CO2/warming correlation - how to respond?

[nwdiver]

That's what I'm saying... for the ocean temp to increase, CO2 AGW theory says that you'd need to see a HUGE rise in air temp (especially up high and at the poles).

They keep showing the oceans increasing, but not showing that the air temps (especially upper air temps) increased as much for a reason. (Lower air temps are more influenced by weather and the ocean temps than climate).

My points aren't that it isn't warming. It's just that the warming we're getting is wrong to match what CO2 AGW theory said would happen.

Because the oceans are receiving energy from the sun and losing it to the air. The primary heat source isn't the atmosphere, it's the sun. The change in the atmosphere is just reducing the rate of heat loss.

You've got this flipped. It's not the air heating the oceans. It's more the oceans heating the air. The earths surface absorbs ~2x more energy from the sun than the atmosphere does.

 

[DaveE]

Because the oceans are receiving energy from the sun and losing it to the air. The primary heat source isn't the atmosphere, it's the sun. The change in the atmosphere is just reducing the rate of heat loss.

Correct. But for CO2 theory to be correct, less sun would get down. And for the ocean to warm because of diminished radiation, less convection/evaporation (aka the air temp has to go up first). We aren’t seeing the right effects.

 

[nwdiver]

Correct. But for CO2 theory to be correct, less sun would get down. And for the ocean to warm because of diminished radiation, less convection/evaporation (aka the air temp has to go up first). We aren’t seeing the right effects.

The average temperature of the atmosphere is always higher than the average temperature of the oceans. How has the atmosphere 'not gone up first'? We didn't have accurate ocean temperature measurements until long after AGW kicked off. How would you know air temp hasn't gone up first?

Everything on this list has been examined and ruled out. A 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 matches nearly perfectly.

• Solar output
• variations in the Earths Orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
• Volcanism
• Meteorological events
• Plate Tectonics
• Ocean Variability
• Flora and Fauna

 

[DaveE]

The average temperature of the atmosphere is always higher than the average temperature of the oceans. How has the atmosphere 'not gone up first'? We didn't have accurate ocean temperature measurements until long after AGW kicked off. How would you know air temp hasn't gone up first?

Everything on this list has been examined and ruled out. A 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 matches nearly perfectly.

(1) The inaccuracy of temp records cuts both ways -- that also disproves that it's gone up significantly. Right. Noise is noise. (The confidence in your accuracy is decreased by the same amount you're questioning their accuracy)

(2) we are talking about near term immediate effects. We can measure temps up high, and surface. And we can actually measure up high easier than down low. (Satellite sampling is broader). But besides that -- CO2 theory predicts one thing, and we're seeing another. That brings the theory of why into question.

You're claiming that if you predicted 3 tails in a row because of the boogieman, and you get 3 tails in a row it must be the boogieman. Nope. It only means you got 3 tails in a row (the result) not the cause.

But just pretend to acknowledge the point. Maybe AGW is correct, maybe not. But for now, the premise was that the upper atmosphere and poles would warm first, then we'd see the surface temps lag that. We haven't seen the former, just the latter. Something isn't fully explained/understood right. That is all.

Those quoting that the warming is right, therefor the theory is right -- are like people that say bananas cause cancer, because people that have cancer have had bananas. Nope. It doesn't work that way. The theory doesn't prove the results... the theory here seems to be wrong or missing something.

And no, not everything has been ruled out. In science everything is continuously questioned. The only people that ruled out some of those disputed forcing factors are polticians or advocates. Science questions. (And actually a lot of the Antarctic warming is Volcanism, we know that, and most people aren't normalizing that out of their global averages... the same with the urban heat island effect and measuring errors -- many intentionally don't remove that noise, because they want to sensationalize the result. It doesn't mean it's not still warming -- but it does mean we know that some are lying for an agenda).

 

[nwdiver]

But just pretend to acknowledge the point. Maybe AGW is correct, maybe not. But for now, the premise was that the upper atmosphere and poles would warm first, then we'd see the surface temps lag that. We haven't seen the former, just the latter. Something isn't fully explained/understood right. That is all.

Where is it predicted that the upper atmosphere would warm? Energy transfer is from the ground up. The upper atmosphere should and IS cooling because less energy is reaching it from the Earths surface due to more CO2. Kinda proves it's not the sun. More energy from the sun wouldn't cool the upper atmosphere but less energy from the surface due to more CO2 obviously would....

Stratospheric cooling: The concerning flip side of global warming​

That a rise in CO2 would cause warming was predicted in 1896. CO2 rose and the level of warming has matched nearly exactly what was predicted >120 years ago. But the rise in CO2 isn't the most plausible explanation for that warming? If you're expecting a $1000 paycheck on Wednesday and you get $1000 in your bank account on Wesnesday are you mystified where that $1000 came from?

The increase in CO2 increases radiative forcing by ~1.5w/m^2. We're seeing warming that ~exactly correlates to that. Where else would that energy be going?

 

[DaveE]

Where is it predicted that the upper atmosphere would warm? Energy transfer is from the ground up. The upper atmosphere should and IS cooling because less energy is reaching it from the Earths surface due to more CO2. Kinda proves it's not the sun. More energy from the sun wouldn't cool the upper atmosphere but less energy from the surface due to more CO2 obviously would....

Stratospheric cooling: The concerning flip side of global warming​

That a rise in CO2 would cause warming was predicted in 1896. CO2 rose and the level of warming has matched nearly exactly what was predicted >120 years ago. But the rise in CO2 isn't the most plausible explanation for that warming? If you're expecting a $1000 paycheck on Wednesday and you get $1000 in your bank account on Wesnesday are you mystified where that $1000 came from?

The increase in CO2 increases radiative forcing by ~1.5w/m^2. We're seeing warming that ~exactly correlates to that. Where else would that energy be going?

Thanks for being the first person in the climate discussion to try to actually make a point on topic, and offer a link.

The problem is that it's a bit of garbage. The theory said that CO2 warms first... and there's more CO2 the higher you go (due to volume or circumfrance of a sphere thing)... so it should be warming up high first.

This replies we did a study and that's not happening, so tada, it proves the opposite of what we'd been saying all along. Woot, we're right.

The facts are that we can see the right amount of warming according to a model, and the model is still 100% wrong. I point out that acupuncture works -- but the theory about a reheater organ and Chi being the cause is garbage (placebo). But it doesn't mean that it doesn't work, even if it doesn't prove the theory right.

Same here. the way it's working seems different than the reason for why it's working. That doesn't mean it isn't warming. But it doesn't mean that the original CO2 explanation is right. Even if the amounts are loosely the same.

Even so... read what it said -- they predicted the troposphere would warm. The problem is while that's not upper stratosphere, it's still well above the ocean. And if it hasn't been warming as much as the ocean, then it's not proving the theory but refuting it. That's the problem.

 

[SageBrush]

Because the oceans are receiving energy from the sun and losing it to the air. The primary heat source isn't the atmosphere, it's the sun. The change in the atmosphere is just reducing the rate of heat loss.

You've got this flipped. It's not the air heating the oceans. It's more the oceans heating the air. The earths surface absorbs ~2x more energy from the sun than the atmosphere does

Exactly. In fact, the global mean surface air temperature is ~ 9F cooler than the mean surface ocean temperature

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks for being the first person in the climate discussion to try to actually make a point on topic, and offer a link.

The problem is that it's a bit of garbage. The theory said that CO2 warms first... and there's more CO2 the higher you go (due to volume or circumfrance of a sphere thing)... so it should be warming up high first.

I offered my link. Where's yours? No one says 'it should be warming up high first'. Radiative forcing is acting on outgoing energy. Outgoing energy is coming from the ground. The ground is going to warm first. The upper atmosphere is going to cool because it's getting less energy from the ground.

 

[DaveE]

I offered my link. Where's yours? No one says 'it should be warming up high first'. Radiative forcing is acting on outgoing energy. Outgoing energy is coming from the ground. The ground is going to warm first. The upper atmosphere is going to cool because it's getting less energy from the ground.

It’s not acting on outgoing energy… it’s acting on both incoming and outgoing, and incoming is always more than reflected (outgoing).

The light/energy doesn’t come from the earth, it comes from the sun, and a small percentage is reflected out. And it’s captured both ways.

 

[nwdiver]

It’s not acting on outgoing energy… it’s acting on both incoming and outgoing, and incoming is always more than reflected (outgoing).

The light/energy doesn’t come from the earth, it comes from the sun, and a small percentage is reflected out. And it’s captured both ways.

No it barely acts on incoming. Incoming light is in the visible spectrum. Outgoing is in the IR spectrum. CO2 is transparent to visible but opaque to IR.

