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

Hillary Clinton argued for forceful action to fight climate change in an environmental speech on Monday night, but did not mention the controversial Keystone pipeline.

“The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say, sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc,” Clinton said, according to ABC News.

“The political challenges are also unforgiving, there is no getting around the fact the kind of ambitious response required to effectively combat climate change is going to be a tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries including our own are grappling with slow growth and stretched budgets.”

None of which can measure 2.28 millimeters accurately. All the errors and lack of resolution in all the variables stipulates there isn’t the ability to accurately measure oceans to the millimeters claimed. The resulting claims are nothing but politically driven. They claim to have resolution to ascertain that oceans have been rising 2.28 millimeters (.09 inches) per year since 2001. Yeah, right.

The system used to declare such accuracy isn’t that accurate itself. DORIS, a French system, cannot measure satellite orbits to the millimeters the satellites claim. DORIS claims 2cm orbital accuracy, using a 2.03625 GHz signal. It has less accuracy than the WGS84 measurements.

Again, no satellite system can measure ocean heights to the millimeters claimed.

where do you get you figures to assert that just 0.04% of the atmosphere can absorb every ir photon? Even if it were possible, a warming atmosphere would produce more water vapour in clouds causing cooling of atmosphere once again- As well ‘back radiation’ has been pretty well dismissed by scientists

[[Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.]]

http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%e2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/

And, CO2 rises rapidly when denser, traps a small amount of heat, then cools again rapidly

[[CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls.]]

(same link)

and again, where is the evidence that the insiginificant amount of CO2 at just 0.04% can trap all the heat, then make it hotter, and radiate it back to earth in quantities hot enough and large enough to cause warming on a global scale?

where do you get you figures to assert that just 0.04% of the atmosphere can absorb every ir photon?

Every IR photon with the right wavelength to be absorbed (I forgot that caveat). There are something like 10^25 molecules in a cubic meter of air or 10^22 CO2 molecules. That is more than enough for absorption saturation. But of course those molecules also radiate in all directions including out to space. So each layer of the atmosphere also cools more as it gets warmer.

Even if it were possible, a warming atmosphere would produce more water vapour in clouds causing cooling of atmosphere once again

If the surface is wet. That's the reason the southern hemisphere has warmed a lot less than the northern overall.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads

From above, 10^22 molecules of CO2 per cubic meter cannot be ignored.

Please don't point to Postma and other junk as "debunking" the greenhouse effect. Basically Postma is attempting to "prove" through his equations that the surface warmth can be explained without GHE. But he makes several mistakes and the alternative, that GHE is required to reach current average temperature, is accepted science. There are many threads at Curry's and other places explaining this: http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/ Suggesting that Curry has abandoned the GHE effect just because she doesn't like the phrase "back radiation" is incorrect. All sides in that "debate" agree that the atmosphere absorbs some IR. The only actual disagreement is whether back radiation is a "real" transfer of energy via IR photons or not. But if the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR, it also radiates IR in all directions.

[[But if the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR, it also radiates IR in all directions.]]

I guess you’re issing my point- such a small amount of CO2 is not nearly enough to absorb all the heat moving out toward space- it is only to absorb a very small amount- there are vast swaths of atmosphere where there is no co2- and only a very tiny fraction of our atmosphere that has co2- and as you point out even that tiny fraction of absorbed heat gets radiated out in all different directions, so even less makes it back towards the earth, and even then that insignificant amount cools as it approaches the earth-

[[But he makes several mistakes and the alternative]]

Which would be what mistakes?

[[From above, 10^22 molecules of CO2 per cubic meter cannot be ignored.]]

How many actual molecules per CM are there total? 10 to the 22 sounds like a lot, but what are the actual total CM molecules? if 10 to the 22 is still only 0.04%, then the amount of actual over all molecules must be enormous and the 10 to the 22 is very insignificant compared to the amou8nt of total molecules- the poinjt being that the tiny fraction of CO2 will become saturated very quickly, and any remaining heat blows on past the tiny fraction of saturated CO2 because it can’t absorb anymore- and again- as you point out, that tiny fraction of CO2 radiates in all directions

it would seem to me, that of all the heat escaping toward the atmosphere, only 0.04% of it is going to be trapped and of that small amou8nt, only a very tiny fraction is actually going to be radiated back towards the earth, and even then, it’;s goi9gn to be cooled as it makes it’s way back towards the earth- the heat ools in both directions, as it rises, and as it radiates back- it’s seems impossible that such a small amount of heat making it’s way back towards the earth to cause the whole globes climate to change-

Which would be what mistakes?

Read the Postma thread at Curry's. He attempts to defend himself jumping from strawman to strawman (e.g. there's no GHE on the sun, so there can't be on earth or venus). Basically he never answers the question that the radiation to space is 240W/m2 (measured) and the earth's surface is 15C so it emits 390 W/m2 by Stefan Boltzmann. The difference is absorbed in the atmosphere by GHGs. The only answer is that the 390W/m2 is not "real" just theoretical. That is nonsense.

You seem to be assuming that because the CO2 concentation is 0.04% that only 0.04% of outgoing IR is "trapped". That is incorrect. 100% of outgoing IR is trapped and 100% is reemitted in all directions. In between the trapping and releasing of heat the atmosphere warms because CO2 and H2O transfer their heat mechanically much faster than emitting it radiatively.

[[You seem to be assuming that because the CO2 concentation is 0.04% that only 0.04% of outgoing IR is “trapped”.]]

No- I meant that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has any CO2/trapped heat in it-

[[That is incorrect. 100% of outgoing IR is trapped and 100% is reemitted in all directions.]]

100% of all heat generated on earth is trapped? See that is what is not making any sense- there simply would not be enough CO2 to trap all the escaping heat- not anywhere’s near enough- now if you state “100% of the available CO2 I n the atmospghere3 is saturate4d with heat” that is a much different statement

[[In between the trapping and releasing of heat the atmosphere warms]]

How much of the atmosphere heats? and how long before it cools again? and how long before it reaches back to earth and in what amount? ‘man-caused’ Climate change beleivers claim the heat is making it back to earth causing ground level changes- that’s what is at issue here- not whether small portions of atmosphere ‘get warmer’ ‘briefly’ - and the other secondary issue is how much heat gets trapped, and how long does the atmosphere remain warm and how m uch of it warms?

No- I meant that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has any CO2/trapped heat in it-

But the CO2 nearly instantly gives up that heat to the N2 and the O2. The entire atmosphere receives the trapped heat.

there simply would not be enough CO2 to trap all the escaping heat- not anywhere’s near enough

There's more than enough molecules per cubic meter to do the job, I posted the number in this thread or another thread, 10^20 I think.

now if you state “100% of the available CO2 I n the atmospghere3 is saturate4d with heat” that is a much different statement

The outgoing photons are all trapped and the heat is conducted to the rest of the atmosphere. The rest of the atmosphere is warmer than it would have been were it not for the CO2, H2O, and other greenhouse gases. The CO2 also radiates away that same heat in all directions. Some of it goes back to earth.

Climate change beleivers claim the heat is making it back to earth causing ground level changes- that’s what is at issue here- not whether small portions of atmosphere ‘get warmer’ ‘briefly’ - and the other secondary issue is how much heat gets trapped, and how long does the atmosphere remain warm and how m uch of it warms?

Some extra heat makes it back although not a lot. The amount is the important issue of course. Also as the air near the surface warms and presumably moistens, convection increases which transfers heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere bypassing any CO2 heat trapping.

There are lengthy debates over whether the CO2 and other gases are like a "greenhouse". There is no doubt that for the most part, they are not. The greenhouse mainly limits heat loss by limiting advection and convection. However there are a couple of things to think about. If a greenhouse were sealed it would quickly run out of CO2 and the plants would die, so some advection must take place. Second, the greenhouse glass warms as IR inside the greenhouse hits it. Glass is a good absorber of IR while letting visible pass through. The glass radiates its heat in both directions, out of the greenhouse and back into the greenhouse. Therefore the glass, in some small addition to limits convection and advection, keeps objects inside warmer by radiation.

The latter is what CO2 does.

[[The entire atmosphere receives the trapped heat.]]

either you’re playing with words here- or not intentionally being clear-

of course the entire atmosphere receives any heat- but not all of it can be absorbed by such a small amount of CO2 and radiated back to earth to affect land temperatures

[[There’s more than enough molecules per cubic meter to do the job, I posted the number in this thread or another thread, 10^20 I think]]

I asked for the amount of actual molecules per cm if heat comprises more than 10 to the 20 molecules, then how is it possible for the CO2 to absorb more than it’s ‘wiehgt’ in heat? is it some super sponge that defies realities somehow?

[[The outgoing photons are all trapped and the heat is conducted to the rest of the atmosphere.]]

Again, how do we know all the heat is trapped?

[[Some of it goes back to earth.]]

sure, but it’s an insignificant amount AND it cools both on the trip up and then back down again, and by the time it reaches earth, in such small quantities, and cooled, then it can’t possibly be increasing temps- let me give an simple illustration- thinking logically:

For the sake of argument, let’s just assume these numbers

Earth is 100 degrees- the molecules in air at ground level or so are 100 degrees-

Heat molecules rise, but cools as they does- it gets to atmosphere at let’s say 80 degrees

assuming CO2 generates heat when radiating heat molecules back out-

The heat molecules heat to about 90 degrees let’s assume

the heat that makes it back to earth from the back radiation, which is so infinitesimally minute to begin with considering CO2 radiates what little it collects in all directions

