Climate Change Mega Thread

[foenix]

No, scientists have done experiments with CO2 and temperature and looked at their correlation. Here's a simple one....

https://cires.colorado.edu/outreach/sit ... %20Key.pdf

Enjoy.....

Here's another....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.192075

Here's a more scientific experiment.....

e.PNG

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2241

Something's fishy about that chart. 1. There's no such place as Muana Loa. It's Mauna Loa. One would think a reputable source would know how to spell places. 2. I would have thought that they would not show assumptions. Where do they get that assumption from? Your source seems to be a blogger or something.

Nah....what gave it away?......the link that says "blog"? The spelling in the graph is obviously a mistake, he spells it correctly in the article.....did you not read it? ....or was the pretty picture enough?

[captkirkcanada]

the end is coming , 280 billion pension fund in new york is backing shareholder demands for no more fossil fuel backing.

New York pension officials on Monday said they will support shareholder resolutions filed at major banks seeking quick cuts to financing of new fossil fuel development, pushing climate issues to the fore of another springtime shareholder meeting season.

Shareholders should support resolutions filed at Bank of America Corp, (BAC.N) Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and four other banks "in order to mitigate the systemic risks posed by unfettered climate change," according to a statement sent by a representative of New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees some $280 billion in retirement assets.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustai ... ce=twitter

also this .

Standard Chartered (STAN.L) said on Tuesday it would end all direct coal financing for clients by 2032, as the Asia and Africa-focused lender tightens up its climate policy.

The London-listed bank, which previously ended new coal financing, said legacy coal financing would also end within ten years, in an update ahead of its annual investor meeting in London on May 4.

Investors will have the chance to vote on the bank's amended climate policy in an advisory vote at the meeting.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustai ... 022-03-29/

[Jlabute]

https://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2241

Something's fishy about that chart. 1. There's no such place as Muana Loa. It's Mauna Loa. One would think a reputable source would know how to spell places. 2. I would have thought that they would not show assumptions. Where do they get that assumption from? Your source seems to be a blogger or something.

lol. You'd think if science can be reviewed, so could spelling. Pretty much a junk chart. There are many reasons it is fishy. Someone did a curve-fit exercise and derived a formula for a specific time period. It doesn't work for any other time period than 1860 to 2010, and it doesn't explain reasons for mid-century temperature drops. Temperature depends on obliquity, insolation, and many other things, not just CO2. Water vapor IS the most powerful GHG and dwarfs CO2. Directly correlating CO2 to temperature is nonsense.

IR absorption is assumed to be logarithmic, and earths atmosphere before man's contribution was already 300ppm, not 0, so there is no dramatic effect adding more CO2. Most IR energy is absorbed in the first 20ppm. The amount of absorption difference from say 300ppm to 400ppm is tiny. Many scientists say CO2 absorption is saturated so more CO2 likely won't do anything. Not all scientists believe CO2 absorbs logarithmically either.

Coming in and out of ice-ages where the temperature changes drastically has more to do with long period phasic astronomical cycles. As the earth cools or warms, the oceans absorbs or releases CO2.

[captkirkcanada]

More advances in solar tech .

https://www.ecowatch.com/solar-panel-en ... iency.html

Scientists from the University of Surrey and Imperial College London have achieved an increase in energy absorption in ultra-thin solar panels by 25%, a record for panels of this size.

It is a interesting article i think worth reading myself.

[captkirkcanada]

New heat to electricity converters comming

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-heat ... -milestone

[foenix]

Coming in and out of ice-ages where the temperature changes drastically has more to do with long period phasic astronomical cycles. As the earth cools or warms, the oceans absorbs or releases CO2.

As long as the CO2 concentrations stays above 400 ppm, there won't be any ice ages.

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... n-dioxide/

[Jlabute]

Coming in and out of ice-ages where the temperature changes drastically has more to do with long period phasic astronomical cycles. As the earth cools or warms, the oceans absorbs or releases CO2.

As long as the CO2 concentrations stays above 400 ppm, there won't be any ice ages.

Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... n-dioxide/

So? Your proof is? Show us the science? It is truly impossible to know, and highly unlikely the additional CO2 will do anything, let alone "400" has anything to do with anything.

[foenix]

As long as the CO2 concentrations stays above 400 ppm, there won't be any ice ages.




https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... n-dioxide/

So? Your proof is? Show us the science? It is truly impossible to know, and highly unlikely the additional CO2 will do anything, let alone "400" has anything to do with anything.

....any proof to say not? When has any ice age had 400 ppm of CO2? For the 800,000 years of relatively decent ice core data, not one ice age had CO2 level of plus 400 ppm.

[captkirkcanada]

even castanet has seen the writing on the wall. their chart shows clearly what we face if we dont change course yesterday

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... -in-Canada

[captkirkcanada]

Another advance in solar panels , cheaper , more efficient

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/german- ... efficient/

[Jlabute]

So? Your proof is? Show us the science? It is truly impossible to know, and highly unlikely the additional CO2 will do anything, let alone "400" has anything to do with anything.

