The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years. — Tate
The general pattern of high-latitude cooling in both hemispheres opposed by warming at low lat- itudes is consistent with local mean annual insolation forcing associated with decreasing orbital obliquity since 9000 years ago (Fig. 2C). The especially pro- nounced cooling of the Northern Hemisphere ex- tratropics, however, suggests an important role for summer insolation in this region, perhaps through snow-ice albedo and vegetation feedbacks.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5184523/mod_folder/content/0/A-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-yearsScience.pdf?forcedownload=1
What are you on about. — apokrisis
But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.
So what exactly is your point? — apokrisis
Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” — apokrisis
If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….
But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back. — apokrisis
I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity. — god must be atheist
There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No. — god must be atheist
You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow. — god must be atheist
At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise. — god must be atheist
Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases: — god must be atheist
Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming. — god must be atheist
If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims. — god must be atheist
The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere. — god must be atheist
When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.
Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.
With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.
https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units. — god must be atheist
Greenhouse gases are gases that allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back toward space. They do this because the molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In greenhouse gases, those wavelengths are mainly found in the infrared portion of the spectrum, rather than the visible or ultraviolet.
This behavior was demonstrated in laboratory measurements by physicist John Tyndall in 1859. Since then, it has been confirmed countless times by instruments that measure light spectra. It can even be demonstrated with nothing more than an infrared camera and a candle.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases its heat-trapping effect, warming the atmosphere. Humans are doing this today primarily by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. But in the past, there have been other drivers of warming like the slow-changing cycles in Earth’s orbit that controlled the timing of the ice ages. That initial warming influence was amplified by releases of CO2 into the atmosphere1. Whatever the source, an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will have the same effect: increasing temperatures by trapping more infrared radiation.
No arguments. — god must be atheist
I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. I'm always open to counterarguments, of course, and in fact I would love to be wrong. — Janus
It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions. — Tate
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. — Janus
Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.
The calculus quickly gets ugly. — apokrisis
I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. — Janus
Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. — Janus
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. — Janus
We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. — Xtrix
Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. — Xtrix
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. — Xtrix
Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good. — Xtrix
Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking.
— Xtrix
I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours. — Janus
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak.
— Xtrix
The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the governement will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate. — Janus
This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. — Janus
Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?
This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier. — Xtrix
You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles, — Janus
What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about? — Janus
Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with. — Xtrix
I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices. — Janus
Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.