What Do We Think About Climate Change

Hey Mark hows it going
ya the new owners want the bars outa there
previous owners put them up for whatever reason
I keep meaning to cut them off but haven't gotten around to it yet



the railing is bent
I cut futtocks and laminated them together, then made a large tenon on each end of the rail and set it like a big jigsaw puzzle into the next piece in line
even has a key piece at the end of the lock steps
if you know where it is you can disassemble the whole thing and hardly take out a screw or pin

 

Boston,

I never said CO2 "blocked light". I said it "absorbed", that's all, without further detail. My analogy was intended simply to demonstrate the logarithmic nature of absorption, such that after 'N' identical absorptive layers is penetrated, there is logarithmically less radiant energy left to absorb.

Everyone knows that light gets through pretty much unhindered.

Are you now saying CO2 does not absorb radiated energy? What's all the fuss about radiant absorptive bands, and overlap with water vapor and the like if CO2 does not absorb radiated energy from the sun?

Jimbo

 

I am going to ask a real question.
No sarcasm, irony, hidden agenda pun or otherwise attached joke intended.

Atmospheric green house effect or the trapping of the counter radiation from the earth is possible because the visible light from the sun can pass the atmosphere with some limitations and heat up the earth that acts as a black object who then reflects the heat back up the atmosphere right?
The effect of the greenhouse is possible only because the wave length changes when it is refracted from short wave (light) to long wave (heat)
It passes the atmosphere as short wave yet it does not when it changes in radiation that is longer wave and is trapped by water vapour and in a minuscule way also by CO2 as we are all hearing here.
The contention is by how much does this CO2 really traps the heat and what contribution does human produced CO2 ad to the overall business of trapping heat.

I know how the water vapour traps the radiation, I don't know how does CO2 trap radiation. Can someone elaborate or otherwise correct my above understanding?

By the way Boston good job on that railing. Did you ever try to bend with steam or laminate? I laminated a handrail for a spiral staircase in Douglas Fir and it was a very messy and slow job I wouldn't want to do again, but with those corners...may be a bit easier?

 

thats basically it except the insinuation that the action of co2 is only a minuscule contribution. Co2 makes up the mojority of the greenhouse gasses and humans have contributed an additional ~30% to its total by adding fossil fuel derived co2 (as can be seen by the mass balance analysis ) we are also adding significantly to methane.

the contention of how much heat will be trapped by the excess co2 has been predicted way back in the 1950s and those predictions are proving themselves to be accurate. Which is one reason we know the science works cause accurate predictions are one of the best tests any theory can be expected to undergo. Big bang theory doesnt even land as good a record of accurate predictions as does rapid global climate change.

you basically got it
not sure about the term "counter radiation" or suggesting its "only because" of the energy loss involved in solar interaction but keeping it simple ya
thats about it

B

 

So what's the mechanism for CO2 to stop the heat from escaping?

 

well the size and shape of the co2 molecule interacts with the wave length of the radiant heat and reflects a percentage of it back to towards the planet surface
more co2
more reflection opportunities
more heat gets trapped

its like a insulating blanket

 

So more blankets more heat, but wouldn't that depend on how much heat actually is there to reflect? If a first layer of CO2 does it reflecting job, wouldn't the second layer have less to reflect and so on? Add one kilometre of CO2 and at some point it's addition will be completely inefficient. In other words the CO2 greenhouse effect as with water or any other gas is not lineal so doubling CO2 does not mean it's effect will be double.

PS

You say that CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, yet that is only so after removing H2O. The vast majority of greenhouse is done by water vapour. In proportion the greenhouse effect of the total CO2 is very small, the contribution to greenhouse effect by the section made up by human is minuscule and if we all die off today together with all stock and warm blood animals, besides the stench it would make a difference to temperature so small that no one would be able to measure it...well the aliens will have to do it.

 

That looks better now.. don't know how firm was the science behind these values were measured with but making such mistakes doesn't add reliability to the source doesn't it?

 

the mistake is in thinking that there are layers of co2
the gas laws dictate that a gas expand to fill a given volume evenly

there is no first layer and second layer
thats why I mentioned to jim that his analogy was wrong in a number of different ways

if you go back to the predictions from the 50s concerning how much warming wold take place and why and you study those predictions you might gain a better understanding of why things work the way they do

rather than be going from the information or standpoint of a disinformation campaign designed to spread confusion by hyping poorly constructed analogies fraught with misconceptions and intentional misunderstandings

just go study the theory if you want to learn about it
dont ask me or anyone else
just go look at what predictions were made
how they were made
and what tenants of science were involved in deriving the conclusions that proved accurate

by looking at the predictions and how they were made a lot of these questions should come clear for you

H20 is vapor is dependent on temp not the other way around
you dont get more vapor unless you have higher temp

once again the thinking is backwards

happens a lot if your listening to the conspiracy people

go watch Naomi Oreski's lecture on the American Denial of Global Warming
it explains a lot of this

 

Boston,
I'm not going to debate again with you about the mechanisms of the indistiguishable effect of anthropogenic CO2 on athmosphere's temperature, as Jim and myself have done this with you to boringness in the past and you refuse to accept evidence. OK, you're in your right.

