Climate literacy

CO2 effect is pretty much done at 10 ppm. 15 ppm O3 in the stratosphere absorb 98% of incoming UV. This suggests at fairly low concentrations these gases are power enough to absorb almost all the light. So it seems 1000 ppm CO2 and 10 ppm CO2 make negligible difference in terms of absorption. Angstrom did an experiment in 1900 and found these was negligible change in absorption when he varied CO2 levels by a lot.

originally posted by: TheClimateP
CO2 effect is pretty much done at 10 ppm. 15 ppm O3 in the stratosphere absorb 98% of incoming UV. This suggests at fairly low concentrations these gases are power enough to absorb almost all the light. So it seems 1000 ppm CO2 and 10 ppm CO2 make negligible difference in terms of absorption. Angstrom did an experiment in 1900 and found these was negligible change in absorption when he varied CO2 levels by a lot.

Interesting read below.

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time. Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:

Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
CO2 effect is pretty much done at 10 ppm. 15 ppm O3 in the stratosphere absorb 98% of incoming UV. This suggests at fairly low concentrations these gases are power enough to absorb almost all the light. So it seems 1000 ppm CO2 and 10 ppm CO2 make negligible difference in terms of absorption. Angstrom did an experiment in 1900 and found these was negligible change in absorption when he varied CO2 levels by a lot.

Interesting read below.

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time. Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:

Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Angstrom did experiment in 1900 in a lab where he varied CO2 levels by huge amounts, like a third of the concentration back then which I suppose is 100 ppm, and he found negligible change to absorption, which suggests 10 ppm CO2 absorb about 98 or 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. The remaining 1 or 2 percent isn't that important. It would suggest even if CO2 is reduced to 10 ppm temperature would be the same as now.

It is unlikely all the heat goes into the ocean. If that were the case, summer would never be hot in any given year. This suggests 99% of IR is absorbed by the first 10 ppm CO2, so the variation in temperature is caused by the Sun's power output, not by any increase or decrease in CO2 concentration beyond the first 10 ppm.

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
CO2 effect is pretty much done at 10 ppm. 15 ppm O3 in the stratosphere absorb 98% of incoming UV. This suggests at fairly low concentrations these gases are power enough to absorb almost all the light. So it seems 1000 ppm CO2 and 10 ppm CO2 make negligible difference in terms of absorption. Angstrom did an experiment in 1900 and found these was negligible change in absorption when he varied CO2 levels by a lot.

Interesting read below.

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time. Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:

Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Angstrom did experiment in 1900 in a lab where he varied CO2 levels by huge amounts, like a third of the concentration back then which I suppose is 100 ppm, and he found negligible change to absorption, which suggests 10 ppm CO2 absorb about 98 or 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. The remaining 1 or 2 percent isn't that important. It would suggest even if CO2 is reduced to 10 ppm temperature would be the same as now.

It is unlikely all the heat goes into the ocean. If that were the case, summer would never be hot in any given year. This suggests 99% of IR is absorbed by the first 10 ppm CO2, so the variation in temperature is caused by the Sun's power output, not by any increase or decrease in CO2 concentration beyond the first 10 ppm.

I'd love to believe you, but....no.

This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

scied.ucar.edu...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
CO2 effect is pretty much done at 10 ppm. 15 ppm O3 in the stratosphere absorb 98% of incoming UV. This suggests at fairly low concentrations these gases are power enough to absorb almost all the light. So it seems 1000 ppm CO2 and 10 ppm CO2 make negligible difference in terms of absorption. Angstrom did an experiment in 1900 and found these was negligible change in absorption when he varied CO2 levels by a lot.

Interesting read below.

Small increases in temperature can be hard to measure over short periods, because they can be masked by natural variation. For example, cycles of warming and cooling in the oceans cause temperature changes, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO2 emissions which occur at the same time. Tiny particle emissions from burning coal or wood are also being researched, because they may be having a cooling effect. Scientists like to measure changes over long periods so that the effects of short natural variations can be distinguished from the effects of man-made CO2. The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?

The answer is into the deep oceans. Here is a graphic showing where the heat is currently going:

Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Angstrom did experiment in 1900 in a lab where he varied CO2 levels by huge amounts, like a third of the concentration back then which I suppose is 100 ppm, and he found negligible change to absorption, which suggests 10 ppm CO2 absorb about 98 or 99 percent of whatever IR CO2 absorbs. The remaining 1 or 2 percent isn't that important. It would suggest even if CO2 is reduced to 10 ppm temperature would be the same as now.

It is unlikely all the heat goes into the ocean. If that were the case, summer would never be hot in any given year. This suggests 99% of IR is absorbed by the first 10 ppm CO2, so the variation in temperature is caused by the Sun's power output, not by any increase or decrease in CO2 concentration beyond the first 10 ppm.

I'd love to believe you, but....no.

This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating.

scied.ucar.edu...

CO2 absorbs some bands of IR. That is true. What is true is the first 10 ppm CO2 absorbs 99% of outgoing IR so 10 ppm CO2 and 1000 ppm CO2 don't have any difference on temperature, maybe 0.1 C.

Gore clearly isn't right. Most theories are proven false. The heavier things fall faster than lighter things theory was proven false by Galileo after it stood by consensus for thousands of years. Theories proven true become laws and include law of gravity, first law of thermodynamics, second law of thermodynamics, third law of thermodynamics, law of conservation of energy.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mach2

Milankovitch cycles, cycles of solar output, ice core data, are all historic patterns that need to be taken into account.

Milankovitch says the planet should be cooling slowly, a bit. Instead it's warming. Rapidly.
Sun does not seem to be getting warmer.
The things that caused warming in the past don't seem to be happening. But maybe it's something we don't know about. Maybe it isn't CO2.

Changes in ocean currents, due to continental drift, among other things, also have widespread effects, when looking at longer time periods.

Changes in ocean currents change how heat is distributed on the planet, they do not increase the total amount of heat in the system. CO2 can.


(sorry OP, but your thread was pretty much destined to go here)

There has never been a link between Milankovitch cycles and climate. Milankovitch at the very most has a redistribution effect, not a heating or cooling effect.

The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.



greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.

greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

That's not proof. There's only 1 agency that measure sea ice and that is National Snow & Ice Data Center. They use satellites since 1979.

nsidc.org...

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.

greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

That's not proof. There's only 1 agency that measure sea ice and that is National Snow & Ice Data Center. They use satellites since 1979.

nsidc.org...

We are discussing measuring permafrost (and melting), read the article please.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.

greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

That's not proof. There's only 1 agency that measure sea ice and that is National Snow & Ice Data Center. They use satellites since 1979.

nsidc.org...

We are discussing measuring permafrost (and melting), read the article please.

Okay but the sources you posted is not authority and they do not have the equipment to do that. And the blog is a future telling activism blog, not a science blog.

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.

greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

That's not proof. There's only 1 agency that measure sea ice and that is National Snow & Ice Data Center. They use satellites since 1979.

nsidc.org...

We are discussing measuring permafrost (and melting), read the article please.

Okay but the sources you posted is not authority and they do not have the equipment to do that. And the blog is a future telling activism blog, not a science blog.

See the Science Daily article then.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheClimateP
The 1970s has been a particular cold decade globally. Arctic sea ice was abnormally high in 1979 when satellite measurement of Arctic sea ice started. Global temperature has been falling the past few years. Not surprisingly, Arctic sea ice has increased over the past few years. I quote

On March 13, 2019, Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 14.78 million square kilometers (5.71 million square miles), the seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record, tying with 2007.

nsidc.org...

And, yet, the permafrost is thawing...strange is that.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

There is no prove permafrost is thawing everywhere. Maybe in certain locations it happens but that is natural. It is natural for some places to thaw and other places to freeze. Nature is not static. It is always in flux in different locations.

And even if in some locations permafrost is thawing the trend is increasing ice in general as we head into the next little ice age.

Of course there is proof, there are measurements done by scientists over the decades.

greenphysicist2.blogspot.com...

Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.

Shakhova and Semiletov hold joint appointments with the Pacific Oceanological Institute, part of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Their collaborators on this paper include Anatoly Salyuk, Vladimir Joussupov and Denis Kosmach, all of the Pacific Oceanological Institute, and Orjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University.

www.sciencedaily.com...

That's not proof. There's only 1 agency that measure sea ice and that is National Snow & Ice Data Center. They use satellites since 1979.

nsidc.org...

We are discussing measuring permafrost (and melting), read the article please.

Okay but the sources you posted is not authority and they do not have the equipment to do that. And the blog is a future telling activism blog, not a science blog.

See the Science Daily article then.

Science Daily ain't authority either.