Global warming

[bobdroege7]

We still haven't heard the Capeldodgy explanation for how increasing the partial pressure of a trace gas like carbon dioxide can cause warming because its never happened in the past, and it cannot happen according to quantum physics.

But then, since when has ignorance of physics ever stopped Capeldodgy before?

Please explain how it cannot happen according to quantum physics. Please state your knowledge level of quantum physics. And please stop calling him Capeldodgy, it is an ad hominem attact and does nothing for your reputation.

 

[mhaze]

That reply doesn't make any sense either, so I'll break down the post I said made no sense.

A single molecule cannot expand

An increase in altitude does not necessarily indicate a decrease in temperature.

Again, confusing the properties of a single molecule with the properties of a large number of molecules, just like the 16 year old with her vapid football analogy. I don't get women and football analogies.

Also when CO2 absorbs the infared photon, the increase in energy goes to the stretching and vibrational modes of the molecule, not the velocity which corresponds to the temperature. Only when that molecule collides with another molecule can that vibrational energy be transferred into heat or the velocity of another molecule.

Actually, I think you know exactly what I meant in my comments, and just would like to pick at them. "A single molecule cannot expand". That is not really worth discussing, is it? If you would like me to rephrase my comments in "adult terms", well, I'll be happy to.

 

[mhaze]

Klaus proposes to abolish monopoly on climate change debate

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

 

[a_unique_person]

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

Is this politician authority, or what scientific research does he base these claims on?

Entirely independent scientific bodies around the world have come to the same conclusions, including the peak US bodies. I can see what will happen, there will be a lot more money spent on research and and more accusations of a gravy train.

 

[DaChew]

Speaking of independent scientific bodies, it's being reported today that James Hansen of NASA has received $720,000 from George Soros. http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

That, on top of the $250,000 he received from the Heinz Foundation, makes just under a million bucks that we know of.

 

[oponol]

Once again going back to this simple observation, why are CO2 levels varying with ENSO and volcano events?

Because both affect global temperature and that has a knock on effect on how much co2 is emitted/absorbed over a full year.

Does it suggest a)there is no lockstep consistent rise in CO2 caused by fossil fuels

Certainly not

b)the 200 year life cycle is not observed

Certainly not

How can CO2 levels drop during volcanic eruptions which emit high levels of CO2?

Volcanoes don't emit high levels of co2. co2 most likely drops because of the cooling of global temperatures in the years following a large volcanic erruption.

Note the correlation between temperature change and CO2 change in the following graph:

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?

Human emissions

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

Sorry don't have powerpoint, but he's confusing atmospheric lifetime of a single molecule (a few years) with residence time for co2 to fall back to previous levels (decades to centuries). The longer time period is due to the fact that as more co2 from the atmosphere is absorbed it becomes harder to absorb more. While co2 drop would start off fast, it would slow down. Much in the opposite way it has risen.

 

[oponol]

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

Convection is included in the models

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.

See my post above. This accusation is based on conflating two seperate processes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Volcanoes don't emit high levels of co2. co2 most likely drops because of the cooling of global temperatures in the years following a large volcanic erruption.

More precisely, from the barchart presented by David Rodale it's the rate of increase in CO2 that drops, not CO2.

The cooling effect, especially on the oceans (thereby enabling them to dissolve more CO2), is my first guess too. I also wonder whether there's and "ocean-seeding" effect from ejected material - iron and potassium in particular. Speculation, of course, but informed speculation .

I mentioned earlier (possibly on the Arctic Ice thread) that the fall-off in the rate of increase demonstrates that volcanoes do not emit significant amounts of CO2, but David Rodale seems to have missed that entire post.

If somebody would care to fund me, I'll happily hang out in the South Seas with a small fleet of research vessels waiting for an eruption. When one kicks off it'll take me next to no time to throw aside the dusky maidens, sober-up, and start the observations. Honest. I'm raring to go.