But please, tell me, how do you explain life (both plants and animals) happily thrieved on earth for hundreds of millions of years when CO2 concentration was several thousands of ppmv high?

How do you explain there was not a runaway temperature effect?

How do you explain ice ages occurring with CO2 concentrations several times higher than the actual one?

How do you explain about 120,000 years ago, when the global surface temperature was as much as 5°C higher than now, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was only 240 ppmv?

Please answer at least one of my questions.

Cheers.

 

always entertaining G
we never really debated just sorta went round and round, myself like most taking the view of the theory as written and a few hold outs insisting on cherry picking parts they like and bits they dont like. Thats not much of a debate, more like a night and day difference in what science is and how it works. Im not sure we ever really got to an actual debate on much.

the terms "indistinguishable" and "I refuse to accept evidence" are lending a few pleasant moments to my evening and for that I am grateful

a ~30% increase in co2 directly attributable to mans use of fossil fuels is an "indistinguishable" effect

"evidence" by that I think we have drastically different meanings of the term. To me evidence is some form of scientific data derived by following a particular set of principals common to the study of "science". Others seem to include industry PR spin and disinformation

the two are mutually exclusive and tend to preclude our "debate"

nice list of questions though, its good you are taking on a new approach as you are right about things having gotten boring. Just to keep you interested Ill answer all of em if you like

the quick and snarky answers would be

the name of the theory is RAPID global climate change
its the rapid part thats causing so much trouble at present
in hundreds of millions of years things have time to adapt
in just a hundred or less few species are able to adapt fast enough

what makes you think there wasn't, we have numerous extinction events some of which are synonymous with extreme temp events. You didn't watch the flickers I provided concerning the snowball earth theory or you would not be making this suggestion

not sure where you got that idea from you have some specific information and sources you'ld like to share with the group



I even got that graph off the conspiracy pages just so no one could say it was a government plot to fudge the data
no 5° higher than today at 120,000 years ago that I can see

what I do find interesting that no one seems to want to address from either side of the coin is that there is a unique flutter at the end of the time frame not evident in any of the previous peaks. Seems to be a direct result of the system wanting to descend back through they typical cycle but there is "something" preventing it from dropping in temp and instead we see this fluttering on the graph. Gotta wonder if its related to that other unique characteristic that can also be see in the co2 graph

temps wants to be falling but isnt and instead is fluttering in a manor unseen before in the last say 400~800 thousand years
co2 wants to be falling but instead its rising dramatically in harmony with these fluttering temps
most recent temps are rising very fast
seems like the data you claim exists is not there and what is is kinda right in line with the theory of rapid global climate change

now thats entertainment
ok
back to my movie
cheers
and always good to banter with you G
have a great Sunday folks
B

 

Not the increase but its effects. You still keep on understanding what you want to understand, not what is written.

I don't dare to say you perform disinformation games. You just do not understand information,

Fast compared with what?



For more graphs, see again my post 3290

Just tell me ONE due to temperature having increased or decreased because of athmospheric CO2 concentration, not volcanoes, asteroid impacts, tectonics, etc.

For sure you are aware that graph you posted has been used to debunk the CO2 preceding temperature lag myth, as it has been proved IT IS JUST THE CONTRARY: TEMPERATURE PRECEDES CO2 (Caillon et al. 2003, Fischer et al. 1999, Idso 1988, Indermuhle et al. 2000, Monnin et al. 2001, and Mudelsee 2001, i.e. We have debated and demonstrated this before dozens of times already, but you still keep on stubborngly insisting)

About the 120.000 years ago timing, see the image I posted upwards. Well known to everybody, being your beloved NOAA the source. About the 5ºC, see Andersen et al. 2004.

As you can see, you keep on being totally disoriented in your assumptions and you simply refuse to admit it. But that's how you are and I like you

BTW, you have not yet answered my question: How do you explain ice ages occurring with CO2 concentrations several times higher than the actual one?

Cheers.

 

Marco1,
here you have a graph about CO2 and feedback: what the IPCC say vs observational satellite data.

For more info on the feedback matter you may read: http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

Cheers.

 

The entire theory of man-made global warming is based on ice core studies that were "massaged" moving data 83 years ahead in time (to match the satellite data) and provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements were completely ignored by climatologists— and not because they were wrong. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming.


Cheers.

 

Climategate analysis

Bostons irrelevent minutae aside, this latest article on the emails shows how the review process is now about as objective as a room full of adolescent boys agreeing that ************ feels good after watching a **** movie.......


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf