Int'l. Study: IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement

[LateForLunch]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
I think you may find this interesting, and it will answer many of your questions without me typing a lot.

I believe we are still at the questions: Does CO₂ force temperature change, temperature increase push CO₂ out of solution (especially in the oceans), and thus make CO₂ an indicator of temperature change rather than a forcing agent, or does man-produced and naturally released CO₂ affect the temperature.

If so, how much, or are there other factors involved? (Is anthropogenic CO₂ of negligible effect?)

Before that can be decided, note that the temperature measurements since the industrial revolution occur in areas where there is industrialization and urban growth. It is well enough documented that poorly sited, or changes in the siting of measuring equipment can cause changes in temperature readings which are not necessarily reflected in the climate, but are actually an artifact of that development--especially paving, HVAC exhaust, jet aircraft exhaust plumes, and the like. It has been stated that a significant portion of us temperature measuring stations are in locations which compromise the validity of that data, and in almost every case, in a way which would cause those stations to record higher temperatures than would be accurate outside of the microclimate caused by the development.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
and then, there are other risks....
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/12/technology/security/weather-system-hacked/index.html


But beneath it all there is a hysteria level stirred by the MSM we don't trust, fostered on university campuses which have become hotbeds of lunacy and catered to by a class of politicians who do things like: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/16/new-york-announces-nuclear-shutdown-to-fight-climate-change/


It is time to take a deep breath and determine if there is really a change in global temperature (which requires accurate measurements), is so is it one which is unprecedented, if so, what should the target (optimum) temperature be, and whether we are having a meaningful effect on that system which has operated with virtually (or actually) no human input in the past.

If the four answers aren't all "yes", let nature take its course, and continue to develop the technology which will permit us to deal with any problems, rather than abandon that capability in a fit of hubris only to die off because we threw away the means to survive.

Thanks. Nothing to add to that brilliant post. 

Except that I have identified another strategery (sic) of Suppressed's mendacity. He waited until the coast is clear (the people who are disgusted with his endless preoccupation with rescripting what are to him, impressive (meaningless) charts and graphs which have absolutely nothing to do with the other far more cogent, important points he has ignored so rudely. He is like someone who wants to take a leak on a public street who waited until nobody is walking by, then whips it out and sprays away, hoping that he will get away with it.

Nobody is impressed with phony charts and graphs. That sort of thing is in the same family of devices to convince the credulous, uninformed masses by trying to confuse them with excessive, tangential, utterly unimportant minutiae. Some people believe that if they can't understand something, it MUST be smart.
I am of the opposite view. When I see something posted that is abstruse, confusing overly-complicated/ technical (which most posters would not be able to follow), I assume that someone is rescripting something they have gotten from somewhere else (I have seen those graphs/charts and heard these same silly points raised on every AGW fanatic website which they point to ooing and ahhing like the manapes in 2001:A Space Odyssey set all a twitter by the Great Monolith. OOOOO LOOK! A graph with different colors! It must be REAL SMART AND SCIENCY!!

Two words Bull Sh**! Take it somewhere else, Suppressed. Nobody here is buying it and I refuse to be lured into your endless demands to talk about only what YOU want to talk about. Your rudeness and mendacious attempt to distract, divert and denigrate opposing viewpoints (you said I didn't understand carbon-related radiative forcing, remember? That was an insult you never apologised for) has exhausted my own and everyone else's patience.

Like Jack Nicholson said in "Hoffa", "You're wearin' me out!!"

So buzz off. You are talking to yourself. And don't bother whining that we don't understand the endless BS, we do. We just aren't buying it.

And neither is the U.S. government. Not anymore. The whole notion of Carbon-related radiative forcing is dead.  And long, ,long overdue for a coffin.

No more responses to Suppressed from me on this thread, either directly or indirectly. I don't want an apology any more for his insults. I just want him to confront his own detachment from reality. That's what I really want. Not for me, for him. End the madness. For your own sake. Otherwise people are going to start thinking that you are senile or something because failing to respond simply to direct questions, in easy-to-understand terms, is grossly abnormal.

[Bigun]

Thanks. Nothing to add to that brilliant post. 

Except that I have identified another strategery (sic) of Suppressed's mendacity. He waited until the coast is clear (the people who are disgusted with his endless preoccupation with rescripting what are to him, impressive (meaningless) charts and graphs which have absolutely nothing to do with the other far more cogent, important points he has ignored so rudely. He is like someone who wants to take a leak on a public street who waited until nobody is walking by, then whips it out and sprays away, hoping that he will get away with it.

Nobody is impressed with phony charts and graphs. That sort of thing is in the same family of devices to convince the credulous, uninformed masses by trying to confuse them with excessive, tangential, utterly unimportant minutiae. Some people believe that if they can't understand something, it MUST be smart.
I am of the opposite view. When I see something posted that is abstruse, confusing overly-complicated/ technical (which most posters would not be able to follow), I assume that someone is rescripting something they have gotten from somewhere else (I have seen those graphs/charts and heard these same silly points raised on every AGW fanatic website which they point to ooing and ahhing like the manapes in 2001:A Space Odyssey set all a twitter by the Great Monolith. OOOOO LOOK! A graph with different colors! It must be REAL SMART AND SCIENCY!!

Two words Bull Sh**! Take it somewhere else, Suppressed. Nobody here is buying it and I refuse to be lured into your endless demands to talk about only what YOU want to talk about. Your rudeness and mendacious attempt to distract, divert and denigrate opposing viewpoints (you said I didn't understand carbon-related radiative forcing, remember? That was an insult you never apologised for) has exhausted my own and everyone else's patience.

Like Jack Nicholson said in "Hoffa", "You're wearin' me out!!"

So buzz off. You are talking to yourself. And don't bother whining that we don't understand the endless BS, we do. We just aren't buying it.

And neither is the U.S. government. Not anymore. The whole notion of Carbon-related radiative forcing is dead.  And long, ,long overdue for a coffin.

No more responses to Suppressed from me on this thread, either directly or indirectly. I don't want an apology any more for his insults. I just want him to confront his own detachment from reality. That's what I really want. Not for me, for him. End the madness. For your own sake. Otherwise people are going to start thinking that you are senile or something because failing to respond simply to direct questions, in easy-to-understand terms, is grossly abnormal.

Nor from me!  I am an old man and have no more time to spare for those skilled in the practice known as "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS!"

@Smokin Joe   Carry on!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nor from me!  I am an old man and have no more time to spare for those skilled in the practice known as "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS!"

@Smokin Joe   Carry on!

He will not hear from me either.  His lies and obfuscations identify him as a lib who cannot argue, just whine.

[EC]

I believe we are still at the questions: Does CO₂ force temperature change, temperature increase push CO₂ out of solution (especially in the oceans), and thus make CO₂ an indicator of temperature change rather than a forcing agent, or does man-produced and naturally released CO₂ affect the temperature.

If so, how much, or are there other factors involved? (Is anthropogenic CO₂ of negligible effect?)

Before that can be decided, note that the temperature measurements since the industrial revolution occur in areas where there is industrialization and urban growth. It is well enough documented that poorly sited, or changes in the siting of measuring equipment can cause changes in temperature readings which are not necessarily reflected in the climate, but are actually an artifact of that development--especially paving, HVAC exhaust, jet aircraft exhaust plumes, and the like. It has been stated that a significant portion of us temperature measuring stations are in locations which compromise the validity of that data, and in almost every case, in a way which would cause those stations to record higher temperatures than would be accurate outside of the microclimate caused by the development.

Hate to say it, Joe, but this argument you used pretty much proves that CO2 forces temperature change.
All the micro-climates you listed have one thing in common - elevated CO2 levels, primarily due to traffic.

[Smokin Joe]

Hate to say it, Joe, but this argument you used pretty much proves that CO2 forces temperature change.
All the micro-climates you listed have one thing in common - elevated CO2 levels, primarily due to traffic.

It proves no such thing. For that to be the case, the effect would have to be immediate and localized. The effect of CO₂ as a "greenhouse gas" just doesn't work that way, and the air moves. But the air that moves in is heated by the structures, HVAC heat exchanger output, and release of absorbed solar energy as heat long after the sun has set.

The 'urban heat island effect' is well documented. It really doesn't prove anything about CO₂, but it does prove that thermometers now sited in urban areas read higher temperatures than they would have if they had remained in a more rural environment.

The real problem comes in when the temperatures recorded in the more urban settings are presumed to be uniform over wider areas which do not have that development.
It is a case of measurement bias toward those artificially hottest microclimates, and assuming that holds for other areas even a few miles away, then blaming CO₂ for the apparent increase created by measuring temperatures next to pavement that has spent the day in the sun, rather than over grass or even bare dirt.