~ALL the energy is 'reflected' out. If Earth receives ~340w/m^2 from the sun it needs to radiate ~340w/m^2 to neither cool or warm. Some of that is 'reflected' back as visible. About half as IR from ground/oceans. That half is what CO2 acts on. The outgoing IR. CO2 reduces the amount of IR energy that is radiated from the ground. That's why the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling. Exactly as predicted.

 

[DaveE]

No it barely acts on incoming. Incoming light is in the visible spectrum. Outgoing is in the IR spectrum. CO2 is transparent to visible but opaque to IR.

~ALL the energy is 'reflected' out. If Earth receives ~340w/m^2 from the sun it needs to radiate ~340w/m^2 to neither cool or warm. Some of that is 'reflected' back as visible. About half as IR from ground/oceans. That half is what CO2 acts on. The outgoing IR. CO2 reduces the amount of IR energy that is radiated from the ground. That's why the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling. Exactly as predicted.

Thank you for intelligent answers. (On another thread they are all idiots that can't even understand the point made and keep arguing consensus or surface tems, so they keep answering something other than what I was asking -- but you're on point).

I do understand the in-and-out balance.

Even if what you're saying is correct -- that implies what? That CO2 is not absorbing the light, but reflecting it back to the surface -- and raising it's frequency up to microwave lengths to heat water/land? If it's absorbing it, we'd see a lot more upper atmospheric warming -- to CO2 would have to be reflecting/refracting back down to get ocean heating without upper atmosphere.

And let's say you are correct. (And I'm going to do some more research on that -- so I'm not disagreeing, I've just not seen this aspect of the claim before, so want to look more).... if you are, that wouldn't explain how we came down from 7000-8000 ppm in CO2 (and had ice ages back then), to get to where we are today? But I'm not trying to change the topic -- and fully acknowledge, you answered my first point. Just pointing out that still raises (or doesn't answer) another question.

 

[DaveE]

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

climate.mit.edu

This is typical of what they said... notice: "Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature"....

They aren't saying heat -- but heat is just light in certain frequencies. The problem is that light in high frequency (microwaves) heat up water... and light in low frequences (infrared) heat up CO2 and get refracted back.

So we get back to it should be heating up the upper atmosphere more than surface. But I'm reading more.

 

[ucmndd]

Could have never guessed how this thread was gonna go after a Texan with a high school physics book bumped a 2.5 year old thread to let us know literally everyone is wrong about global warming except him.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Correct. But for CO2 theory to be correct, less sun would get down. And for the ocean to warm because of diminished radiation, less convection/evaporation (aka the air temp has to go up first). We aren’t seeing the right effects.

CO2 absorbs a very small fraction of incoming solar radiation, but a higher proportion of the outgoing, low energy radiation.
Hence "greenhouse effect", rather than "parasol effect".

 

[nwdiver]

Thank you for intelligent answers. (On another thread they are all idiots that can't even understand the point made and keep arguing consensus or surface tems, so they keep answering something other than what I was asking -- but you're on point).

I do understand the in-and-out balance.

Even if what you're saying is correct -- that implies what? That CO2 is not absorbing the light, but reflecting it back to the surface -- and raising it's frequency up to microwave lengths to heat water/land? If it's absorbing it, we'd see a lot more upper atmospheric warming -- to CO2 would have to be reflecting/refracting back down to get ocean heating without upper atmosphere.

And let's say you are correct. (And I'm going to do some more research on that -- so I'm not disagreeing, I've just not seen this aspect of the claim before, so want to look more).... if you are, that wouldn't explain how we came down from 7000-8000 ppm in CO2 (and had ice ages back then), to get to where we are today? But I'm not trying to change the topic -- and fully acknowledge, you answered my first point. Just pointing out that still raises (or doesn't answer) another question.

Don't over complicate it. CO2 reduces outgoing energy more than it reduces incoming energy because it interacts with photons in the visible spectrum more than it interacts with photons in the IR spectrum. Since Earth receives most of its energy from the sun in the visible spectrum and radiates in the IR that means the Earth gets warmer if there's more CO2. It's not really that complicated.

The opposite also occurs with SO2.... because it's more transparent to IR but opaque to visible.

Year Without a Summer​

 

[MontyFloyd]

...you should be outraged at the idiot left that prevented more adoption of clean nuclear, hydro, and better forms of base power ...

That is false, politics have LITTLE to do with building those items, it is mainly NIMBY and economics.
And even Hydro is not safe as a base power given how extreme weather can impacts those.

