"The result is that there is an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs all of the thermal radiation from the Earth, meaning that adding even more CO2 has no further effect."
There is NO an amount of CO2, the amount of CO2 is growing every day. Humans are adding more and more CO2, so more CO2 added means more heat absorption and that is the problem, so, yes we are getting hotter by human interaction. Also take in account that not only CO2 is by absorption blocking heat to escape from atmosfere, smog is also huge blocking attribute. Again humans. The result is that Earth is getting hotter. Greenland is rapidly melting and all the world glaciers to. Greenland melted ice mass is definitely enough to rise sea level even if we don't add glaciers, that way that many islands like the ones photos you showed will disappear. No graphs, plain reasoning. Cheers! P.S. there is correlation between temp and CO2, plots are almost identical.
Zoran Gracer, there appears to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature during much of the last 800,000 years, but which came first? If you had read my paper above (383385011) you would know that at the end of the last ice age, temperature increased about 800 years before the CO2 started to increase. Please understand that over the past 550 million years, the evidence shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature (again shown in my paper). The Earth's climate is complex and we do not understand it well enough to make forecasts like the IPCC and others are attempting to do. And, as for the IPCC, read the critique of its latest 'Summary for Policymakers' at https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Critique-of-AR6-Clintel-ICSF.pdf. The IPCC Summary of about 41 pages hypes catastrophe. This is the only part of the overall IPCC Report that most people read. Yet, almost none of it supported by the more than 3,000 pages of technical analysis within the main IPCC AR6 report. The IPCC appears to be a 'political' body with an apparent fixation on ensuring the world decarbonizes even though there seems to be no true science to show that manmade CO2 is causing climate change.
Zoran Gracer, what you say about Greenland, glaciers and sea level is true and has happened several times in the geological past, without man being involved. At about 6,500 years ago, the sea levels within Moreton Bay, Queensland, and indeed throughout most of Asia, were about 1 metre higher than today, again having nothing to do with manmade CO2. If you have read my paper above (383385011) you would understand.
One thing are natural cycles of Earth and yes nobody negate them. But we can not deny our human intervention in that. It is impossible that we are not affecting these cycles. What you are saying actually is that we could go on with what we do and there would be absolutely no consequences for our actions. How much we (humans not nature) have to add heat and CO2 to reach the point to get cycles out of the balance? Could we endlessly produce more heat and CO2?
Zoran Gracer, there is only a small part of the Earth's heat emissions that CO2 can absorb, as is shown in my paper. The science is that even at about 200ppm of CO2, all of the Earth's heat within the band of wavelengths, or frequencies, that CO2 can absorb is absorbed. There is no more heat from the Earth within those wavelengths to absorb. The Earth is not an electric radiator being constantly heated. Its heat is mainly from the sun during the day(obviously). If it were not heated every day, the Earth would be a very frigid place indeed. With the usual daily cycle of heating and cooling that Earth has now, it average temperature is about 15 deg C. Without so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth's temperature would be about -18 deg C; i.e. it would be about 33 deg C cooler than now. So we have a system of heat input and heat emission that is essentially in balance, kept in balance at today's average temperature by greenhouse gases like CO2. If CO2 at 200ppm pretty nearly absorbs all of the Earth's heat within its ability to absorb, then adding more CO2 has little effect. What adding more CO2 does do is to increase the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly closer to the Earth's surface (gravity). This has the effect that there are enough CO2 molecules nearer to the Earth's surface to fully absorb the Earth's heat radiation closer to the Earth's surface.
I understand natural cycles on Earth. You are right sun is heating Earth and Earth is in heating and cooling cycle, that's natural. Problem is that WE are heating Earth by our actions constantly just like the radiator, adding more and more heat and CO2. Because of the amount of our massive production of CO2 and heat, it is impossible that that don't have any effect on Earth natural cycles. If you add something to equation, in this case CO2 human made, it has to absorb more heat, there is no little effect. Molecules closer to Earth are absorbing heat, that means that more heat is trapped in our atmosphere. We are throwing natural cycles of our dear Earth out of balance.
