Global warming

Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies considerably - in one location, over the course of a year - downwind of a major urban environment - in a year with El Nino or without.
Click to expand...

If you total all the areas downwind (?) of urban enviroments, it still comes to a tiny fraction of the Eastern Pacific influenced by El Nino/La Nina. Just to get some sense of scale.

Moreover, numerous environments hold low or negligible quantities of water vapor.
Click to expand...

None of them over the oceans, which constitute about 70% of the surface. Of the rest, the dessicated area is a small minority. There's a desert band from the Sahara to the Gobi but it's well outweighed by the wetlands to North and South.

Therefore, it seems possible to look directly at various concentrations of CO2 in the air and what their effects are, instead of taking refuge in highly questionable computer modeling.
Click to expand...

You can't stop the weather from intruding unless you consider the whole planet. Sorry, but there it is. Without doing the experiment in a greenhouse, anyway, which would rather negate the purpose.
 
CapelDodger said:
Not only that, but no unexpected feedbacks have appeared. The rate of, say, permafrost melt is unexpectedly high, but we always knew it would be a positive feedback - permafrost sequesters a lot of carbon. It probably makes a significant contribution during glaciatl/inter-glacial phase-shifts. Working out how much is bit of a nightmare, of course, given that the permafrost-zone migrates on the surface of a sphere.

I'll make a point here that may not be universally appreciated : a positive feedback amplifies any change, warming or cooling. If the "natural cooling phase" that some predict for the near future does occur, the positive feedbacks will soon make it apparent.
Click to expand...

Which is why Hansen says he is worried. When the climate changes, it often seems to flip from one state to another, due to the feedback mechanisms. We have been fortunate to live in a time when negative feedback mechanisms have kept the climate relatively stable.
 
a_unique_person said:
It happens from the top of the troposphere down. The higher parts of the troposphere are going to be well mixed, because the CO2 is produced at the surface. Localised eddies at the surface aren't going to make much difference to the overall effect.
Click to expand...

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.


Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)


It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
 
David Rodale said:
Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f5ffbe95965.jpg

Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f6008157314.jpg

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
Click to expand...

Why is there an underlying signal? To confirm that it is burning of fossil fuels behind the background trend, "carbon dating" has been used.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

That there is not a uniform lockstep happening in what is a chaotic system does not surprise me at all, neither that there is an underlying background trend.

Another geologist out of his depth? For some reason, engineers and geologists seem to be behind a lot of the ignorance out there.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
 
Last edited:
One thing I note about coping with global warming, the deniers say we can't afford collective action, but we can rely on the free market to help when the problems kick in. We will also be able to work our way out using our advancing technological skills.

Two points.

Why can't the free market do something now, (it will cost us too much apparently), how do we know it can react appropriately when the time comes.
Why can't we use our great technological skills to prevent the whole problem now? Why should we be able to rely on technology in the future when it is not magically preventing the problem now?
 
oponol said:
Conclusions like this are possible then:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Click to expand...

All kinds of conclusions are possible by looking at the actual data. As I am sure you are aware, quite often one study is rapidly followed by another which directly contradicts it. Then another comes out that points to a deeper underlying meaning, etc. That's the process.

But when I am suggesting that we (here on this forum) look at the raw data and try to see if there are correlations and actual relationships, it is only because it does seem like the correct way to study and understand the issue.

The entire subject of AGW has been highly politicized and biased even in what should be the purely scientific arena. Consider any discussion on quantum physics on the JREF forum. There is none of the nonsense that is seen on discussions on global warming.
 
a_unique_person said:
One thing I note about coping with global warming, the deniers say we can't afford collective action, but we can rely on the free market to help when the problems kick in. We will also be able to work our way out using our advancing technological skills.

Two points.

Why can't the free market do something now, (it will cost us too much apparently), how do we know it can react appropriately when the time comes.
Why can't we use our great technological skills to prevent the whole problem now? Why should we be able to rely on technology in the future when it is not magically preventing the problem now?
Click to expand...

After the vast number of studies and scientists whom you have denied, calling them as nutters and loons (without reading a bit of it) you would like to ask a question like this?

Maybe you should just go read some of their work or consider alternate points of view.

By the way what you are describing is an engineering problem and the application of the engineering method to solving a problem. Oh, but you have already denied engineers, geologists, and economists.
 
David Rodale said:
Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events? Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed c)chemical and thermodynamic laws actually do apply to CO2.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f5ffbe95965.jpg

Further, does CO2 have the omnipotent power to control ENSO and volcanoes? How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2? Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:
data source:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (graph data is taken from global temperatures, with annual changes)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032346f6008157314.jpg

It is difficult to discern at first glance looking at the seemingly perfectly smooth upward trend normally shown, but the pattern is definitely there. What is actually driving CO2 levels?

Please explain where Segalstad is wrong:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/whatisco.ppt
Click to expand...

The powerpoint presentation is quite interesting.

Three points I think are worth repeating from it -

1. We need to talk about heat capacity and heat energy, not temperature
2. Clouds are the real thermostat, having far more temperature regulating power than CO2
3. There have been over 40 scientific studies that prove the atmospheric CO2 lifetime to be 5-6 years, not the "hundreds of years" that the IPCC alleges.
​
Overall the AGW concept is primarily a radiative energy model, while the actual planet is mostly a convective energy system.

