Atmospheric CO2 has gone up 20% since 1960

[Raze]

brumsen, take a look at this video, which is Part 2 of a video series I linked to earlier. This one goes directly to the sequence we are talking about, and below the video link is a direct quote from about 2:26:


Bob Carter: "Changing temperature precedes the change in carbon dioxide."

Yes, but as I see it, that is not what is important in determining the big picture in climate change. What is important is this:

How fast SHOULD the temperature return to equilibrium after an increase in solar activity when the planet's emissivity is held constant versus how fast it DOES return to equilibrium after an increase in solar activity.​

Because clearly a rise in temperature (due to solar activity) would release methane, CO₂, etc that is trapped in the ocean or in ice, so one would expect increases in temperature to precede increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (ETA- holding non "naturally" caused changes in greenhouse gases out of the equation).

Again, what is important is how fast the temperature should return to equilibrium versus how fast it actually does. If it takes LONGER for temperature to return to equilibrium, then there is something on the earth that is an important factor.

 

[mhaze]

Naysayers and skeptics should also keep in mind that according to the ice core data for the last 50 years that I posted, the great majority of the temperature fluxuations were above zero and NOT below zero. this shows a gradual warming trend over the last 50 years..not a cooling trend or no trend at all.

Ahhh....Partly incorrect. "Last 50 years" for ice isn't even packed down - it is still snowpiles. It isn't comparable to old ice. They are pulling up ice cores that are really, really old.

Recent data is from thermometers. I don't think anyone thinks that the 20th century has gotten somewhat warmer, the exact amount may be argued but is not related to this discussion.

Your chart really does not show the last 50 years. Think about it, considering the chart to be comprised of 450 pixels sideways for 450,000 years. Each pixel is 1000 years....

 

[Sherman Bay]

no...its the opposite. sorry bud.

I have supplied evidence. What is yours?

Naysayers and skeptics should also keep in mind that according to the ice core data for the last 50 years that I posted, the great majority of the temperature fluxuations were above zero and NOT below zero. this shows a gradual warming trend over the last 50 years..not a cooling trend or no trend at all.

And this has happened thousands of times in the last million years, maybe more. Just pick the 50 year section that proves what you want to prove, cooling, warming or no change. 50 years isn't even a pixel's worth of the Earth's timeline and too short to mean anything at all trend-wise.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Because clearly a rise in temperature (due to solar activity) would release methane, CO₂, etc that is trapped in the ocean or in ice, so one would expect increases in temperature to precede increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (ETA- holding non "naturally" caused changes in greenhouse gases out of the equation).

OK, so by this theory we expect temperature rises to precede CO₂ increase. And the data shows that to be the case. Q.E.D.

 

[Thunder]

And this has happened thousands of times in the last million years, maybe more. Just pick the 50 year section that proves what you want to prove, cooling, warming or no change. 50 years isn't even a pixel's worth of the Earth's timeline and too short to mean anything at all trend-wise.

so, then, what is your explenation for the wacky temperature variations that start taking place around 40 years ago?

most scientists call it GHG induced Global Climate Change. what is your theory?

furthermore, is it your contention that a 21% increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels over 50 years will NOT affect the Earth's climate?

I'm sorry, but the ice core data is very clear. temperature changes and CO2 changes go hand in hand. when CO2 goes up..so does temperature.

 

[Raze]

Because clearly a rise in temperature (due to solar activity) would release methane, CO2, etc that is trapped in the ocean or in ice, so one would expect increases in temperature to precede increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (ETA- holding non "naturally" caused changes in greenhouse gases out of the equation).

OK, so by this theory we expect temperature rises to precede CO₂ increase. And the data shows that to be the case. Q.E.D.

No, it is not that simple. We expect INITIAL temperature rises to precede CO₂. We could then have that energy linger, while more energy is pumped into the system. The problem, of course, is that we cannot know to what degree continued input of energy versus retarded release of energy due to the increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere direct the change in energy flux.

That is why we must look at the amount of time it takes to return to thermodynamic equilibrium (i.e. no more large changes in temperature over the examined time interval), and compare it to what we would expect if human activity was negligible. Further, the rate of change OF the rate of change of the temperature will be a function of the preceding considerations (that is, again, how fast the system returns to equilibrium after the initial increase in energy due to solar activity). From this, we could, in principle, glean how important emissivity was to the actual temperature vs time curve, and from that we could, in principle, glean how important human activity was. Not so simple in practice, of course- and this is with using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is clearly more of an idealization.