 

[CapelDodger]

New York- Czech President Vaclav Klaus told journalists in New York today it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness were eliminated.

As a politician, Klaus no doubt finds a disinterested field of study, such as science, incomprehensible.

In his speech at the special U.N. summit on climate change in New York today Klaus said that despite the artificially created idea about a large extent of ongoing climate changes, the recent rise in global temperatures has been very small in historical comparison and its impact on man and his activities are basically negligible.

He's very ignorant, isn't he? And not a nice person - you should check out his wider political stance.

Klaus told journalists that the only chance was his proposal that the United Nations organise two parallel inter-governmental panels to discuss climate changes and publish two competing reports, because it was a political question.

See above. Klaus clearly can't distinguish between science (a search for truth) and politics (choosing a belief).

It would actually be interesting to watch him, and like-minded politicians, appoint their alternative IPCC. Would Crichton be in, I wonder? Would explicit rejection of the existing IPCC reports be a necessary qualification? Presumably members of the IPCC would be excluded. The cat-fight over precedence amongst those that do get in would be deeply amusing too.

Ain't gonna happen, though. Or it would have done already.

"Let us look for a real solution," he said.

From his statement he already knows there isn't an AGW problem, so the problem this solution applies to is presumably the progress - glacially slow though it is - towards action being taken. An anti-IPCC would stop that.

He said he would not take part in today's lunch at which former U.S. vice-president Albert Gore who holds the views on the global warming different from Klaus's would be present.

Gives you a flavour of the guy, doesn't it? Unless he just wasn't invited or has a prior engagement.

He said he agreed that it was correct to compare different views.

Well he would, wouldn't he?

"However, this would require the side that behaves as if it has a monopoly on the truth showed the willingness for a dialogue and a public discussion. I am prepared for such a debate any minute," Klaus said.

He's not prepared for a scientific debate, he's up for a rhetorical debate full of lawyers' tricks, like any standard politician. Or like Singer, as another example.

This is the Science Forum, not Politics. So I'll say no more about Klaus.

 

[CapelDodger]

And no, we can't forget clouds and stuff because they are critical factors in a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK system which dominates the Earth's climate. We also can't forget the Sun, unless of course you're really determined.

I was posting very specifically about a proposed experiment to measure the atmosphere's response to infra-red emissions from the surface. Clouds would be a complicating factor that can easily be eliminated by conducting the experiment on a cloudless night. That's standard practice when conducting an experiment : limit the variables to those in question.

 

[CapelDodger]

And you posted this, why?

You have to wonder, don't you?

From that post and others it's clear that mhaze thinks that increasing CO2 is supposed, in the AGW sense, to be like turning on another bar on an electric fire. Which is obvious nonsense, ergo AGW is obvious nonsense.

mhaze doesn't have a firm grasp on the fundamentals, that's obvious. It's more debatable whether he could find his fundament using both hands.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which is the basic problem, as I said earlier. There is an endless stream of amateurs who can prove that AGW is false, just as they can square the circle. Do they all deserve creedence?

It's striking how much "What about this, eh?" there is from the few contrarians that are sticking it out here. There's a lot of Ring-Master Syndrome at play. The contrarians present the hoops and demand we jump through them.

Bollocks to that.

When mhaze quotes someone who starts off with CO2 reflecting infra-red, I'm on it like a fly on a flesh-wound. That's my choice .

It's not as if contrarians need to be convinced before the real world is allowed to go its own way. Which is just the way that we expected from a while back, having a good grasp of the science. Not exactly as we expected, because we never had an exact expectation. We had a general expectation, and lo, we were right and now we're starting to see the detail.

Not the detail of how things were twenty years ago, of course, who cares? (Lots of people, apparently.) The detail of the process. One thing that's very clear is that the process is faster than we generally expected twenty years ago.

What the hey, in three to eight years contrarians will be extinct.