[LateForLunch]

It proves no such thing. For that to be the case, the effect would have to be immediate and localized. The effect of CO₂ as a "greenhouse gas" just doesn't work that way, and the air moves. But the air that moves in is heated by the structures, HVAC heat exchanger output, and release of absorbed solar energy as heat long after the sun has set.

The 'urban heat island effect' is well documented. It really doesn't prove anything about CO₂, but it does prove that thermometers now sited in urban areas read higher temperatures than they would have if they had remained in a more rural environment.

The real problem comes in when the temperatures recorded in the more urban settings are presumed to be uniform over wider areas which do not have that development.
It is a case of measurement bias toward those artificially hottest microclimates, and assuming that holds for other areas even a few miles away, then blaming CO₂ for the apparent increase created by measuring temperatures next to pavement that has spent the day in the sun, rather than over grass or even bare dirt.

That's well summarized. For a comprehensive overview of sound refutations for the entire scope of AGW proponent talking points, one need read Crichton's magnificent State of Fear. He has the ecoparanoid movement nailed down and bleeding from every extremity (LFL:nods to Hunter Thompson).

The great thing is that since that book was written, very little or nothing has changed. The AGW advocates still claim all sorts of scary things but substantiate none of it with genuine science. Instead, the AGW fanatics present utterly bogus, tangential or hopelessly inaccurate misinformation and then parade one leftist shill with a hard science degree or star on the Hollywood walk-of-fame after another insisting that they are presenting the gospel truth and denigrating the character or intelligence of anyone who disagrees without presenting any comprehensive, cogent, credible scientific refutation whatsoever.

The very embodiment of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

And it's not working. Concerns about environmental issues was nearly dead last on the list of things that people said was their number one concern when voting. What is interesting is that even in light of this downward parabola of acceptance in reality denial the ecoparanoids present, they are either unable or unwilling to change their strategery (sic).

They just keep repeating the same old, tired alarmist drivel, throw out a bunch of technical charts and graphs which have no relevance to the larger issues (utterly ignored/avoided by Suppressed and every other AGW advocate the way vampires avoid sunlight) and even less veracity, and insist that anyone who is not convince by this horrifying bonanza is inferior to them either characterologically or intellectually.

Stalin did something similar in regard to people who disagreed with his opinions. First they were wrong. Then immoral. Then crazy. Then finally he labeled them dangerous criminals who needed to be arrested, presecuted/prosecuted, imprisoned or executed. The AGW prononents have tried to do all of that so far save the latter and we hear psychotic leftists advocating it nonetheless.   

[Smokin Joe]

And it's not working. Concerns about environmental issues was nearly dead last on the list of things that people said was their number one concern when voting. What is interesting is that even in light of this downward parabola of acceptance in reality denial the ecoparanoids present, they are either unable or unwilling to change their strategery (sic).

Hard to be hard pressed about something that costs less to heat the house when you are trying to get a job and pay the light bill.

They just keep repeating the same old, tired alarmist drivel, throw out a bunch of technical charts and graphs which have no relevance to the larger issues (utterly ignored/avoided by Suppressed and every other AGW advocate the way vampires avoid sunlight) and even less veracity, and insist that anyone who is not convince by this horrifying bonanza is inferior to them either characterologically or intellectually.

Actually, avoiding sunlight is part of the whole problem of attribution for any climate change. That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room, and the AGW folks are dancing around it. We know solar output is not constant, what we don't know is how much output was happening when in the past. For any level of energy retention, the amount of energy put into the system is a factor, too.

Stalin did something similar in regard to people who disagreed with his opinions. First they were wrong. Then immoral. Then crazy. Then finally he labeled them dangerous criminals who needed to be arrested, presecuted/prosecuted, imprisoned or executed. The AGW prononents have tried to do all of that so far save the latter and we hear psychotic leftists advocating it nonetheless.

Stalin went one further. He declared those dissidents "nonpersons", something the warmists are doing in the halls of science today. You can't get credentials if you don't bow to the cause. You won't pass peer review with a corrupted panel. You aren't published in many academic institutions, you don't get tenure. Once things reach a tipping point those in academic control get to label the rest crackpots or unqualified because they don't have a PhD.  That's happening today, and not just in the halls of 'science', but in virtually every discipline. That Lysenkoistic bent will have serious consequences in the future.

[LateForLunch]

That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room... and the AGW folks are dancing around it. We know solar output is not constant, what we don't know is how much output was happening when in the past. For any level of energy retention, the amount of energy put into the system is a factor, too.

Every day Sol radiates 30 nonillion watts of energy onto the face of Terra. That is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy that the Human Race could generate in ten million years. EVERY DAY. Since physicists view large systems in terms of total energy (such as the total energy of the universe, etc.) when the energy involved in even minuscule variations of solar output is exponentially greater than the energy represented by an inert trace gas representing less than 0.05% of the atmospheric gas, there really is no way a rational person could reasonably conclude that CO2 has any potential for dominating over than energy. Especially when it must ALSO dominate over NATURAL CO2 emissions (usually about 100% to 1000% greater than human contributions) PLUS energy contributed by variations in orbital precession plus energy of variations in axial tilt, cosmic ray effects in upper atmospheric cloud formation, distribution of H20 as humidity, particulates, rain, clouds, oceans, lakes, rivers and fog, plus Coriolois wind variations and surface absorption/distribution of heat, deep ocean current upwelling of methane, it is literally laughable.

If science endures as a legitimate discipline of the elucidation of truth, no doubt they will look back on this entire AGW fanaticism phase and ask, "How could you have all been so easily fooled?"

[Bigun]

I've been wondering when you guys were going to get around to that little detail.

Carry on!

[Smokin Joe]

Every day Sol radiates 30 nonillion watts of energy onto the face of Terra. That is roughly equivalent to the amount of energy that the Human Race could generate in ten million years. EVERY DAY. Since physicists view large systems in terms of total energy (such as the total energy of the universe, etc.) when the energy involved in even minuscule variations of solar output is exponentially greater than the energy represented by an inert trace gas representing less than 0.05% of the atmospheric gas, there really is no way a rational person could reasonably conclude that CO2 has any potential for dominating over than energy. Especially when it must ALSO dominate over NATURAL CO2 emissions (usually about 100% to 1000% greater than human contributions) PLUS energy contributed by variations in orbital precession plus energy of variations in axial tilt, cosmic ray effects in upper atmospheric cloud formation, distribution of H20 as humidity, particulates, rain, clouds, oceans, lakes, rivers and fog, plus Coriolois wind variations and surface absorption/distribution of heat, deep ocean current upwelling of methane, it is literally laughable.

If science endures as a legitimate discipline of the elucidation of truth, no doubt they will look back on this entire AGW fanaticism phase and ask, "How could you have all been so easily fooled?"

Well, if I was the sort to buy into conspiracy theories, I'd question the amount of energy being removed from prevailing winds by windmills, and the effect that would have on atmospheric mixing, and you guessed it, climate (not just the bird chowder at the base of the pylons). At what point would the removal of energy from those systems have an effect, and what would the effect of disrupting those vital solar energy distribution systems have on climate at different latitudes?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, if I was the sort to buy into conspiracy theories, I'd question the amount of energy being removed from prevailing winds by windmills, and the effect that would have on atmospheric mixing, and you guessed it, climate (not just the bird chowder at the base of the pylons). At what point would the removal of energy from those systems have an effect, and what would the effect of disrupting those vital solar energy distribution systems have on climate at different latitudes?

That is a very good point.

Interfering with the climate by installing 'renewables' is a valid claim.  It is not a claim but a fact that those solar and wind grids are killing life here on earth by butchering or incinerating birds.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It proves no such thing. For that to be the case, the effect would have to be immediate and localized. The effect of CO₂ as a "greenhouse gas" just doesn't work that way, and the air moves. But the air that moves in is heated by the structures, HVAC heat exchanger output, and release of absorbed solar energy as heat long after the sun has set.

The 'urban heat island effect' is well documented. It really doesn't prove anything about CO₂, but it does prove that thermometers now sited in urban areas read higher temperatures than they would have if they had remained in a more rural environment.

The real problem comes in when the temperatures recorded in the more urban settings are presumed to be uniform over wider areas which do not have that development.
It is a case of measurement bias toward those artificially hottest microclimates, and assuming that holds for other areas even a few miles away, then blaming CO₂ for the apparent increase created by measuring temperatures next to pavement that has spent the day in the sun, rather than over grass or even bare dirt.

I'd say the real problem remains that there is no proof at all that any temperature change is harmful.

Unless that is proven, CO2 amounts are just a strawman.