"There is no more heat from the Earth within those wavelengths to absorb". What you are saying is that we have specific/fix amount of heat produced on Earth, or that CO2 has full capacity. Both can't stand, because humans are adding more and more heat and, or more CO2 (more CO2 could absorb more).
Education and occupation are irrelevant, I have plenty of science and tech knowledge to see what people are doing to get result they want. When you write the paper like this, you have clear goal to prove something. That means that you will take what is supporting your thesis and easily ignore stuff that is not fitting in. Mr. Hackett did just that. Few graphs (which are fine but conclusions are wrong) and photos, ignoring what he don't like and there is unconvincing result.
Here is what I think climate change, in short one our attempt when I could not sleep.
Earth is actually living organism with cycles and these cycles are on steady pace for hundreds, sometime thousands or even millions years long. Nothing happened overnight only catastrophes like when asteroid hit Earth. Humans nonius is length of human life, which is nothing in comparison to these cycles and that is obscuring our understanding. So, yes we could be in a natural cycle of warming, but what is our part in that story. Could we ignore our participation?
Here are some rough numbers what we do. There are:
443 nuc. power plants in the world with average power of 2000MW with zero emison
2500 coal power plants in the world with average power of 2000GW with 15 billion tons of CO2 emission per year
29000 gas power plants in the world with average power of 3000MW don’t know emission
14 billion cars in the world, in US single car produce every year 4.6 metric tons of CO2. Do the math.
This is human CO2 production. All that stay trapped in our atmosphere. To ignore that amount of CO2 as mr.Hackett is in his paper is ridiculous. This is real and is not going anywhere. He is talking about how limited natural absorption of heat is by CO2, that no more heat could be absorbed and so we are fine. That would be fine for natural amount of CO2 produced by Earth, but humans are adding more and more of our CO2 in the atmosphere. How could he ignore that?
Another problem is that he is not taking human produced heat in equation. All the power plants, cars, and our appliances are producing heat as side product. Power plants, we cool down with water. The efficiency of power plants is about 35%, we are producing heat to create steam, to power turbine that are powering generators. Car’s combustion engines are the sam 35% efficient. Our fridges, stoves, ACs…. are not much better. When we see that one nuc. power plant output is 2000MW that means that roughly 4000MW is released to the atmosphere by cooling. As we know from laws of thermodynamics energy could not be destroyed, so all that heat stays in our atmosphere. It is heating Earth.
Here we have CO2 and the heat that we humans are producing and ignoring or even worst, denying effects of it when talking about our interference with natural cycles of our Earth. By mr. Hackett that is insignificant.
Regurgitating left wing talking points is pointless. You have no credibility here unless you lay it on the line and quit hiding. Numbers alone mean nothing.
All of the climate change fear and policy are based on models. As any economist will tell you, all models are wrong. Some would add, wrong but useful. All of the policy, all of the anti-capitalist demands made to save the world, are based on stinking models. The "science" trying to describe future change in the most infinitely complex system there is, is not a replicable physical experiment. It's a bunch of models. Think about how accurate models have been in the recent past predicting the recent future concerning things much less complex than climate.
Jeff could you please explain your understanding of cryptocurrency? You have referred to it several times as a disruptor. I do not see how it will function. Thanks ahead of time.
Sure thing. Probably worthy of a series of blogposts. Here are two, and I own the coins; Helium.com and Filecoin.com. Helium will compete with the big Telcos. Filecoin could compete with all the big cloud companies.
IPCC mantra that manmade CO2 is the cause of climate change is very highly likely wrong. Read my papers at https://www.scribd.com/document/529064626/ and https://www.scribd.com/document/383385011/.
"The result is that there is an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs all of the thermal radiation from the Earth, meaning that adding even more CO2 has no further effect."
