What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

The "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" doesn't seem to me to be a place where climate scientists, geologists, sun experts and others do peer reviewing about these matters. It is the same when I write popularizing articles and send them to the Spanish Naval Architects Association's magazine. A group of knowledgeable colleagues review them and decide if they are good enough for the magazine to publish them, but this doesn't imply at all my work has been peer reviewed.

That article has been severely critiziced for giving the false impression it has been peer reviewed. See: "The National Academic of Science Council would like to make it clear that this petition (the Oregon's) has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."

(Bolded is mine)

I think there are many "pear reviewed" articles around here..... Well, at least those are tasty.

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Two things.

First thing: Man now 'contributes'* around ~3.2 % of CO2

CO2 comprises only ~3.6% of the greenhouse effect

This leaves anthropogenic CO2 responsible for a mere ~.117% of the total greenhouse effect.

Thomas, do you really think we can even reliably MEASURE an effect so small?


Second thing:

Since It's obvious that the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance, in order to believe that small amounts of CO2 are important, you have to postulate a mechanism by which CO2 can 'leverage' its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what AGW alarmists are saying, NOT that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas, which it is easy to prove it is NOT.

What is this mechanism, and why does it seem to operate so selectively, responding only to recent modest increases in CO2 and not to the larger increases in the past? Why did the climate not 'run away' when CO2 was 10X or 20X present levels

*Since both the natural sources of CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 fluxes are orders of magnitude larger than acknowledged anthropogenic CO2, it is not unreasonable to believe that the recent rise in CO2 (of the last 200 years) is the result of changes in the balance of these rather than the accumulation of recently added anthropogenic CO2. The causality is still missing.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

Remember that the Mann & Briffa work that produced the 'hockey stick' graph passed peer review and was published by respected journals which I'm quite sure you would find wholly acceptable, and yet they were sloppy works AT BEST. Furthermore the authors have refused TO THIS DAY to reveal key aspects of their work to confirm repeatability. Yet these works are still considered 'peer reviewed'. Several other 'climate alarm' papers have been found to be of similar merit, yet passed through the 'peer review' process without objection. Only 'skeptics' who were NOT asked to review the works detected the errors. The peer review process has become an Alice-in-Wonderland mockery, like the mad hatters dinner.

Jimbo

[Pericles]

Time to return to the fray. Only clever people should follow this link, but I know we do have a goodly number who post here on the forum and I pay homage to their intellectual curiosity and honesty. The mathematically challenged should spare themselves the shame of being unable to follow the science. Here we go, it's a long, long read!

http://www.climateaudit.org/

When you have finished that, if you are still up for more mental stimulation. try below.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Thomas,

Two things.

First thing: Man now 'contributes'* around ~3.2 % of CO2
CO2 comprises only ~3.6% of the greenhouse effect
This leaves anthropogenic CO2 responsible for a mere ~.117% of the total greenhouse effect.


Second thing:
Since It's obvious that the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance, in order to believe that small amounts of CO2 are important, you have to postulate a mechanism by which CO2 can 'leverage' its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor in the atmosphere.

First:
If I recall correctly I omce calculated the CO2 layer to be approximately 3 m thick (gas 20 deg C 1 atm) - for something 200 years ago. To this day, this layer had increased at least to a layer of 4 m CO2. Ok, I do not claim that humans or our activity is the one and only reason for the rise in the CO2 level, nor that CO2 alone is the main problem. Space is a cold place, we need a blanket, but an "blanket" increase in 25% will probably do something?
1 m3 CO2 insulate close to twice the same as a 1 m3 standard air does.
Air traffic as transport has increased an average of 3-5% each year, during the last decades, probably the same counts for other transportation (think that most of what I have around me here is "made in Japan/ China"...).
So the CO2 content in the atmosphere is not insignificant.
We are responsible for some of that CO2

If we continue to increase our release of CO2, we may not have any control of where we'll end up....

Only a fool would continue to paint the house, if the wife comes along and say that she's not quite comfortable with the new colour....


Second:
'the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance"
I believe you're wrong, sorry. I could calculate the insulation effect 1 m layer thick CO2 will have over an area of this rock with a diameter of 12600 km....
You would say that the insulation also goes for the heating. I will then say that the energy, the sun releases on us is not in balance with the heat loss during night time. (If you have a badly insulated cabin in the mountain, winter, when you fire up the stove, it doesn't matter too much if the insulation is good or bad. But when you go up in the morning, the angle your toes have relatively to the floor tells you if the cabin is well insulated or not).

"its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential through increasing water vapor in the atmosphere." There are studies thet show that there was a temperature change in the days after 11 september, if the temperature went up/ down I do not quite recall (i'll try to check) , but they were pretty certain that the change was caused by the reduction in air traffic... and that less condensated vapour strip/ sooth had some influence to this - more than recently believed.

[Knut Sand]

Found this:

"When U.S. air traffic was grounded for several days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the only contrails on satellite images were ones made by six military aircraft, NASA had a chance to see the difference the streamers make. Within five hours, the contrails from the six jets had expanded to cover 8,000 square miles. �
"

and I believe the term used is "global dimming"...

[Pericles]

Knut,

Please consider posting your CO2 theory calculations and numbers over at http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=CO2+stories

I think you may find it interesting as there are some very fine mathematicians posting there. Bon chance!

Perry

[Pericles]

From Ron de Haan (17:47:33) : at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/2...oof/#more-3739

He writes:

"I have found the following calculation on the web site:
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/calcs.html

THE NUMBERS ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE

Here are the calculations, based on information obtained directly from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, Holland (KNMI).

