Maggie's Farm

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
 

Non-citizens have been included in apportionment since the first apportionment in 1790. (Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportionment until enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. 'Insult to injury' as they say.)
 

RangerJoe: Why is Congress bothering to vote to include foreign nationals?

It's strictly political. The Constitution is clear that apportionment is to include all persons, and that has been the practice since the founding. But Republicans can rile up the crowd by pretending it's all the fault of the Democrats.

(Originally, Indians living on their own lands were excluded because they were under their own sovereignty not under the jurisdiction of the United States. However, Indians born in the United States were granted citizenship with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

SK: Indeed. Thanks for pointing this out.

You’re welcome.

The chart in the article only looks at emissions from electricity generation. However, if you look at per-capita emissions from all sources 2014-2023, China went from 7.3t to 8.9t, while the United States went from 16t to 15t.

Cumulative emissions are what count, of course. The West has been emitting for longer, but developing economies are catching up quickly.
 

ruralcounsel: There is little evidence that any of these anthropogenic emissions have a significant impact on the planet's climate.

Multiple lines of evidence indicate climate sensitivity is about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2, including the study of glacial periods, climate effects due to volcanic eruptions, and from the physics of heat energy. The fundamental physics has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

The rate and degree of current warming is anomalous. See, for instance, Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021.

ruralcounsel: You are confusing correlation with causation

Huh? Greenhouse warming is a mechanism (causative).

ruralcounsel: The temperature increases occurs first, then the CO2 increases.

CO2 is a cause and an effect, a feedback mechanism. If the Earth warms, for whatever reason, the oceans can hold less CO2, which increases atmospheric CO2, which amplifies the warming. Water vapor also increases, further amplifying the warming. If the warming lasts long enough, it results in ice melt decreasing Earth's albedo, further amplifying the warming. If the Earth cools, for whatever reason, the oceans can hold more CO2, which decreases atmospheric CO2, which amplifies the cooling. Water vapor also decreases, further amplifying the cooling. If the cooling lasts long enough, it results in ice formation increasing Earth's albedo, further amplifying the cooling. Without these feedbacks, none of Earth's climate history makes sense.

None of this is remarkable in terms of physics. Rather, it's a causative mechanism. In other words, CO2 can be a cause of warming, which is then amplified by positive forcings, including CO2 feedback.

ruralcounsel: Besides, our current CO2 levels are such that they cause all the greenhouse gas effect that they are capable of.

And for some reason, physicists are not aware of this? In any case, we can directly observe the increase, directly contradicting your claim. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2, Nature 2015. Here's one of the observatories. This is not a remarkable finding. The upper atmosphere is very dry, so there is plenty of bandwidth for additional greenhouse effect. Increased CO2 raises the effective ceiling for emission of infrared radiation to space.

The result of solar warming is that the lower and upper atmosphere warms. The result of the increased greenhouse effect is that the lower atmosphere warms while the upper atmosphere cools—and that is what we observe.

ruralcounsel: The only way to make the CO2 effect increase temperature is if the solar radiation of the absorbed wavelengths increases.

We know that the rate of warming is consistent with greenhouse warming, but not consistent with observed changes in solar radiation. We know that the rate of stratospheric cooling is consistent with greenhouse warming, but not consistent with observed changes in solar radiation.

ruralcounsel: The CO2 levels lag the temperature changes.

Unlike modern times, the initial forcing was not due to CO2. Increased insolation in the Northern Hemisphere caused an impulse of warming, which was amplified by feedbacks, including water vapor and CO2 from the oceans, and decreased albedo due to ice melt.

ruralcounsel: They are very aware of it, and it is a well-known fact.

And you ignored the response. The upper atmosphere is dry and not saturated in the bandwidths involved.

ruralcounsel: We know no such thing, because what you just said is a circular argument.

It's not circular argument, but hypothetico-deduction supported by observation. An increase in solar radiation implies that the lower and upper atmosphere will warm. An increase in the greenhouse effect implies that the lower atmosphere will warm, while the upper atmosphere will cool. We observe the latter, which undermines the solar radiation hypothesis and supports the greenhouse hypothesis. Not to mention we do not observe a significant increase in solar radiation.

ruralcounsel: And we have no "observed solar radiation" data over a long enough time period to know the long term impact on climate

The Earth has warmed since the 1970s. Unless you posit magic, that means there is a source for the increase in energy involved.

ruralcounsel: Cloud physics is ignored by the climate models you worship

Climate scientists spend years building and launching satellites that study clouds and atmospheric moisture, then spend more years studying the data. Clouds can act as both positive and negative feedbacks. Observational evidence is that the net effect is positive. See Ceppi et al., Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming, PNAS 2021

ruralcounsel: Whatever reason?

That's right. So, if the sun's radiation were to decrease, positive feedbacks would amplify the effect, cooling the Earth more than would otherwise be expected. If a volcano releases sulfates into the atmosphere, cooling the surface, this would be amplified by positive feedbacks.

ruralcounsel: So what causes the earth to cool and go through periodic ice ages?

Gosh! What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

The glacial cycles over the last millions of years are due to variations in Earth's orbit, called Milankovitch cycles, amplified by positive feedbacks. That's why the Earth tends to seesaw between ice ages and ice-free periods.

ruralcounsel: By your explanations, Earth would have become another Venus millions of years ago, with no way to recover.

Huh? Why would you say that? Positive feedbacks have limits and there are negative feedbacks, as well. Some feedbacks work quickly, such as water vapor; while others only work on geological timescales, such as natural rock weathering.

ruralcounsel: This is what predominantly determines global climate. Not trace amounts of CO2.

Milankovitch cycles don't account for the large changes in global temperature without also accounting for feedbacks, primarily water vapor, CO2, and albedo.

ruralcounsel: We are getting our first chance to scientifically observe this transition happening

Analysis of the Milankovitch cycles predict a slight cooling, not a rapid warming.

ruralcounsel: The whole climate change hoax denies this.

Huh? Quit making stuff up. The most obvious negative feedback is the increase in outgoing radiation as the Earth warms, or Planck feedback. Evaporation and clouds can also act as negative feedbacks. The lapse rate is a negative feedback except in polar regions. Carbon sinks, such as the oceans and biosphere, act as negative feedbacks. Geological weathering acts as a negative feedback over very long time scales.

ruralcounsel: the point is that the CO2 greenhouse feedback hit its limit long ago

That is incorrect. We can directly observe the increase in forcing due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2, Nature 2015. This is not a remarkable finding, and it doesn't go away because you don't like the result. (We've provided you this citation before.)

ruralcounsel: That's assuming the answer to the question being asked.

You claimed that the CO2 greenhouse effect had reached its limit. That is incorrect.

Feldman 2015 is a direct observation of the increase in radiative forcing by CO2. Molecules have specific spectrums of absorption and emission. Per your claim that the CO2 spectrum is saturated, increasing CO2 should not increase the observed back-radiation from the CO2 spectrum. But we do observe an increase, which contradicts your claim. Furthermore, the observed increase in back-radiation from CO2 is of the expected sign and degree due to the known increase in atmospheric CO2.

In simple terms, looking up into the sky, the heat radiation from CO2 is increasing as CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

Again, this is not a remarkable finding as the greenhouse effect has been understood for over a century. (See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896.) But it is a nice confirmation.

ruralcounsel: "As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further."

That's right! So, your own citation supports the fact that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes additional surface warming.

ruralcounsel: Though they avoid the issue of how much further warming it will cause, it is safe to assume that it too will reach saturation, and that it will have diminishing effect.

That's right! The effect is logarithmic, meaning each additional unit of CO2 has a smaller radiative effect. Consequently, the effect is usually expressed per doubling of atmospheric CO2.

CO2 will directly cause about 1°C warming per doubling of CO2, which can be calculated from first principles, and as observationally confirmed by Feldman 2015.

Keeping in mind that the Earth is a watery world, as the surface warms, the atmosphere will absorb more water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas. That will result in a TCR (transient climate response) of about 2°C per doubling of CO2. Over a bit longer time scale, the warmer surface will result in ice melt reducing Earth's albedo, along with ocean warming, resulting in an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. This is consistent with the observed warming of the Earth's surface. Climate sensitivity is also essential for understanding changes to Earth's historical climate.