What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

Masa,
I've seen such kind of data somewhere, but I do not remember where now. I'll have to search. In the mean time, more from the 'Solar batallion': the 2007 work from Scafetta and West.

SCAFETTA AND WEST: SOLAR CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D24S03, doi:10.1029/2007JD008437, 2007
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf

"In conclusion, if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 a. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms."

[Guillermo]

Masa,
something here:
http://www.oceanmotion.org/html/intr...on-general.htm

From there: "Other than the sun, the ocean is the most important force affecting Earth’s climate." (and this is a NASA's site )

Also:
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/databases.html
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/NOD...NODC-wdca.html
http://www.meteo.ru/nodc/index_e.html
http://www.godae.org/
http://www.ioc-goos.org/

Cheers.

[masalai]

Thanks Guillermo, I am slowly progressing through the sites and information therein....

[bntii]

Myhre, G., E.J Highwood, K.P Shine and F. Stordal, 1998, New Estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res Lett. 25, 2715-2718

You might note the quality of discussion held by Steve over on his skeptic site http://www.climateaudit.org/

Perhaps we could follow his lead?

"I am told that peer reviewed articles are the gold standard, ......So again, citations!!! not websites." -Steve McIntyre

We are fielding too many balls and may never see any depth in our discussions.

[Jimbo1490]

Guillermo,

Thanks again for the many, many citations. Even a small posting such as I made this morning can take a couple of hours for web search, reading and then writing the post. I can only imagine the time and effort that you put into the last group of posts.

With so many papers and so many different authors cited, it will take Boston months to dig up dirt and discredit each and every one of them. (I suppose this is still quite a bit easier than refuting the actual arguments, however.) Meanwhile the grow-ups can talk among themselves


Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

I'm really intrigued by the Beer-Lambert vs Hansen & Wegman understanding of CO2 radiative absorption/saturation. If the Beer-Lambert equations really do properly quantify what is happening, then the whole argument is over; we are already at (practical) saturation so additional CO2 doesn't matter at all.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by masalai

Would not a sceptic expect some bias in minimising adverse impact (unintentionally) as a consequence of ones background and life occupation?

My interest is not so much in land or air temperatures over the long term as they can heat up and cool off quite rapidly - - compared to the thermal mass in the oceans - is there an increase in thermal energy or a decrease in oceanic thermal capacity - That is the longer term driver of climate and has greater impact - consider "el-nino/la nania" in the impact of climate.... where does all that fit?

The oceans take several hundred years to warm, so the more warming you attribute to the warming ocean, the more you exonerate greenhouse gas concentration as the cause of warming, as the perturbation which is causing oceanic warming most likely initiated centuries ago.

Here's a very interesting read on the subject:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...ml#Climatology

Jimbo

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Thomas,

I'm really intrigued by the Beer-Lambert vs Hansen & Wegman understanding of CO2 radiative absorption/saturation. If the Beer-Lambert equations really do properly quantify what is happening, then the whole argument is over; we are already at (practical) saturation so additional CO2 doesn't matter at all.

Jimbo

Perhaps you would let us know how the science fleshes out this topic.

From the literature- how does Beer-Lambert depict the activity of Co2 in the atmosphere?
From the literature- fully quantify the saturation argument.

Perhaps we could

Originally Posted by jimbo1490

Stick to the science.

on this one & leave blog editorials out of it.

[Frosty]

I visit this thread occasionally in amazement that it is still going on . Its not about Climate change at all is it?

This is a pissing competition on who can google quickest. Who can prove another wrong game.

Only those participating,--the elite few have the enthusiasm to continue on with it.

It amazes me even more that any one could be in the slightest bit interested in some guys opinion from the other side of the world about a subject such as this.

None of you know anything. More drivel than the drivel thread. 98 pages of it.

But please continue, I shall pop in occassionaly and shake my head.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

The Beer-Lambert part is pretty straightforward; the Wiki page I posted earlier is about all you need to know about it, really. The big question is whether CO2 *somehow* absorbs from 'out of band' spectra in sufficient quantity to matter (the Hansen-Wegman postulate), or whether it does so, but only in those situations (other planets, basically) of extremely high concentration. The number bandied about was 10,000-100,000 times earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hard to find info on this one.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Ok, Thomas

I've been reading about this topic literally ALL DAY to try to come up with a simple way of explaining it. Actually, it's not that complex, at least conceptually. You've probl'y already read up on the concepts of absorption bands for water vapor and CO2 and how they have some overlap, but more importantly, some bandwidths which do not overlap. Specifically, CO2 absorbs some wavelengths that water vapor does not.

Now at lower altitudes, there is enough water vapor such that water vapor dominates the greenhouse absorption, then only the wavelengths 'unique' to CO2 are absorbed by CO2. Here the Beer Lambert equations sufficiently describe the situation. We are near saturation now, and additional CO2 won't do much.

But at higher elevations in the atmosphere, especially in warmer areas, there is little water vapor. In these situations, it is postulated that CO2 becomes more important as a greenhouse gas as it can now absorb at wavelengths that water vapor would absorb, were it present. This represents a net gain in absorption budget. Thus it would be expected that the stratosphere (the strata in question) would begin warming and radiating heat downwards.

There are complications (of course ) however, and considerable evidence that this does not happen at all; that it's just a theory. No one can ague that CO2 concentrations are NOT rising in the atmosphere; we all know that they are. So if this phenomena is real, then we will see the upper atmosphere warming.

But wait, the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (as explained in the IPCC reports) is supposed to cause the upper atmosphere to cool, not heat! So this is very confusing and contradictory, to say the least.

Remember that the same reasoning paradigm suggests that the troposphere should be showing very drastic warming right now, which it is not.

Below is a graph which was synthesized from data found here:


http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t4/tlsglhmam_5.1
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tlsglhmam_5.1

These are the graphs:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Strato2.gif
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps...e1278-1204.gif

Yeah, I know; not exactly your favorite website. But he went to the trouble of graphing the data, after all.

Still looking for more data...

Jimbo

[TeddyDiver]

Well said Frosty
Some of the links are very informative allthough I've found they don't actually support the presented opinions here.. Just taking a short "Quote" out of it's context in order to prove someone elses "quote" being inaccurate is pointless
Cookies from the Oracle...
So I propose a challenge to you. What are the HARD FACTS everybody can agree with.. Then present these facts and start to argue about the theories and the Merovingities behind them

[Guillermo]

Hi all,
I was trying to get a list of ALL planetary CO2 sources and their relative importance, but find nothing conclusive. Perhaps some of you can direct me to where to find that information, or then help me to work out what the numbers (tentatively) are.

What the present net CO2 sources are? A first approach:

- Oceans (net, all sources)
- Land vegetation (net)
- Humans and land animals (net)
- "Anthropogenic"

* 'Fossil' fuels burning (petroleum, coal, gas)
* Renewables
* Land use change
* Other industrial processes.

- Volcanoes
- Rocks/Soil
- Fires

...........what else?

Of course every complex item should then be splitted into its various components, but first of all I need to build up the full main list. Am I missing something?

Cheers.

[Frosty]

[quote=TeddyDiver;.
So I propose a challenge to you. What are the HARD FACTS everybody can agree with.. Then present these facts and start to argue about the theories and the Merovingities behind them [/QUOTE]

Are you refering to me Teddy? I have niether the interest or the time or anything that I can think of that would make me search the net for some information that might just possibly be true information about the CO2 levels of this planet -Earth.

Not Dr Evil, Dan Dare or Superman could possibly know this.

You might as well talk--(guess) about time travel.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Are you refering to me Teddy?

No... refering to very same people as you were when saying "Only those participating"..