....any proof to say not? When has any ice age had 400 ppm of CO2? For the 800,000 years of relatively decent ice core data, not one ice age had CO2 level of plus 400 ppm.

The last 500 million years have seen no relationship between CO2 and temperature. Where do you get 400ppm from? Why would anyone care about 400ppm and not 395ppm? The amount of CO2 in the air has been declining for a long time, so no recent proxies would show more CO2.

Obviously there is no science behind a comment like "whose to say it isn't!". That basically sums up the modern eco-terrorist and climate science movement - no science needed.

There is little to no relationship between temperatures and CO2 over the last 500 million years and CO2 was 2000, 3000, 4000 ppm.

Even the current interglacial has increasing CO2 while decreasing temperature.

[foenix]

....any proof to say not? When has any ice age had 400 ppm of CO2? For the 800,000 years of relatively decent ice core data, not one ice age had CO2 level of plus 400 ppm.

The last 500 million years have seen no relationship between CO2 and temperature. Where do you get 400ppm from? Why would anyone care about 400ppm and not 395ppm? The amount of CO2 in the air has been declining for a long time, so no recent proxies would show more CO2.

Obviously there is no science behind a comment like "whose to say it isn't!". That basically sums up the modern eco-terrorist and climate science movement - no science needed.

There is little to no relationship between temperatures and CO2 over the last 500 million years and CO2 was 2000, 3000, 4000 ppm.


500my.JPG



Even the current interglacial has increasing CO2 while decreasing temperature.


interglac.png

Why go back 500 million years?....that's just pure guess work. The only reliable data goes back 800K years and there was never a period during that time period where CO2 exceeded 400 ppm. It's no big deal about the figure 400 ppm, it's just that during the last 800K years the average CO2 level was 260 ppm so 400 ppm is just a convenient threshold to say that we will never see another ice age as long as the CO2 remains above 400 ppm because Earth will never approach the start of another glacial period as long as the heat trapping gas stays above 400 ppm.

Edit to add: You're still using misleading graphs to further the narrative, you know what I mean because we've already discussed this.

[Jlabute]

Why go back 500 million years?....that's just pure guess work.

Science is hard work and develops over time. If you don't like peer reviewed journal articles or what you consider to be "misleading" graphs in them you can probably ask the science journals to retract such articles so long as you can provide evidence they are wrong.

The only reliable data goes back 800K years and there was never a period during that time period where CO2 exceeded 400 ppm. It's no big deal about the figure 400 ppm, it's just that during the last 800K years the average CO2 level was 260 ppm so 400 ppm is just a convenient threshold to say that we will never see another ice age as long as the CO2 remains above 400 ppm because Earth will never approach the start of another glacial period as long as the heat trapping gas stays above 400 ppm.

Edit to add: You're still using misleading graphs to further the narrative, you know what I mean because we've already discussed this.

There are many proxies, not just ice cores. CO2 has been 300ppm or lower for the last 800,000 years, so what. 400ppm doesn't mean anything at all as to what will happen in the future, considering 400ppm didn't do much in the millions of years past as temperatures didn't follow CO2 levels. 400ppm is no big deal, but earth will never see another ice age? lol. You keep saying that without any evidence. Climate is dependent on many more things than CO2, and CO2 might be pretty minor. The problem with CO2 is that there has always been at least 260ppm, and 400ppm doesn't do much more than 260ppm because most of the absorption happens in the first 100ppm.

[foenix]

Why go back 500 million years?....that's just pure guess work.

Science is hard work and develops over time. If you don't like peer reviewed journal articles or what you consider to be "misleading" graphs in them you can probably ask the science journals to retract such articles so long as you can provide evidence they are wrong.

It doesn't matter if the articles are peer reviewed going back 500 million years because that's just pure guess work. There is not one shred of evidence to back up the guess works. Myself, the only reliable data goes back 800,000 years through ice core samples.

As far as misleading, I was commenting on the "local" temperature and CO2 graphs to extrapolate the global relationship......that's misleading at best.

[foenix]

There are many proxies, not just ice cores. CO2 has been 300ppm or lower for the last 800,000 years, so what. 400ppm doesn't mean anything at all as to what will happen in the future, considering 400ppm didn't do much in the millions of years past as temperatures didn't follow CO2 levels. 400ppm is no big deal, but earth will never see another ice age? lol. You keep saying that without any evidence. Climate is dependent on many more things than CO2, and CO2 might be pretty minor. The problem with CO2 is that there has always been at least 260ppm, and 400ppm doesn't do much more than 260ppm because most of the absorption happens in the first 100ppm.

Then show me where an ice age occurred when the CO2 was above 400 ppm. There's been many experiments conducted that directly correlates CO2 and temperatures....

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.192075

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ ... ration-can

.....and here's the real life results of those experiments....