But just to sum up again, rises in temperature are not what are important. What is important is how fast the system, after the initial increase, returns to equilibrium.

The way it works with a gray body is this:

Heat comes in, heat is radiated out.

But the flux of that radiation is proportional to the forth power of the temperature, the geometry of the object, to Boltzmann's constant, and to the emissivity of the body.

If there is a change in how the body radiates heat over some time interval, than either there has been a change in temperature (higher temperature = higher rate of radiation by for powers) or a change in emissivity.

Greenhouse gases are related to emissivity, as are several (many) other things.​

So basically, no the jury isn't in, I don't think, at least when looking at it from such a broad, general perspective. Because in order to know how much of an effect WE have, we also have to know how the emissivity is changed by our activity. I don't know how we can know that by experimental data, since we've been releasing these gases for such a tiny fraction of Earth's history.

ETA- but yes, looking at the data over the long term, there should be, at least initially, always a rise in temperature before a rise in CO₂, assuming things like volcanic activity, etc are held constant. No, that doesn't mean that CO₂ or other greenhouse gases have no effect on global temperature. It is absurd to say that they don't. What matters is the degree in which they do, and more pertinently, what matters is if what WE add to the atmosphere has a significant effect.

 

[Molinaro]

I am basing this number on the following chart. It shows CO2 ppm in 1960 at about 316 ppm and at about 385 ppm in 2009. That is a 21% increase in 59 years.

So, my first question is:

-why is a 21% increase in atmospheric CO2 such a horrible thing?

If we had an increase from 5 ppm to 6 ppm would you ask the same question? Do you think it's the % increase that matters or the current particle count?

 

[mhaze]

OK, so by this theory we expect temperature rises to precede CO₂ increase. And the data shows that to be the case. Q.E.D.

That would be correct going from the 450,000 year record. What Warmers maintain is that "It's different this time around because man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere".

From that they backtrack and try to figure ways to explain away all or most of the 20th century temperature increase is due to man's nefarious CO2. This really doesn't work out too well, so there are lots of ways to poke holes in their theories. Then they claim "the heat is hidden in the ocean" and the "extra warming is in the pipeline" and so forth. Just believe.....just believe....the Apocalypse is only a few decades off...

"But this time it really is!", they say.

Having said all that, it is NOT the case that if you had just flipped a coin and it landed heads ten times, that the next time it would land heads, and it is NOT the case that the long term geological record PROVES 20th century warming is natural. Strongly hints at it, yes.

 

[ben m]

If we had an increase from 5 ppm to 6 ppm would you ask the same question? Do you think it's the % increase that matters or the current particle count?

The thing that matters is the radiative balance. The increase from 316 to 385 matters because that's an increase that corresponds to a 1C (1.8F) temperature increase. The thing that matters is what comes out of the radiation-balance equation.

In that context, supposing we were on a very-cold Earth with 5ppm CO2---what temperature increase would a rise to 6ppm cause? It's very hard to make an eyeball estimate---I think going from 5ppm to 300ppm takes you from "unsaturated" regime (where the opacity is linear with concentration) into a "saturated" regime (where opacity from the ground increases slower-than-linearly). But it's certainly easy to calculate if you have the numbers in front of you.

If everything were unsaturated, the quantity you'd care about would be just the number of ppm---the absolute concentration increase. A rise from 5 to 6 would have the same effect as a rise from 10 to 11. But that's not where we are.

 

[Thunder]

yup..i rely on the smart people now.

 

[jsfisher]

...
2. Because, by simple physics, this should cause a significant increase in global temperature, which is observed. (The total increase is about 35% since the beginning of the industrial age.)
...

Surely, you didn't mean that. That would be about a 100K rise in temperature.

 

[Hindmost]

Well, I thought this was interesting today...CO₂ doing its evil deed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090913134030.htm

glenn

I didn't see that the link was already posted. I will add this one.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080911150048.htm

 

[mhaze]

....A rise from 5 to 6 would have the same effect as a rise from 10 to 11. But that's not where we are.

False, apply log relationship.

 

[lomiller]

Sherman Bay you really need to understand the concept of a feedback loop, because you most of what you are saying nonsense.

In a multiple input feedback look like temperature/CO2 which input leads and which input lags is entirely a function of where the forcing is applied. Yes, temperature changes about 200 years sooner then CO2 all this proves is those past climate changes were not initiated by human CO2, but of course we know that.

Oh, and you really need another plot, because there is no possible way you are going to pick off a 200 year difference on a plot with a 500 000 year timescale.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

False, apply log relationship.

No. It's much more complicated than that. The volume, pressure, absorbance, and attenutation of the atmosphere all vary. If say, the frozen arctic bogs melt they will decay rapidly and release gases that were not dissolved before. When a pyroclastic volcano blows is releases gases that were trapped in magma before. There's also periodic variations like how the atmosphere expands dramatically during periods of intense solar wind.

Dealing with these sorts of interlocking and complex features of global climate can and does consume the professional lives of highly qualified people. When they do propose mathematic relationships to these phenomenae to model them they don't just "apply log relationship" they try to account for each factor.

I don't know why I'm even trying to explain why your rebuttal is wrong on a climataological level. The math is thick-headed. Apply what log? How?

 

[McHrozni]

It's very hard to make an eyeball estimate---I think going from 5ppm to 300ppm takes you from "unsaturated" regime (where the opacity is linear with concentration) into a "saturated" regime (where opacity from the ground increases slower-than-linearly). But it's certainly easy to calculate if you have the numbers in front of you.

5ppm of carbon dioxide at sea level and up to, say 5km, will be already way outside of linear response for nearly all if not all relevant wavelengths

Consequently, a funny thing emerges: the wavelengths readily absorbed by carbon dioxide don't matter much, since they will all be absorbed and reabsorbed countless times anyway. The ones that matter are where carbom dioxide absorbs poorly.

McHrozni

 

[ImaginalDisc]

5ppm of carbon dioxide at sea level and up to, say 5km, will be already way outside of linear response for nearly all if not all relevant wavelengths

Consequently, a funny thing emerges: the wavelengths readily absorbed by carbon dioxide don't matter much, since they will all be absorbed and reabsorbed countless times anyway. The ones that matter are where carbom dioxide absorbs poorly.

McHrozni

I don't think I entirely follow. Could you unpack that?

 

[McHrozni]

I don't think I entirely follow. Could you unpack that?

Slight background:
Carbon dioxide absorbes different wavelengths differently.

Where the line drops, carbon dioxide absorbs.

Each move left or right on the scale means you're looking at a different wavelength. The ones where it absorbs strongly, at 4.2um for example, will be oversaturated at 5ppm in 1km easily.
Where it absorbs, but poorly, like in the tiny peak just under 5um, however, won't be. This is what will bring the most differance with changing CO2 levels nowadays.

McHrozni

 

[Sherman Bay]

so, then, what is your explenation for the wacky temperature variations that start taking place around 40 years ago?

Wacky? You mean just like the ones that have taken place for millions of years? Do you realize how frequently and drastically climate has changed before man could possibly be a factor? The Earth doesn't need us to cause climate change.

most scientists call it GHG induced Global Climate Change. what is your theory?

Call it what you want. No one disputes that climates change. They changed in the past, they will in the future. The only thing constant is change.

furthermore, is it your contention that a 21% increase in global atmospheric CO2 levels over 50 years will NOT affect the Earth's climate?

Not what I said. But the effect is not a linear one, but logarithmic, and we are at a point in the log curve where large CO₂ changes make small temperature ones.

I'm sorry, but the ice core data is very clear. temperature changes and CO2 changes go hand in hand. when CO2 goes up..so does temperature.

True as far as that goes, but you left out a critical part of that statement. According to the available data, the temperature goes up first, so CO₂ cannot be the cause.

 

[Dancing David]

Most obvious thing I see is that we seem to have these temp spikes every ohhh, 100,000 years. We are having ANOTHER ONE now. Right on schedule. Man has burnt lots of CO2. It's a coincidence.

Oh, you'll say "But the ice coreds don't show any CO2 spike THIS high" , to which I will say : Just exactly what is the acuity of CO2 in ice cores? Have the ice cores blurred 30 year long spikes into a 30 year long bulge? They have had at least 100,000 years for the blurring to take place.

It's all part of a natural cycle. Latest satellite data show we have entered a cooling trend. It's over folks.

Nice lack of citations and data.