The best solution is a good mix of sources with storage.
Heck, even a water heater as a Thermal battery goes a long way (heating water only when generating enough renewable energy).

Topic for another thread.

 

[MontyFloyd]

Because the oceans are receiving energy from the sun and losing it to the air. The primary heat source isn't the atmosphere, it's the sun. The change in the atmosphere is just reducing the rate of heat loss.

You've got this flipped. It's not the air heating the oceans. It's more the oceans heating the air. The earths surface absorbs ~2x more energy from the sun than the atmosphere does.

View attachment 1008825

That image which is a dumbed down mass produced in many iterated versions fails in messaging, and is easy to prove wrong:
If the energy going down to earth is same as reflected back, then the CO2 in atmosphere would actually stop the energy getting to earth surface to begin with, resulting in global cooling! (This version does show difference in incoming energy and reflected, but not the why)

It is omitting a critical detail.

This is what is happening (to @DaveE):
The suns energy is broad spectrum, from invisible long wave, IR, visible, UV, and into X-ray and Gamma waves; a portion (not all) of that does reach the Earths surface.
When the suns energy hits the earth, the ground and water absorbs that energy and re-emit part of that as long wave IR (Infra Red) we feel as heat.
It is this "Black body radiation" that CO2 (and Methane CH4) that trap that IR energy in atmosphere, in very simple terms.

"This is because these gases consist of molecules that can absorb radiation (energy) at wavelengths exactly within the infrared range."

So it really is Energy Conversion with the Absorption that makes CO2 (and methane CH4) "greenhouse gasses".
This is the key part that image.

Source:
How do greenhouse gases retain heat?

Found a better explanation web page:
How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

And the full spectrum that gets to earth

Also the Quora web site on this.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

That image which is a dumbed down mass produced in many iterated versions fails in messaging, and is easy to prove wrong:
If the energy going down to earth is same as reflected back, then the CO2 in atmosphere would actually stop the energy getting to earth surface to begin with, resulting in global cooling!

It is omitting a critical detail.

This is what is happening (to @DaveE):
The suns energy is broad spectrum, from invisible long wave, IR, visible, UV, and into X-ray and Gamma waves; a portion (not all) of that does reach the Earths surface.
When the suns energy hits the earth, the ground and water absorbs that energy and re-emit part of that as long wave IR (Infra Red) we feel as heat.
It is this "Black body radiation" that CO2 (and Methane CH4) that trap that energy in atmosphere, in very simple terms.


So it really is Energy Conversion with the Absorption that makes CO2 (and methane, CH4) "greenhouse gasses".
This is the key part that image.

Source:
How do greenhouse gases retain heat?

Found a better explanation web page:
How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

And the full spectrum that gets to earth

Agree. To this concern I would like to point out an important aspect of the GHE that is not so much considered.
Because of the GHE the Earth warms and the snow and ice, reflecting the light, melt.
This means that the reflectivity (ALBEDO) of the Earth decreases and less energy is reflected as light and more energy is absorbed from the Earth and reflected as Infrared rays.
This is a feedback loop making increase the ENERGY IMBALANCE, 90% of which is absorbed by the Oceans, caused by the Green House Effect.
So not only we have to lower GHGs emissions but we must also get out of this evil feedback loop making increase the energy imbalance caused by the GHE.
It's an HARD WORK!

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Agree. To this concern I would like to point out an important aspect of the GHE that is not so much considered.
Because of the GHE the Earth warms and the snow and ice, reflecting the light, melt.
This means that the reflectivity (ALBEDO) of the Earth decreases and less energy is reflected as light and more energy is absorbed from the Earth and reflected as Infrared rays.
This is a feedback loop making increase the ENERGY IMBALANCE, 90% of which is absorbed by the Oceans, caused by the Green House Effect.
So not only we have to lower GHGs emissions but we must also get out of this evil feedback loop making increase the energy imbalance caused by the GHE.
It's an HARD WORK!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748102127656841664

As I said in my previous post since ALBEDO decreases with the increase of Global Warming also the Globally Absorbed Solar Radiation increases as it is shown in the reported graph.

And this is the key point of the GHE and AGW IMO.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748102127656841664

As I said in my previous post since ALBEDO decreases with the increase of Global Warming also the Globally Absorbed Solar Radiation increases as it is shown in the reported graph.

And this is the key point of the GHE and AGW IMO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1747248961172451748

Report also this ALBEDO graph showing that while in the quoted post the Globally Absorbed Solar Radiation increases the ALBEDO decreases, as I said.