# Earth is trapping twice as much heat as it did in 2005

#### Catastrophe

##### "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
As I posted elsewhere, but even more relevant here, I was watching a program from the Smithsonian, which concluded with the suggestion that humanity is now joining asteroids and volcanoes as prime dangers of global extinctions.

Cat

sam85geo

#### Helio

"Radiative forcing" (W/m^2) is the term to understand regarding global warming. There are lots of variables and in many areas of science are able to get a handle on how much increase or decrease there is or will be to radiative forcing (heat).

I'm no climatologist, but if I am understanding the paper referenced, it seems to be talking about the change in the net difference between the energy we get from the Sun and the amount we vent back into space. Currently about 0.3%.

All planets reach a balance in this, so they will all, eventually, be at 0% on average. For instance, an incoming comet will get hotter due to getting closer to the Sun. This causes the surface to got hotter and hotter until the radiation (IR) as able to dump all that incoming heat. But some of that energy is absorbed by the ice to become a gas, which vents and lowers that ratio of in and out energy, temporarily.

Thus, small variations are expected, especially for planets with dynamic oceans and atmospheres.

But the following got my attention regarding their confidence, or range of confidence:
We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of
0.50 plus or minus 0.47 W/m^2 decade (5%-95% confidence interval).
That energy range seems very large, so it is then a range of 0.03 to 0.97 watts/ sq. meter. [That is a standard deviation statistical method, so it may prove to be greater or lower still.]

#### willnkc

Let's keep this real. There is no proof whatsoever that carbon is causing any change to the climate. There is about .034% carbon in the atmosphere, a trace amount, and it's been much higher in the past. The biggest producer of carbon in our atmosphere is the oceans, not what's coming out of our tail pipes, which again is minuscule. Instead of blaming a trace gas that is necessary for life on the planet, let's look at the real cause, like the massive amounts of nuclear, chemical, plastic, and plastic byproducts, being spewed into the oceans everyday. Stop blaming carbon, that is just a political diversion from the real problem, and that's the damage we are doing to the oceans.

#### sam85geo

As I look out my window, the magnolia tree is growing faster this year than last. The local apple orchards are doing well, and are on schedule to have another bumper crop and thus decreased prices this year again. Likewise, the local sweet corn harvest. At 41 degrees North and 73 degrees West, it's so far a cool, comfortable summer. Carbon dioxide and warming at work? But, I'm not to be lulled into complacency. The global warming trend and it's attendant human pollution of the environment are clear warning signs that possible drastic changes are happening. Getting agreement for taking remedial actions seems next to impossible which may be to our collective detriment. I just don't know.

Catastrophe

#### Helio

As I look out my window, the magnolia tree is growing faster this year than last. The local apple orchards are doing well, and are on schedule to have another bumper crop and thus decreased prices this year again. Likewise, the local sweet corn harvest. At 41 degrees North and 73 degrees West, it's so far a cool, comfortable summer. Carbon dioxide and warming at work? But, I'm not to be lulled into complacency. The global warming trend and it's attendant human pollution of the environment are clear warning signs that possible drastic changes are happening. Getting agreement for taking remedial actions seems next to impossible which may be to our collective detriment. I just don't know.
Yes, I have read that the the slightly higher level of CO2 has improved the health of all things that rely on it (e.g. trees). But that is only a silver lining to a potential storm that is growing. The challenge is for science to get a handle on climate sensitivity. Can we produce a model that can accurately predict decadal changes, not longer term predictions? Perhaps we are close now, but it can be hard to separate science from hype given this is such a huge band wagon.

The success science has had with getting the ban on CFCs to reverse the ozone hole, for instance, demonstrates global climate issues can sometimes be modeled with great results. I'm optimistic that good science will win the day, but scrutiny must be more than just tolerated to counter the huge pressure by others, and there are too many examples of this.

Catastrophe