When the molecules reach earth, they are once again back down to 80 degrees due to cooling on their way back to ground level- the4se 80 degree molecules then mix with the 100 degree molecules-

Causing a cooling effect if anything (but the fact that the amount is so small to begin with, I doubt it cools earths temps much

[[The greenhouse mainly limits heat loss by limiting advection and convection. ]]

Limits to what extent? completely? or only very minutely?- and even if atmosphere is slightly warmer- it certainly isn’t enough to be causing the near hysteria we see with ‘man-caused’ climate change adherents- I am having a very hard tiem believing 0.04% of our atmosphere is capable of doing ANYTHING significant in regards to temps- and I’m having an even harder time beliving that man’s piddly contribution of just 3.4% to the total 0.04% total atmospheric CO2 levels is causing ANY changes whatsoever

[[The glass radiates its heat in both directions, out of the greenhouse and back into the greenhouse. Therefore the glass, in some small addition to limits convection and advection, keeps objects inside warmer by radiation.]]

But only if there are no gaps, AND this glass illustration isn’t representative of CO2 in atmosphere because the glass creates a much larger ‘blanket’ over the ENTIRE area of greenhouse, CO2 at it’s current piddly amount of just 0.04& of our atmosphere, simply isn’t enough to cause the changes in climate we are witnessing- there are other factors at play- natural factors- period— and there are other problems with the illustration which im too tired right now to noodle over-

For the sake of argument, let's just assume these numbers Earth is 100 degrees- the molecules in air at ground level or so are 100 degrees- Heat molecules rise, but cools as they does- it gets to atmosphere at let's say 80 degrees assuming CO2 generates heat when radiating heat molecules back out- The heat molecules heat to about 90 degrees let's assume the heat that makes it back to earth from the back radiation, which is so infinitesimally minute to begin with considering CO2 radiates what little it collects in all directions When the molecules reach earth, they are once again back down to 80 degrees due to cooling on their way back to ground level- the4se 80 degree molecules then mix with the 100 degree molecules- Causing a cooling effect if anything (but the fact that the amount is so small to begin with, I doubt it cools earths temps much

The earth is 100 so it radiates an amount of IR corresponding to its emissivity and that temperature (100). Assume the atmosphere is 80 degrees. It radiates the amount of IR based on its emissivity and temperature (80) up, down and sideways. In the simplest case adding more CO2 means the atmosphere radiates more and cools because the emissivity increases from the extra CO2.

But the atmosphere has the same absorptivity as emissivity (thermal equilibrium) so it absorbs more outgoing IR from the surface and warms more as well as cooling more.

By warming, I meam it absorbs more outgoing IR from the surface. By cooling, I mean it emits more. But the key is that it emits in all directions so the atmosphere below and ultimately the earth's surface get warmer since the earth's emissivity has not changed in this process.

Another way to think about the effect is mounting a space blanket well above the surface. That way the space blanket does not stop the wind, nor stop warm air from rising (the air goes around). But the space blanket absorbs outgoing radiation, then it emits that radiation (1/2 up to space, 1/2 back to earth). Do this experiment at night(!) and measure the surface temperature under the blanket and out in the open. It will be warmer under the blanket.

That will be due to radiative effects, not "rising heat molecules" or what I am inferring to be rising heated air molecules (i.e. convection).

I’m having an even harder time beliving that man’s piddly contribution of just 3.4% to the total 0.04%

The rise from 0.028% to 0.04% is essentially manmade. If mankind had not been around, the end of the Little Ice Age which warmed the oceans would have created a rise of maybe 5ppm, 10 at most. We would have gone from 0.028% CO2 to 0.029% with that natural warming.

Instead there was a rise from 0.028% to 0.04% and in fact the oceans are now absorbing CO2 net, instead of releasing it. There is almost no doubt about all these facts barring some vastly unforeseen natural net source of CO2. For example volcanoes would have to be 100 times more numerous to be that source.

When I say "net" above, I realize the natural fluxes are much larger than anything man produces (probably close to your 3.4% figure) , but they go in two directions, into plants and back out and into the ocean and back out. Man's contribution is in one direction.

[[Instead there was a rise from 0.028% to 0.04% and in fact the oceans are now absorbing CO2 net, instead of releasing it.]]

That’s not true- when temperastures rise, CO2 gets released- that’ts the way it’s always been- temperatures =rise first, THEN CO2 rises- many years later-

[[We would have gone from 0.028% CO2 to 0.029% with that natural warming.]]

And you’re able to predict this how again? All you are doing is taking figures of heat rises, correlating it, without any proof, to the increase of CO2, and basing your predicitons on those figures- The fact is the temps were rising well before the increases in CO2 levels but ‘scioentists’ today don’t like to use those figures to base their calculations on because it is contrary to their gloom and doom ‘man is evil’ scenario instead, they look at temps in past few decades, AFTE the oceans released CO2 AFTER the temps began rising, and claim the CO2 is the cause of the rise in temps (and they completely ignore and ridicule anyone hwo points out that cyclical warming trends follow well established sun spot activities as well as other factors such as el and la ninja’s etc-

[[There is almost no doubt about all these facts barring some vastly unforeseen natural net source of CO2.]]

You are using the term ‘vast’ to describe just 0.04% of the atmosphere— 0.04% of anything should not be deemed ‘vast’

[[The rise from 0.028% to 0.04% is essentially manmade.]]

So? Temperatures have always fluctuated- even more than they have today- before the industrial age- man’s insignificant contribution to an insignificant TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 level means nothing in terms of causing global climate change- Our great lakes were formed by miles thick glaciers melting and carving land mass to form the lakes- BEFORE the industrial age-

[[Man’s contribution is in one direction.]]

Not true- but so what? man’s contribibution is still so insignificantly small that it is absolutely meaningless in terms of global climate change-

[[In the simplest case adding more CO2 means the atmosphere radiates more and cools because the emissivity increases from the extra CO2.]]

Very very slightly- and again even if it manages to radiate the temps back to the original 100 degrees by some magic- it will still cool back on it’s way towards the planet’s surface

[[I mean it emits more. But the key is that it emits in all directions so the atmosphere below and ultimately the earth’s surface get warmer since the earth’s emissivity has not changed in this process.]]

By how much? and how far? Even IF it manages to increase the temps back to 100, it is still going to cool the further it gets fro m the source (ie: the CO2 in the atmosphere) and hewn it reaches earth again, it’s going to have a COOLINGT effect because it is no longer 100 degrees while the earth is 100 degrees-

[[Another way to think about the effect is mounting a space blanket well above the surface.]]

That is what I was trying to get you and others to understand- this ‘space blanket’ is so incredibly thin, that it is nearly undetectable- and can’t possibly be thick enough to trap nearly enough CO2 to cause ANY changes in temperatures- AND, it is doubtful that this
blanket’ even entirely blankets the earth- at just 0.04% of the atmosphere- I imagine there are HUGE swaths of atmosphere that have absolutely NO CO2 in it- meaning heat, which always seeks path of least resistance, will migrate towards these holes- while some, a VERY SMALL portion, so small as to be entirely irrelevant’ will get trapped I n the insignificantly small pockets of CO2 scattered around the globe- the vast majority of the atmosphere is CO2 free OR, there is ifnact a ‘blanket’ but it is so thin that is can’t possibly be having any effect whatsoever- the amount of heat escaping far exceeds the absorption capabilities of the the CO2, and what little does get trapped, gets cooled again as it, what little is does infact, radiates back out towards the earth where it will have a cooling effe4ct once it encounters the hotter earth surface- which will inturn, create clouds of moisture, which will further cause cooling-

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-

Those are three major hurdles to overcome if you wish to make the argument that man’s 3.4% contribution of CO2 to the total atmospheric CO2 level of 0.04% is the cause of climate change

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 than in preindustrial ages and that we’ve actually harmed the world by SLOWING climate change because we’ve altered the ‘natural course’ of things- however, that is also a silly argument, but one that could very legitimately be made when taking into account the FACTS of the case

That’s not true- when temperastures rise, CO2 gets released- that’ts the way it’s always been- temperatures =rise first, THEN CO2 rises- many years later-

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

[[We would have gone from 0.028% CO2 to 0.029% with that natural warming.]]
And you’re able to predict this how again? All you are doing is taking figures of heat rises, correlating it, without any proof, to the increase of CO2,

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

These ice core estimates of temperature and CO2 are not particularly controversial. We must acknowledge that there are possible spikes that would be completely hidden since the data points making up the measurements can be centuries apart in the older cores. Nonetheless the ratio observed in the cores is what we care about here. There is about a 10ppm rise for each 1C rise in temperature. Following the end of the Little Ice Age we had about a 1C natural rise in temperature which should produce a 10ppm rise in CO2 with some lag that many people estimate to be about 800 years.

You are using the term ‘vast’ to describe just 0.04% of the atmosphere

For "vast" I meant only the fact that we should not expect a large unknown natural source to appear through scientific study. We can't rule it out (e.g. previously undiscovered underwater volcanoes) but such a large source would be a complete surprise.

man’s contribibution is still so insignificantly small that it is absolutely meaningless in terms of global climate change-

Man's contributions are well measured from oil production, cement production and other economic data, e.g. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm OTOH, natural sources are not particularly well measured and the total flows are large compared to man's contribution. But the natural flows go in both directions in various locations and seasons. For example as the southern hemisphere absorbs CO2 right now, the northern hemisphere is releasing right now (NH winter). So such balancing fluxes, although large, can be safely ignored because of the offsetting effects.

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.