise since 1850 was 120. Now the rise since 1850 is 130. The evidence is increasingly in favor of non-natural sources.

Your point about "acidification" is correct. The term is incorrect. What is actually happening is reduction in calcite and argonite (spelling?) saturation due to lower pH. The drop in pH has been measured.

And you've never addressed the issue that such a small amount of CO2 in the massive atmosphere can be the cause of global climate change- despite my asking many times- only a very tiny fraction of escaping ir is ever back radiated to earth- and the atmosphere hasn't nearly enough to blanket the earth nowhere near enough - infact there is so little, that it would be the equivalent of pouring 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an olympic sized pool of water that is 90 degrees- and claiming it is causing catastrophic warming of the pool (Yes, someone figured out what 0.00136% of an olympic pool's volume would be and it worked out to 4 five gallon pails)

My explanation is that the CO2 molecules were numerous enough (in 1850 preindustrial) to intercept an IR photon within 40-50 meters. As we add more CO2 molecules, that "mean free path" gets shorter. The IR energy that is intercepted is immediately transferred to the bulk atmosphere (N2 and O2). That is the greenhouse effect.

EVEN IF adding the water created a blanket of warmer air directly above the pool- it would still be so small that it couldn't possibly affect the water;s temps to the any degree at all- remember back to the quote i posted about showing how much it would take to warm waters-

The blanket of warmer air is the effect. It doesn't have to warm the water beneath it. A warmer atmosphere is the final effect of greenhouse gases. If the oceans are warming (debatable) it's because of solar energy changes. Solar penetrates 10 meters or more and warms the water.

good one. bttt

[[It doesn’t have to warm the water beneath it. A warmer atmosphere is the final effect of greenhouse gases.]]

Not in regards to CO2- there isn’t nearly enough to cause global blanket- nowhere near enough- remember, it’s just 0.00136% of the atmosphere

Refresher: Man’s release of CO2 is roughly 3.4% (some say slightly higher, some lower- but most of what i find online say around 3.4%- but even if it’s over 4% or even 5%, which it isn’t of course,- the amount still is just a tiny fraction of the atmosphere) of the total GH Gasses that amount to .04% of the atmosphere-

so 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136% of the atmosphere anthropomorphic CO2 in the atmosphere- and claiming that such a small amount ‘can have a large impact’ is silly- as pointed out by the pool scenario- the ‘blanket’ of warmer air above the pool will be so minuscule that it can not warm the pool- there simply will not be enough effect from such a small amount (the 4 warmer 5 gallon pails)- that is hte point of the analogy

[[The evidence is increasingly in favor of non-natural sources.]]

Not factual reall-y if these ‘pulses’ take place- which we are fairly sure they do according to the data- there is no set amount that a ‘pulse’ can release- with changing conditions, it could result in higher totals being released- there is much we don’t know yet- Your contention was pretty much that ‘the science is settled’ when you said it was a ‘losing argument’ that nature can’t be the cause if i remember correctly-

that is actually from a list of 100 points- i just posted soem of them ore imp[ortant points- there are others- but again, they are kinda vague- no real evidence to back them up- just the statement from the science that show man isn’t the cause- I’ll see if i can find the list

here is the compelte list- again- vague statements, ie they just do a synopsis of what hte science says, they don’t post the science itself- but the points are valid- I’ve seen much of the science behind the statements- and what they are saying in their bullet points are pretty much spot on:

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/100-reasons-why-climate-change-natural-and-not-manmade

Not in regards to CO2- there isn’t nearly enough to cause global blanket- nowhere near enough- remember, it’s just 0.00136% of the atmosphere

CO2 is 410 ppm and rising 25 ppm every decade. That's 0.041% of the atmosphere. There are so many CO2 molecules that an IR photon bumps into one within 50 meters of the surface on average. Essentially zero photons of that wavelength make all the way from earth to space. They bounce between CO2 molecules many times between the earth and outer space. When we first started arguing about the source of CO2 a couple years ago, the amount was 0.04% Now it is 0.041% That's good evidence of manmade right there.

Refresher: Man’s release of CO2 is roughly 3.4% (some say slightly higher, some lower-

That's possible if there is a natural source for the rest. It's not warming. If the 280 to 410 rise is from deep ocean warming in the last 500 to 1000 years, that warming had to be 12C or more (probably a lot more). That amount of warming did not happen. There was some, probably about 1C warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age into modern times. So the CO2 rise is not caused by past warming. Volcanoes are not likely either since they haven't increased. Biosphere changes are the only remaining possibility, e.g. large reduction in ocean algae causing an increase in ocean and then atmospheric CO2.

The actual consensus amount of CO2 rise that is manmade is 95% or more. A lot of them say 100% manmade but that is probably not correct. I have read all the contrarians I can find. Some were via links you provided. They are not consensus. They might have a decent argument, but they don't have any support from the vast majority of scientists.

[[The actual consensus amount of CO2 rise that is manmade is 95% or more.]]

Consensus doesn’t = fact- especially when agendas are concerned-

[[I have read all the contrarians...They are not consensus.]]

Of course not because their findings don’t fit tghe agenda and bias-

[[That’s possible if there is a natural source for the rest. It’s not warming.]]

The point is you can’t say that- as though the ‘science is settled’- it is not- warming coudl very well be causing flushing of CO2 out of ocean- other factors could be the cause, as per the site i listed before

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/13/study-co2-rise-after-last-ice-age-didnt-need-man-made-influences-just-the-deep-pacific-ocean/

[[Essentially zero photons of that wavelength make all the way from earth to space.]]

I question that simply because there is so little CO2 in atmosphere- There can’t be a blanket around the globe because there is so little- and the fact that only 0.00136% of the atmosphere has CO2 means vast majority of atmosphere doesn’t have any- so the IR can’t be absorbed by CO2- Think about that- if 0.00136% of the atmosphere has CO2 and the rest doesn’t- that means there’s nothing stopping IR from reaching space in more than 99% of the atmosphere-

[[Now it is 0.041% That’s good evidence of manmade right there.]]

Bzzzt- it’s evidence of something- some source- of which there are many many sources- and as earth warms, more areas open up to certain things like say termites, which produce 50 billion tons of CO2 per year- as they expand, and increase in numbers, they create more CO2- and let’s not forget that volcano ash is drying out more now due to warming, increasing the massive amounts of CO2 released fro m the ash-

[[If the 280 to 410 rise is from deep ocean warming]]

I refer you to the link above that talks about this very thing- it’s not deep ocean warming that causes the oceanic release, it is purging, or flipping- can’t remember the term now- but massive amounts were released without ocean needing to be warmed- there’s no reason to think this process has stopped today- and conditions today- variables today, may infact be causing more purging- (purging isn’t hte term- I’ll see if i can find it again)

Ah- they talk about ‘pulses’ caused by moving cold water displacing warmer- stirring up deep water CO2, pushing it to surface- where it gets released somehow- We know this happened- but they aren’t exactly sure how- but they have soem clues as to how-

The science isn’t ‘settled’ on atmospheric CO2