There is NO an amount of CO2, the amount of CO2 is growing every day. Humans are adding more and more CO2, so more CO2 added means more heat absorption and that is the problem, so, yes we are getting hotter by human interaction. Also take in account that not only CO2 is by absorption blocking heat to escape from atmosfere, smog is also huge blocking attribute. Again humans. The result is that Earth is getting hotter. Greenland is rapidly melting and all the world glaciers to. Greenland melted ice mass is definitely enough to rise sea level even if we don't add glaciers, that way that many islands like the ones photos you showed will disappear. No graphs, plain reasoning. Cheers! P.S. there is correlation between temp and CO2, plots are almost identical.
Zoran Gracer, there appears to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature during much of the last 800,000 years, but which came first? If you had read my paper above (383385011) you would know that at the end of the last ice age, temperature increased about 800 years before the CO2 started to increase. Please understand that over the past 550 million years, the evidence shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature (again shown in my paper). The Earth's climate is complex and we do not understand it well enough to make forecasts like the IPCC and others are attempting to do. And, as for the IPCC, read the critique of its latest 'Summary for Policymakers' at https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Critique-of-AR6-Clintel-ICSF.pdf. The IPCC Summary of about 41 pages hypes catastrophe. This is the only part of the overall IPCC Report that most people read. Yet, almost none of it supported by the more than 3,000 pages of technical analysis within the main IPCC AR6 report. The IPCC appears to be a 'political' body with an apparent fixation on ensuring the world decarbonizes even though there seems to be no true science to show that manmade CO2 is causing climate change.
Zoran Gracer, what you say about Greenland, glaciers and sea level is true and has happened several times in the geological past, without man being involved. At about 6,500 years ago, the sea levels within Moreton Bay, Queensland, and indeed throughout most of Asia, were about 1 metre higher than today, again having nothing to do with manmade CO2. If you have read my paper above (383385011) you would understand.
One thing are natural cycles of Earth and yes nobody negate them. But we can not deny our human intervention in that. It is impossible that we are not affecting these cycles. What you are saying actually is that we could go on with what we do and there would be absolutely no consequences for our actions. How much we (humans not nature) have to add heat and CO2 to reach the point to get cycles out of the balance? Could we endlessly produce more heat and CO2?
Zoran Gracer, there is only a small part of the Earth's heat emissions that CO2 can absorb, as is shown in my paper. The science is that even at about 200ppm of CO2, all of the Earth's heat within the band of wavelengths, or frequencies, that CO2 can absorb is absorbed. There is no more heat from the Earth within those wavelengths to absorb. The Earth is not an electric radiator being constantly heated. Its heat is mainly from the sun during the day(obviously). If it were not heated every day, the Earth would be a very frigid place indeed. With the usual daily cycle of heating and cooling that Earth has now, it average temperature is about 15 deg C. Without so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the Earth's temperature would be about -18 deg C; i.e. it would be about 33 deg C cooler than now. So we have a system of heat input and heat emission that is essentially in balance, kept in balance at today's average temperature by greenhouse gases like CO2. If CO2 at 200ppm pretty nearly absorbs all of the Earth's heat within its ability to absorb, then adding more CO2 has little effect. What adding more CO2 does do is to increase the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, particularly closer to the Earth's surface (gravity). This has the effect that there are enough CO2 molecules nearer to the Earth's surface to fully absorb the Earth's heat radiation closer to the Earth's surface.
I understand natural cycles on Earth. You are right sun is heating Earth and Earth is in heating and cooling cycle, that's natural. Problem is that WE are heating Earth by our actions constantly just like the radiator, adding more and more heat and CO2. Because of the amount of our massive production of CO2 and heat, it is impossible that that don't have any effect on Earth natural cycles. If you add something to equation, in this case CO2 human made, it has to absorb more heat, there is no little effect. Molecules closer to Earth are absorbing heat, that means that more heat is trapped in our atmosphere. We are throwing natural cycles of our dear Earth out of balance.