[thackney]

I'd question the amount of energy being removed from prevailing winds by windmills,

Keep in mind, the energy is not removed from the total earth system.  The energy is transferred to electrical power, transferred to other devices that do work, producing heat.  The net to the whole system {planet earth}, including all the inefficiencies of the transfers, is net zero energy change.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Keep in mind, the energy is not removed from the total earth system.  The energy is transferred to electrical power, transferred to other devices that do work, producing heat.  The net to the whole system {planet earth}, including all the inefficiencies of the transfers, is net zero energy change.

Are you suggesting that the earth maintains a static balance and there is never import or export?

[Smokin Joe]

Keep in mind, the energy is not removed from the total earth system.  The energy is transferred to electrical power, transferred to other devices that do work, producing heat.  The net to the whole system {planet earth}, including all the inefficiencies of the transfers, is net zero energy change.

Granted, but in the meantime, cubic miles of atmosphere aren't being mixed with their former natural efficiency. When that happens, the air masses which might have had more gradual differences will exist in greater contrast to each other (temperature, humidity) and when those air masses come into contact with other air masses with contrasting properties, the intensity of the mixing along those boundaries would lead to more severe storms--just the sort of thing the AGW folks were blaming on warming.

[Smokin Joe]

Are you suggesting that the earth maintains a static balance and there is never import or export?

I think @thackney is reminding us that energy is neither created nor destroyed...it changes form (potential/mechanical/chemical, etc.) but it doesn't go away. However, transfer of energy from one of those systems to another does affect the systems the energy is transferred in or out of, and the mechanical and other inefficiencies of the various conversions are generally manifested as heat.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Keep in mind, the energy is not removed from the total earth system.  The energy is transferred to electrical power, transferred to other devices that do work, producing heat.  The net to the whole system {planet earth}, including all the inefficiencies of the transfers, is net zero energy change.

And how does that square with this post?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,235145.msg1199848.html#msg1199848

[thackney]

And how does that square with this post?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,235145.msg1199848.html#msg1199848

That post is talking about input from outside the earth system.  I was discussing changes in energy form inside the system. 

Two different topics.  I didn't claim inputs and outputs did not happen to/from the system.  I stated the wind turbine is neither.

[Bigun]

I think @thackney is reminding us that energy is neither created nor destroyed...it changes form (potential/mechanical/chemical, etc.) but it doesn't go away. However, transfer of energy from one of those systems to another does affect the systems the energy is transferred in or out of, and the mechanical and other inefficiencies of the various conversions are generally manifested as heat.

Same thing with water!  Every drop that was ever here still is save a few that have been transported into space.

[thackney]

Granted, but in the meantime, cubic miles of atmosphere aren't being mixed with their former natural efficiency. When that happens, the air masses which might have had more gradual differences will exist in greater contrast to each other (temperature, humidity) and when those air masses come into contact with other air masses with contrasting properties, the intensity of the mixing along those boundaries would lead to more severe storms--just the sort of thing the AGW folks were blaming on warming.

Some have claimed just the opposite end result as well.  Taking energy out of the more extreme (higher winds) and distributing to other areas in the form of heat.  There is also slight but measurable increases rain patterns immediate downstream of the wind turbines, which should mean less rain farther downstream.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That post is talking about input from outside the earth system.  I was discussing changes in energy form inside the system. 

Two different topics.  I didn't claim inputs and outputs did not happen to/from the system.  I stated the wind turbine is neither.

But the changes on earth is not a static 'system'.  The presumption appears to being made is heat and energy does not enter or leave the earth, when there are certainly affects from outside the earth, either positive or negative.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Same thing with water!  Every drop that was ever here still is save a few that have been transported into space.

So water never undergoes any chemical change?

[Bigun]

So water never undergoes any chemical change?

Regardless of that it is still here on this planet!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think @thackney is reminding us that energy is neither created nor destroyed...it changes form (potential/mechanical/chemical, etc.) but it doesn't go away. However, transfer of energy from one of those systems to another does affect the systems the energy is transferred in or out of, and the mechanical and other inefficiencies of the various conversions are generally manifested as heat.

I understand the nature of energy.

Am just reminding people that this earth is decidedly not a static system where we can look just at it to seek equilibrium.  It is subject to tremendous effects from outside the earth system, which must be taken into account.

[Bigun]

I understand the nature of energy.

Am just reminding people that this earth is decidedly not a static system where we can look just at it to seek equilibrium.  It is subject to tremendous effects from outside the earth system, which must be taken into account.

Nope! Never has been static and never will be!  Some cycles are very long (thousands of human lifetimes) but they are there never-the-less.

And BTW: The earth is warming!  Has been since the last ice age ended and will be until the next ice age starts!