 

[bobdroege7]

Actually, I think you know exactly what I meant in my comments, and just would like to pick at them. "A single molecule cannot expand". That is not really worth discussing, is it? If you would like me to rephrase my comments in "adult terms", well, I'll be happy to.

Yes, that would be helpful.

I mean, that is what this whole thread is about, that is the theory about how CO2 as a greenhouse gas can cause an increase in temperature.

Your statements about what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of infared light cleary show that you do not understand the process at hand.

Any statements by you that will clearly show that you understand the process would be helpful.

It is difficult to find peer reviewed literature on the internet that describes this process, as the science is not very new. Introductory college texts on Astonomy or Organic chemistry or spectroscopy would have the information.

 

[Mycroft]

It would make sense, if it wasn't a horrible amount of money to throw at something that has been established by chemistry and physics decades ago.

No funding agency would fund such an experiment, and I would even guess that it is not feasible to begin with, due to the laser scale problem.

I might be wrong, some of the physicists here can correct me.

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

 

[Mycroft]

It's striking how much "What about this, eh?" there is from the few contrarians that are sticking it out here. There's a lot of Ring-Master Syndrome at play. The contrarians present the hoops and demand we jump through them.

Bollocks to that.

If someone were to demand that you do anything, they would certainly have to be a confused person. The rest of us can clearly see the difference between someone who understands the issues and works to make his position understood, and someone who merely amuses himself in looking for opportunities to make japes and one-liners. You are no more a part of this debate than the football-fan who paints his naked oversized belly his team colours and belches ridicule at his opponents between gulps of stadium beer is a member of the team he cheers.

 

[mhaze]

Convection is included in the models

See my post above. This accusation is based on conflating two seperate processes.

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"? In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

 

[oponol]

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"? In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

There's a graph that sums it up well here:
http://thinkearth.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/carbon-dioxide-residence-time-in-the-atmosphere/

 

[mhaze]

I don't know how much raising the level of CO2 in the Arizona crater to 800 ppm would cost (although it might be as simple as lighting some fires), but if the laser in the sky would bring results, that doesn't seem so expensive.

I might be wrong, but if there is anything testable about the issue then shouldn't it be tested?

Wonders never cease.

Taking a quick look at the Winslow crater, about 0.2 cu km in volume, looks like four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Even considering losses, it does not seem to be a big job to do it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Convection, included, very poorly if you like.

Convection is not hard to model.

As for CO2 and it's time in the atmosphere, when you the 200 year life cycle is observed are you referring to the time for CO2 to lapse back to "pre industrial levels"?

That will take many thousands of years, if it happens at all. See the graph oponol has linked to.

In the short term CO2 can be taken up in biomass, but there's a limit to how much, since CO2 is not the only limiting factor in plant-growth. Water, space and nutrients are not in infinite supply.

The ocean's capacity to absorb CO2 reduces when it warms (as it is today), but it's still not saturated. Over-turning brings up cold deep water which has not yet been exposed to the high over-pressure of CO2 during the last century. Surface water, with its a high concentration of CO2, sinks, thus gradually sequextering the CO2. I say "gradually" because this overturning cycle takes place over thousands of years.

In turn that implies that the "good level" of CO2 is the pre industrial level?

It implies no such thing. There is no "good" or "evil" level of CO2. No value-judgments ares involved. This is just science.

With the fossil-CO2 that's already been added to the oceans and atmosphere a new equilibrium will be reached in a few centuries. That equilibrium will necessarily be higher than the pre-industrial equilibrium since there's a lot more CO2 in the system. A third more in the atmosphere, and a goodly amount in the oceans (I'm not sure what proportion, but significant enough for surface-water acidification to be a concern in itself).

Trying to be sure I have your point of view right...

I've described the science as best I can. Any questions?

 

[CapelDodger]

Wonders never cease.

Taking a quick look at the Winslow crater, about 0.2 cu km in volume, looks like four K tons of co2 would double the concentration. That's without considering losses.

Even considering losses, it does not seem to be a big job to do it.

Remind me : what would be the point?