"There is no more heat from the Earth within those wavelengths to absorb". What you are saying is that we have specific/fix amount of heat produced on Earth, or that CO2 has full capacity. Both can't stand, because humans are adding more and more heat and, or more CO2 (more CO2 could absorb more).
Zoran, are you a scientist? What's your background? Do you have an undergrad or advanced degree? Occupation?
Education and occupation are irrelevant, I have plenty of science and tech knowledge to see what people are doing to get result they want. When you write the paper like this, you have clear goal to prove something. That means that you will take what is supporting your thesis and easily ignore stuff that is not fitting in. Mr. Hackett did just that. Few graphs (which are fine but conclusions are wrong) and photos, ignoring what he don't like and there is unconvincing result.
Here is what I think climate change, in short one our attempt when I could not sleep.
Earth is actually living organism with cycles and these cycles are on steady pace for hundreds, sometime thousands or even millions years long. Nothing happened overnight only catastrophes like when asteroid hit Earth. Humans nonius is length of human life, which is nothing in comparison to these cycles and that is obscuring our understanding. So, yes we could be in a natural cycle of warming, but what is our part in that story. Could we ignore our participation?
Here are some rough numbers what we do. There are:
443 nuc. power plants in the world with average power of 2000MW with zero emison
2500 coal power plants in the world with average power of 2000GW with 15 billion tons of CO2 emission per year
29000 gas power plants in the world with average power of 3000MW don’t know emission
14 billion cars in the world, in US single car produce every year 4.6 metric tons of CO2. Do the math.
This is human CO2 production. All that stay trapped in our atmosphere. To ignore that amount of CO2 as mr.Hackett is in his paper is ridiculous. This is real and is not going anywhere. He is talking about how limited natural absorption of heat is by CO2, that no more heat could be absorbed and so we are fine. That would be fine for natural amount of CO2 produced by Earth, but humans are adding more and more of our CO2 in the atmosphere. How could he ignore that?
Another problem is that he is not taking human produced heat in equation. All the power plants, cars, and our appliances are producing heat as side product. Power plants, we cool down with water. The efficiency of power plants is about 35%, we are producing heat to create steam, to power turbine that are powering generators. Car’s combustion engines are the sam 35% efficient. Our fridges, stoves, ACs…. are not much better. When we see that one nuc. power plant output is 2000MW that means that roughly 4000MW is released to the atmosphere by cooling. As we know from laws of thermodynamics energy could not be destroyed, so all that heat stays in our atmosphere. It is heating Earth.
Here we have CO2 and the heat that we humans are producing and ignoring or even worst, denying effects of it when talking about our interference with natural cycles of our Earth. By mr. Hackett that is insignificant.
Regurgitating left wing talking points is pointless. You have no credibility here unless you lay it on the line and quit hiding. Numbers alone mean nothing.
Further to my post immediately below, read the letter sent to the IPCC on 26 Oct 21 by CLINTEL. It is important. It disputes much of the latest IPCC Assessment Report about climate change. See the letter at https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Critique-of-AR6-Clintel-ICSF.pdf.
All of the climate change fear and policy are based on models. As any economist will tell you, all models are wrong. Some would add, wrong but useful. All of the policy, all of the anti-capitalist demands made to save the world, are based on stinking models. The "science" trying to describe future change in the most infinitely complex system there is, is not a replicable physical experiment. It's a bunch of models. Think about how accurate models have been in the recent past predicting the recent future concerning things much less complex than climate.
Jeff could you please explain your understanding of cryptocurrency? You have referred to it several times as a disruptor. I do not see how it will function. Thanks ahead of time.
Sure thing. Probably worthy of a series of blogposts. Here are two, and I own the coins; Helium.com and Filecoin.com. Helium will compete with the big Telcos. Filecoin could compete with all the big cloud companies.