Now AGW True Believers deny over 135 peer reviewed studies of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and also, over 40 scientific studies of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Hmm....other established areas of science do they deny the reality of?
 
a_unique_person said:
It happens from the top of the troposphere down. The higher parts of the troposphere are going to be well mixed, because the CO2 is produced at the surface. Localised eddies at the surface aren't going to make much difference to the overall effect.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the time for co2 equilibrium to be reached with how long and where the effect is seen, if there is any effect. For troposphere, consider 20,000 feet. It takes an hour or so for a cumulonimbus to develop and reach 20,000 feet. That or less is obviously how long co2 on the ground spreads. As I recall from somewhere, the speed of reaching equilibrium concentration in gas partial pressure should be the speed of sound in the medium (might have that wrong).

But that has no relation to how and when there is a greenhouse effect. There is one or is not one as the case may be, at 20,000 feet at the instant the sun rises above the horizon, and begins the process of thermal warming of the planet. You can take it from there to see the daily cycle, and also the "global warming" cycle as it applies to winter and summer.

The actual effect of "global warming" should be in the rate of change of tropospheric temperatures, right? How rapidly they heat up in response to the Earth's IR, and how rapidly their heat content decays.

Upper Troposphere = cold.

Hmm....moving heat from a cold area to a hot area....
 
mhaze said:
All kinds of conclusions are possible by looking at the actual data. As I am sure you are aware, quite often one study is rapidly followed by another which directly contradicts it. Then another comes out that points to a deeper underlying meaning, etc. That's the process.

But when I am suggesting that we (here on this forum) look at the raw data and try to see if there are correlations and actual relationships, it is only because it does seem like the correct way to study and understand the issue.

The entire subject of AGW has been highly politicized and biased even in what should be the purely scientific arena. Consider any discussion on quantum physics on the JREF forum. There is none of the nonsense that is seen on discussions on global warming.
Click to expand...

Yet it too is just based on science.
 
mhaze said:
The powerpoint presentation is quite interesting.

Three points I think are worth repeating from it -
1. We need to talk about heat capacity and heat energy, not temperature

​
Click to expand...


You are ignoring the change that is happening. In terms of degrees K, it's quite small, but that small change is enough to change the climate and ecosystems drastically. That is, and always has been, the point.

2. Clouds are the real thermostat, having far more temperature regulating power than CO2
Click to expand...

Ditto. So far clouds haven't stopped the warming, either.

3. There have been over 40 scientific studies that prove the atmospheric CO2 lifetime to be 5-6 years, not the "hundreds of years" that the IPCC alleges.
Click to expand...

It's the change that is significant. Mauna Loa and Cape Grimes both show, it's steadily increasing. The isotope measurements confirm it's us adding the extra CO2. It's not going away, it's accumulating.

​
Overall the AGW concept is primarily a radiative energy model, while the actual planet is mostly a convective energy system.
Click to expand...

It's the radiation that is trapping the extra heat, jacking up the temperature of the whole system, that is, it is a 'forcing'.

Now AGW True Believers deny over 135 peer reviewed studies of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and also, over 40 scientific studies of the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

No, it's about why is it increasing, the change that increased amount is causing, and the lifetime of that increase.

Hmm....other established areas of science do they deny the reality of?
Click to expand...

You are into the realms of fiction.
 
mhaze said:
You are confusing the time for co2 equilibrium to be reached with how long and where the effect is seen, if there is any effect. For troposphere, consider 20,000 feet. It takes an hour or so for a cumulonimbus to develop and reach 20,000 feet. That or less is obviously how long co2 on the ground spreads. As I recall from somewhere, the speed of reaching equilibrium concentration in gas partial pressure should be the speed of sound in the medium (might have that wrong).

But that has no relation to how and when there is a greenhouse effect. There is one or is not one as the case may be, at 20,000 feet at the instant the sun rises above the horizon, and begins the process of thermal warming of the planet. You can take it from there to see the daily cycle, and also the "global warming" cycle as it applies to winter and summer.

The actual effect of "global warming" should be in the rate of change of tropospheric temperatures, right? How rapidly they heat up in response to the Earth's IR, and how rapidly their heat content decays.

Upper Troposphere = cold.

Hmm....moving heat from a cold area to a hot area....
Click to expand...

As CD said, measure the infra red coming from the sky at nighttime. It might be cold up there, but the CO2 is radiating energy.
 
a_unique_person said:
Yes, it's all in the IPCC reports. The question is the change, why it is warming.
Click to expand...

Yes, all the contraditions and illogical conclusions that are in the IPCC reports, we should rout them out into the open and expose how ridiculous they are. I would have no problem with always stating page and chapter numbers when referring to the IPCC reports. Would you also like to do so?

Why is it warming? It appears to be because we are in the warming phase of a 60-80 year cycle and also coming out of a little ice age.

Now let's think that thru carefully. It used to be a "little ice age". Now it is not. Is it probably getting warmer, colder, or would there be no change in temperature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom