Global warming

[mhaze]

Yes, the surface is the source of co2 into the atmsosphere and as a result there is a lot of contamination going at the surface which is carried about by the wind. Very few areas at the surface represent the co2 concentration of the atmosphere as a whole because of this contamination.

This paper documents the existance of this contamination
http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/im...inger2004.pdf#search="co2 urban mixing ratio"

It wasn't understood, in fact back then it wasn't even understood there was a well mixed co2 concentration in the atmosphere. It was believe co2 was distributed unevenly precisely because that's what measurements were showing.

The paper you cite is one of Beck's own references.

I understand that Beck's paper may not be well liked in certain circles.

However, if it were useful to use some of the data to prove a correlation or even causation, between CO2 and temperature, we might be able to come to some agreement.

Many of the 135 studies are available in PDF in the links on Beck's site and all the data is there from all the studies. There is no need to use Beck's summary, use original data.

Can the needle to correlation and possibly causation thus be threaded?

 

[mhaze]

I'm still aiming for precision on this "alarmist" word : if those who are making this claim - say, that Arctic sea-ice is gone by 2020 - turn out to be right, are (were) they still alarmists?

No.

 

[a_unique_person]

Published experiments, data and methods, that are repeatable? Actual atmospheric experiments with real air molecules, at real altitudes, as the sun comes up and the layer warms?

That doesn't seem an unreasonable question, does it?

Do you think that CO2 will not absorb and re-emit radiation in the atmosphere as it does in the laboratory?

 

[a_unique_person]

The paper you cite is one of Beck's own references.

I understand that Beck's paper may not be well liked in certain circles.

However, if it were useful to use some of the data to prove a correlation or even causation, between CO2 and temperature, we might be able to come to some agreement.

Many of the 135 studies are available in PDF in the links on Beck's site and all the data is there from all the studies. There is no need to use Beck's summary, use original data.

Can the needle to correlation and possibly causation thus be threaded?

Original data, that is flawed for the reason Oponol already stated, the CO2 is not mixed in well, which would explain the wild fluctuations seen in the data. The smooth curve observed at Mauna Lou is confirmed by two independent sources, the ice core, and Cape Grim. Neither of these sources have CO2 levels fluctuating so randomly.

 

[mhaze]

Do you think that CO2 will not absorb and re-emit radiation in the atmosphere as it does in the laboratory?

Anyone who has worked in both field and lab work should question how CO2 performs in the troposphere, where other factors exist than in the lab.

 

[mhaze]

Original data, that is flawed for the reason Oponol already stated, the CO2 is not mixed in well, which would explain the wild fluctuations seen in the data. The smooth curve observed at Mauna Lou is confirmed by two independent sources, the ice core, and Cape Grim. Neither of these sources have CO2 levels fluctuating so randomly.

what? you don't like spagetti graphs?

Fluctuating data sets have some merit. If you pick the right sets that go opposed at the right places you could make the little ice age and the medieval warming period go away. Helps make a nice smooth shaft for hockey sticks.

I'm just trying to help warmers prove CO2 causes temperature rise.

If everyone believes it, we should be able to just prove it.

Right?

 

[a_unique_person]

Anyone who has worked in both field and lab work should question how CO2 performs in the troposphere, where other factors exist than in the lab.

CO2 is CO2, if it's in the lab or not. It's going to absorb radiation and re-radiate it.

 

[a_unique_person]

what? you don't like spagetti graphs?

Fluctuating data sets have some merit. If you pick the right sets that go opposed at the right places you could make the little ice age and the medieval warming period go away. Helps make a nice smooth shaft for hockey sticks.

I'm just trying to help warmers prove CO2 causes temperature rise.

If everyone believes it, we should be able to just prove it.

Right?

It's not a matter of liking spaghetti graphs or not. It's a matter of are they reasonable or not. The chaotic behaviour of temparature is to be expected, the mixed level of CO2 not. The mix of CO2 at ground level in inhabited areas, yes.