Mass (air) = 4 pi R^2 * P/g, where
R=earth radius=6,371,000 m; P=surface pressure=101,300 Pa; g=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m/s^2

Thus, Mass (air) = 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5,300,000 Gigatons

Mass (CO2 = mass (air)*ratio (CO2/air)*mol. mass (CO2)/mol. mass (air), where
ratio (CO2/air)=380 ppm=380 parts CO2 per 1 million parts of air
molecular mass (CO2)=44 kg/kmol - molecular mass (air)=28.8 kg/kmol

Thus, Mass (CO2)=3 x 10^15 kg=3,000 Gigatons

Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2
and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere.

A Gigaton is a 1,000 million tons and 1 ton is 1,000kg, equal to 2,240lbs. Carbon Dioxide Graphic

SO . . . IF THE UK WAS TO COLLECTIVELY “SAVE” 1 BILLION TONS . . . (quite impossible)
THAT’S EXACTLY 0.0333% OF THE TOTAL CO2 . . . and all the Government wants to save so far is about 100 million tons - a mere 0.00333% . . . . Every little helps, but surely you can see that this is way beyond being ridiculous?! Think of the words wind, against and . . . surely you can see that?!"

I think that's worth knowing.

Perry

[Guillermo]

Hi Perry, nice to have you around here again!
Unluckily for me I have a very poor internet access where I am now (traveling), so I'll cannot properly follow up discussion for several days.

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Keep an eye on the Sun. Still no spots.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/...e/mdi_igr/512/
Perhaps something to do with the present weakness of the heliosphere?

Cheers.

[masalai]

Hi Jim, - - all quiet over your way?

[the1much]

hiya Mas. ,, quiet,, but bizy,, seems like everyone has extra money here, and wants to give it to me,, been out straight for 2 weeks. friends from up north keep calling to tell me how bad it is,, and i just tell em to move down here,, is like the boom is still going.
how bout ova there? and hows that mean wife of yours doing?,, i see she hasnt killed you for messing with her puters yet,, lol

[masalai]

Quiet, We are still keen to sell both homes but no takers (except for the parasites hoping to pick up a "mortgauge distress bargain" and it is getting to be a bit tedious telling them something like, - "... it is not for rent - make a serious offer for the purchase or **** off..."

I tried to get this thread back on to boat-design but not much luck there either - my current favourite is http://www.boboramdesign.com.au/39-c/ in the motor-sailer version if the hulls (underwater) are a bit like this http://www.boboramdesign.com.au/36-s...-bay-for-sale/

Computers are still a "cooking project" as the ram is not co-operating with the motherboard by showing errors (defective RAM) but there is none.??????
- - seems 4G Ram on a mini ITX causes issues particularly with low energy high erformance configuration for the boat... The failing market is inducing "heat" - she who must be obeyed still demands a McMansion - for just the 2 of us??? - - Nuckin Futs - - says each of us me Y 4 the big house & she Y 4 the expensive boat (both around $400K each)....

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

First:
I do not claim that humans or our activity is the one and only reason for the rise in the CO2 level, nor that CO2 alone is the main problem.

Then what on earth is the point of this discussion???!!! CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, but the only greenhouse gas which human activity produces on a scale that even approaches significance in terms of a fraction of the earth's atmosphere. The AGW alarm crowd insists that CO2 is the problem. How could they assert anything else when it's the most important of the several 'minor' greenhouse gases, and the sources of the greenhouse gas of real merit, water vapor (which accounts for ~ 95% of the greenhouse effect) are entirely natural

As I pointed out in a previous post, CO2 levels were rising before the industrial revolution began. This is consistent with a warming ocean as atmospheric CO2 fraction is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures.

Second:
'the greenhouse potential of CO2 directly is of little importance"
I believe you're wrong, sorry.

You might believe this with all of your heart, but does your belief have any basis in observed science? Here's my data which underpins my assertion that CO2 has little importance as a greenhouse gas by itself:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Since you probably won't actually read and digest the information on the above web page, and will probably simply form a knee-jerk response asserting the data must be tainted by petroleum industry money or right wing ideologues or some such nonsense, I've gone the extra mile and copied the bibliography for you and here it is:

References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264



The AGW alarm crowd acknowledges that the intrinsic greenhouse potential of CO2 is not the issue, but instead that CO2 somehow forms a (positive) feedback loop with water vapor, which then results in global temperatures spiraling upward. And this does not even begin to address the Beer-Lambert (Bouguer) equations which describes the logarithmic nature of absorption of radiative energy in a gaseous medium, which equations show that CO2 is a very efficient greenhouse gas for only the first ~200 ppm, with diminishing returns above this, and that we are near saturation now, and that a further doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. of the present concentrations will produce little additional greenhouse warming.

Another unaddressed problem of AGW theory is that even if small increases in CO2 could somehow leverage water vapor concentrations upward, increases in water vapor tend to increase cloud cover, which causes a reduction in solar radiative budget which totally overshadows (nice pun, huh ) the water vapor's increased insulative (greenhouse) effect! They don't even bother trying to model this 'little' problem because presently THEY CAN'T!

SO many holes....

and yet you still believe


Jimbo

[juiceclark]

Yeah!! What he said! (that was one helluva post) I've noticed that moisture comes out when I exhale. Should I stop exhaling to lessen the only real greenhouse gas? You all go first.

I wonder if, in 10 years, the world will be spraying glaciers with oil tar to slow their creep over the land...and to use up the mass excess of petroleum.

Orwell's 1984 has finally arrived - a television infused world where reality is what pushes political agendas and lines the pockets of those in power.