From 2000 to 2010 they ran an experiment measuring the effect of CO2 on temperature forcing from the surface. They found that the increase in CO2 levels of 22 ppm during that time caused and increase in forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (+/- 0.07 per decade).
Other greenhouse gases such as methane have been increasing too. Then because of the warming caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases the level of water vapor has also increased (it increases about 7% per degree C of warming).
All of that together is responsible for the warming but CO2 is the biggest part of it.
Actually climate models match the observations pretty well. Dr. Spencer needs to update his graph. Also, I'm curious how the model runs and the observations can all start from the same zero point in 1983. At the very least there should be a discrepancy between the HADCRUT and UAH starting points. So he shifted everything to start at the zero point in 1983 which is a pretty unscientific thing to do.
And the CO2 reading couldn't have anything to do with current events. I mean... a volcano... couldn't skew readings. Right? And climatologists have never used skewed findings to fit their hypothesis - so we should never question them.
Considering that CO2 levels are being measured from dozens of places around the world, most of them not close to a volcano and all of them pretty much in agreement when you adjust for latitude I don't think it's an issue. Measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a relatively trivial process so if the measurements were being skewed the climate science deniers would be all over it.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
So where in the historical record is the spike in temperatures that is causing CO2 to rise to level not seen in over 800,000 years? If temperatures were hot enough to cause this exceptional rise in CO2 you'd think we would have noticed.
And more to the point how is it possible that human emissions which are more than twice the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are not the cause of the increase?
Gonna need more proof on this one. With governments pushing for carbon taxes how do we know this is legit?
Sorry I cant sign off on this bullshit.
More proof on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's something that has been measured for over 100 years and been measured continuously for over 50 years. It's currently being measured in dozens of places around the world and they're all pretty much in agreement. It's not that difficult to measure so if there were any shenanigans going on it would be quickly called out.
As far as carbon taxes go you can pay now to help mitigate the effects of global warming and the climate change it causes or you can pay later for the massive amount of adaption that will have to take place for adjusting to the effects. It's possible the effects could get bad enough to cause the collapse of our global civilization. How much would that cost you?
Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
Except we know the current source of CO2 increases and it isn't temperatures. It's mostly due to human activities, burning fossil fuels, making cement, clearing land. There is no known temperature excursion in history that would account for an increase in CO2 to a level greater than it has been in at least 800,000 years and likely several millions of years.
There are a bunch of lawsuits in the pipeline over net neutrality. I imagine the ISPs will at least wait until they start to see how they will be resolved before they do anything serious to change the current situation.
I was going to say "Wow, I want some of what you've been smoking!" But I really don't if it takes you that far from reality. As others here have observed coal's biggest problem (economically) is cheap natural gas.
Coal is not clean at all. It causes lots of air pollution
This, exactly.
It's time to double down on nuclear plant construction.
Double down on nuclear power and double up on your power bill. Ask the folks in Georgia who've been paying about $100/year extra for the Vogtle nuclear plants since 2011. That's over $2 billion Georgia Power has collected so far. And so far those plants are $4+ billion over budget and 3 years behind schedule. Do you really like paying extra for your power so you can get nuclear?
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m2 per decade and ±0.07 W m2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
Sheesh, I wasn't trying to downplay the third world thievery, just pointing out it's not unheard of in the USA. It's certainly a much bigger problem elsewhere.
In a total micogrid there's the example of a Puerto Rican flower farmer who installed solar panels several years ago. After Hurricane Maria he was still in operation with most of his solar panels still in operational condition so he could run his well pumps.
Of course I was being pedantic. But yes, a car can't take you anywhere without fuel. Notice the example of batteries you gave included solar panels to charge them.
The 2 party system we have is an artifact of a first past the post election system. The only way a different party is ever going to be more than a spoiler in national elections is to start at the state level and build up a party that takes over for one of the existing parties. Until then a vote for a 3rd party candidate for President is just a wasted vote. You'd be better off voting against the major party candidate you'd least like to see in the office.
Of course they can't power Puerto Rico because they require generation in order to be charged. What they can do though is increase the resilience of the power system by making the frequent power disruptions less of a problem and reduce the cost of power by smoothing out the intermittent nature of less expensive solar and wind systems. Right now PR is heavily dependent on diesel and fuel oil power generation which is one of most expensive ways to generate electricity.
Yeah, he's totally off base thinking that there is coupling between solar output and the climate on Earth. I guess technically you could say changes in the albedo of the Earth changes the amount of energy it reflects back to the sun which would cause some change on the sun but it's not a big enough effect that you could even measure it. Oops, I probably shouldn't have said that. He'll just seize on it as me admitting there is coupling between the Earth and the sun:) It's amazing how gullible someone can be when they're desperately seeking a way to change the conversation.
Of course those couplings you did mention are all quite important for our changing climate.
Nice try but that would only be true if they changed the model results after the observations were made. That is not something that they have done. Even a model from 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald made a reasonably accurate projection of temperatures.
I'm not saying that changes in the sun's output don't affect the climate on Earth. They most assuredly do. But the changes in climate are directly related to the changes in the sun's output. Lynwood Rooster's cite above shows for the last 400 years solar output has varied between about 1360 w/m^2 and 1361.75 w/m^2. That's a total variation of 1.75 w/m^2 which is about 0.129% change in the sun's output. That isn't enough change to fully account for all of the temperature change we've observed. And since around 2000 solar output has dropped slightly but temperatures continue to rise.
I got a C in diffy Q but it was one of the most difficult C's I ever got.
Global warming/climate change is a subject I've been following since the first IPCC report. I understand quite well the limitations of climate models. But they're still the best tool we have to understand the future evolution of climate and as I cited elsewhere in the comment section the observations or temperature line up pretty well with projections of climate models.
As far as math I've taken classes up to differential equations so it's not like I'm math illiterate but maybe the math you keep alluding to is something I'm not familiar with.
You're still just dancing around the issues without ever getting specific enough to actually name what it is you think is the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Climate models are generally successful in that observations are within the range of uncertainty.
Climate model projections compared to observations
From 2000 to 2010 they ran an experiment measuring the effect of CO2 on temperature forcing from the surface. They found that the increase in CO2 levels of 22 ppm during that time caused and increase in forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade (+/- 0.07 per decade).
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Other greenhouse gases such as methane have been increasing too. Then because of the warming caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases the level of water vapor has also increased (it increases about 7% per degree C of warming).
All of that together is responsible for the warming but CO2 is the biggest part of it.
To bad we're not measuring CO2 in other places where volcanoes won't affect them. Oh wait... we are. You can find a list of them here.
Perhaps that's why the models don't match the data, and run quite a bit hotter than actual data.
Actually climate models match the observations pretty well. Dr. Spencer needs to update his graph. Also, I'm curious how the model runs and the observations can all start from the same zero point in 1983. At the very least there should be a discrepancy between the HADCRUT and UAH starting points. So he shifted everything to start at the zero point in 1983 which is a pretty unscientific thing to do.
Climate model projections compared to observations
And the CO2 reading couldn't have anything to do with current events. I mean ... a volcano ... couldn't skew readings. Right? And climatologists have never used skewed findings to fit their hypothesis - so we should never question them.
Considering that CO2 levels are being measured from dozens of places around the world, most of them not close to a volcano and all of them pretty much in agreement when you adjust for latitude I don't think it's an issue. Measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is a relatively trivial process so if the measurements were being skewed the climate science deniers would be all over it.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
So where in the historical record is the spike in temperatures that is causing CO2 to rise to level not seen in over 800,000 years? If temperatures were hot enough to cause this exceptional rise in CO2 you'd think we would have noticed.
And more to the point how is it possible that human emissions which are more than twice the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels are not the cause of the increase?
Gonna need more proof on this one. With governments pushing for carbon taxes how do we know this is legit?
Sorry I cant sign off on this bullshit.
More proof on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? It's something that has been measured for over 100 years and been measured continuously for over 50 years. It's currently being measured in dozens of places around the world and they're all pretty much in agreement. It's not that difficult to measure so if there were any shenanigans going on it would be quickly called out.
As far as carbon taxes go you can pay now to help mitigate the effects of global warming and the climate change it causes or you can pay later for the massive amount of adaption that will have to take place for adjusting to the effects. It's possible the effects could get bad enough to cause the collapse of our global civilization. How much would that cost you?
Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
Except we know the current source of CO2 increases and it isn't temperatures. It's mostly due to human activities, burning fossil fuels, making cement, clearing land. There is no known temperature excursion in history that would account for an increase in CO2 to a level greater than it has been in at least 800,000 years and likely several millions of years.