 

[Geckko]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:

• I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
• I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
• I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).

Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:

although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

 

[a_unique_person]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:

• I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
• I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
• I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).

Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:


My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

That fact has been known from the start, and is well understood. It's not the issue, the main problem is the "enhanced" effect, from feedback mechanisms. It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue, since the logarithmic response was well known.

1) Increasing CO2 will increase warming, either way, even if it is not as strong. Don't forget, we are talking about a doubling of the amount of CO2 with time, so even if the effect is reduced from the direct CO2 contribution, we are adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
2) There are feedback effects. These include change of albedo, as ice melts so that darker areas of the earth are revealed that absorb, rather than reflect, radiation.
3) Measured responses to CO2. Albedo is changing, temperature is rising.

PS

Read the IPCC report. That alone will keep you occupied for quite a while.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

[mhaze]

Can I throw something else into the mix here?

I have been reading quite a bit in many places about the history of the greenhouse theory and the earth's climate and the role of CO2 in all that. I came across something that has left me connfused. Let me explain:

• I read here (on this forum) that the relationship and effect is one which has been understood for a long time.
• I also read here that the threat of global warming comes from the potential further large increase in temperature that will be caused by future increases in CO2.
• I am also aware of James Hansen who is a climate modeller and his views that temperature increases will acceleate (tipping points he refers to).

Then I came across this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

and this statement in particular:


My bold.

These were result from a climate model at the Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center. Wouldn't that be James Hansen's model?

So there is my dilemna. I can't see how all three of the statements above can be correct.

Either we haven't understood this for a long time, or the effect of the next increase in CO2 will be much less that that experienced to date.

We haven't understood it for a long time, and numerous articles and studies indicate that a doubling of CO2 may yield a temperature increase of 0.5-1.1 degrees, not the 2.5-6.5 C that the IPCC indicates.

So there is a big argument over how much of an effect this is - is it a critical problem, requiring everybody to lower greenhouse gas output? Or is it a relatively insignificant problem? To put that into a perspective, suppose the increasing industrialization, technology transfers and rapidly increasing wealth in many parts of the world have a net effect by 2050 of raising global average temperature 0.5 - 1.0 C.

Most people wouldn't care. If it was 6.5 C, that is a tremendous difference.
So it is a giant lie when people say "the science is settled". There is a lot of misinformation, and there are a lot of people with agendas confusing the scientific issues.

Then there are issues with positive and negative feedbacks, and with these crazy "tipping point" ideas that Alarmists use. Hansen has moved into that arena. Every time the IPCC issues a report, their forecasts are less catastrophic, and Hansen gets more so.

I wouldn't bother reading the IPCC stuff, by the way. Maybe the summary for policymakers just to get a flavor of what they are telling governments should go do.

 

[mhaze]

That fact has been known from the start, and is well understood. It's not the issue, the main problem is the "enhanced" effect, from feedback mechanisms. It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue, since the logarithmic response was well known.

1) Increasing CO2 will increase warming, either way, even if it is not as strong. Don't forget, we are talking about a doubling of the amount of CO2 with time, so even if the effect is reduced from the direct CO2 contribution, we are adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
2) There are feedback effects. These include change of albedo, as ice melts so that darker areas of the earth are revealed that absorb, rather than reflect, radiation.
3) Measured responses to CO2. Albedo is changing, temperature is rising.

If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.

Hmm.... what you just said must not be correct ...

Although this part "It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue" was certainly true. They had to be convinced of what was politically correct to say and do. What would affect their funding.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

 

[a_unique_person]

If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.

Hmm.... what you just said must not be correct ...

Although this part "It actually took a bit of work to convince scientists that CO2 was an issue" was certainly true. They had to be convinced of what was politically correct to say and do. What would affect their funding.

The conspiracy theory forum is that way.

If they were so fixated on money, they'd be accountants and CEOs, not researching climate.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

1. A challenge for AGW believers to cite a scientific atmospheric study that provided empirical evidence of the hypothesized greenhouse effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's not one paper, that would be impossible, since the subject is so complex. Ref IPCC reports.

2. This is a link to a summary of Singer's theory of the 1,500 year climate cycle, excerpted from his book. Debunk Singer's core theory, of the 1,500 year climate cycle.

There are so many woo papers, it would be impossible to debunk them all using the scientific process, without extra funding. Hang on, you just said that was all that motivated them. Give them more funding.

3. Can a AGW believer show correlation or causation, or any relationship, between global temperature and global atmospheric CO2 levels?

Read the IPCC report.

 

[mhaze]

Please review the methodologies precisely.

What is causing the CO2 fluctuations in the Mauna Loa record? Does it imply a long CO2 life cycle?
Data source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f1c6357bb97.jpg

Do chemical laws apply to AGW such as Henry's Law Constant?

It would appear that the El Nino affects the CO2 level more than any of the other factors on the graph. El Nino also affects temperatures......

It's curious how all the graphs used by the IPCC and Gore crowd show such a smooth curve for CO2. They must have used something like a ten year average to get rid of the spikes which upset their Creed.

 

[a_unique_person]

It would appear that the El Nino affects the CO2 level more than any of the other factors on the graph. El Nino also affects temperatures......

It's curious how all the graphs used by the IPCC and Gore crowd show such a smooth curve for CO2. They must have used something like a ten year average to get rid of the spikes which upset their Creed.

The Conspiracy Theory forum is that way.

Three independent sources show that well mixed CO2 is going up in what is a smooth curve, with the seasonal influences quite visible. The ice cores, Mauna Loa, and Cape Grime. They are all in on the conspiracy?

 

[mhaze]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

Give it a two long black or three beer look, whichever you prefer.

 

[a_unique_person]

Go back and study DR's CO2 concentration by year chart.

Give it a two long black or three beer look, whichever you prefer.

I'll give it a seconds thought when he explains WTF it is supposed to mean.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

If all that was so very true, these unanswered questions and challenges would be ridiculous, like questioning gravity.

[Rhetorical question]Then why does Kent Hovind's evolution challenge stand unanswered?[/Rhetorical question]

 

[varwoche]

...just as water-vapour acts as a positive feedback to the CO2 feedback.

Getting back to the 'CO2 impact is negligible due to water vapor' canard ... A new study has been published by DOE / Livermore Natl Labs reaffirming:

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.
...
This is the first identification of a human fingerprint on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. article

 

[Mycroft]

Getting back to the 'CO2 impact is negligible due to water vapor' canard ... A new study has been published by DOE / Livermore Natl Labs reaffirming:

I dunno, that article seems to be an elaborate example of "begging the question."

"When you heat the planet, you increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture," said Benjamin Santer, lead author from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's Program for Climate Modeling and Intercomparison. "The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

We know that the air is warmer, and we know that warmer air holds more water, so unless there is some other link between greenhouse gases and air moisture then this statement makes no sense. We expect to find more moisture in the atmosphere because the air is warmer, this is true regardless of how the air got to be warmer.

More water vapor -- which is itself a greenhouse gas -- amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback."

If this is true, if there is no other mechanism in the system to moderate or reverse this "positive feedback", then why isn't our climate like Venus due to a runaway greenhouse effect from the last warming period from 1500 years ago?

This isn't the first time the Earth has been this warm. If the warming causes the ice caps to melt, releases trapped CO2 in the permafrost, releases methane trapped under the sea, and all these countless other effects that feed this loop, then life should have ended many times over.

That I've never seen an adequate answer to this question is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical of global warming theories.

Basically, "fingerprinting" involves searching for a computer model-predicted pattern of climate change (the "fingerprint") in observed climate records. Fingerprint techniques allow researchers to examine a change in some property of the climate system and make rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for that change.

Okay, so what would have been useful information that this reporter chose to leave out is information that describes how this "fingerprint" is arrived at and exactly what it is that excludes other theories.