There are a bunch of lawsuits in the pipeline over net neutrality. I imagine the ISPs will at least wait until they start to see how they will be resolved before they do anything serious to change the current situation.
I was going to say "Wow, I want some of what you've been smoking!" But I really don't if it takes you that far from reality. As others here have observed coal's biggest problem (economically) is cheap natural gas.
Virtually all fossil fuels are naturally occurring.
I think that's kind of implied by using the word "fossil".
Coal is not clean at all. It causes lots of air pollution
This, exactly.
It's time to double down on nuclear plant construction.
Double down on nuclear power and double up on your power bill. Ask the folks in Georgia who've been paying about $100/year extra for the Vogtle nuclear plants since 2011. That's over $2 billion Georgia Power has collected so far. And so far those plants are $4+ billion over budget and 3 years behind schedule. Do you really like paying extra for your power so you can get nuclear?
Let's do a brain test on you. Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect.
Here's one:
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Abstract (emphasis mine):
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m2 per decade and ±0.07 W m2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
I guess I should have included a trigger warning for you. I sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. (Not really.)
Sheesh, I wasn't trying to downplay the third world thievery, just pointing out it's not unheard of in the USA. It's certainly a much bigger problem elsewhere.
It happens in the USA too. How often have you heard about thieves digging up copper wire or other things for the scrap metal?
Are your UPS batteries lead-acid? If so they take tons more maintenance than Li-ion batteries. I don't think the situation is comparable.
In a total micogrid there's the example of a Puerto Rican flower farmer who installed solar panels several years ago. After Hurricane Maria he was still in operation with most of his solar panels still in operational condition so he could run his well pumps.
How solar energy saved a Puerto Rican farm from Hurricane Maria
Of course I was being pedantic. But yes, a car can't take you anywhere without fuel. Notice the example of batteries you gave included solar panels to charge them.
The 2 party system we have is an artifact of a first past the post election system. The only way a different party is ever going to be more than a spoiler in national elections is to start at the state level and build up a party that takes over for one of the existing parties. Until then a vote for a 3rd party candidate for President is just a wasted vote. You'd be better off voting against the major party candidate you'd least like to see in the office.
Of course they can't power Puerto Rico because they require generation in order to be charged. What they can do though is increase the resilience of the power system by making the frequent power disruptions less of a problem and reduce the cost of power by smoothing out the intermittent nature of less expensive solar and wind systems. Right now PR is heavily dependent on diesel and fuel oil power generation which is one of most expensive ways to generate electricity.
Now you're just grasping at straws.
Yeah, he's totally off base thinking that there is coupling between solar output and the climate on Earth. I guess technically you could say changes in the albedo of the Earth changes the amount of energy it reflects back to the sun which would cause some change on the sun but it's not a big enough effect that you could even measure it. Oops, I probably shouldn't have said that. He'll just seize on it as me admitting there is coupling between the Earth and the sun :) It's amazing how gullible someone can be when they're desperately seeking a way to change the conversation.
Of course those couplings you did mention are all quite important for our changing climate.
That's called "Texas sharp shooter fallacy".
Nice try but that would only be true if they changed the model results after the observations were made. That is not something that they have done. Even a model from 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald made a reasonably accurate projection of temperatures.
The first climate model turns 50 and predicted global warming almost perfectly
I'm not saying that changes in the sun's output don't affect the climate on Earth. They most assuredly do. But the changes in climate are directly related to the changes in the sun's output. Lynwood Rooster's cite above shows for the last 400 years solar output has varied between about 1360 w/m^2 and 1361.75 w/m^2. That's a total variation of 1.75 w/m^2 which is about 0.129% change in the sun's output. That isn't enough change to fully account for all of the temperature change we've observed. And since around 2000 solar output has dropped slightly but temperatures continue to rise.
I got a C in diffy Q but it was one of the most difficult C's I ever got.
Global warming/climate change is a subject I've been following since the first IPCC report. I understand quite well the limitations of climate models. But they're still the best tool we have to understand the future evolution of climate and as I cited elsewhere in the comment section the observations or temperature line up pretty well with projections of climate models.
As far as math I've taken classes up to differential equations so it's not like I'm math illiterate but maybe the math you keep alluding to is something I'm not familiar with.
You're still just dancing around the issues without ever getting specific enough to actually name what it is you think is the problem.