Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Next
Comments 99151 to 99200:
-
hfranzen at 03:16 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #6., "Lartge amounts...of CO2 and CH4 can be addd with no net temperature change" is simply not true. I have noidea where thisd notion came from but both CO2 and CH4 are sbsorbers of infrared radiation in the earth's Planck region and the aborption will increase because of the increase in participation by the many rotational levels available to both. Read the article in the recent Physics Today. Therein are described planetaru absortions (e.g. Venus) that greatly exceend anything here on earth. It is my understanding that the surface temperature on Venus is sufficently high to melt lead mainly due to its CO2 atmosphere. -
Martin at 03:13 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
If I have understood your post correctly, it is difficult to change the amount of CO2 in the oceans because it takes a lot of energy to change the temperature of the ocean including the deep (how deep is deep?) ocean. How does one then explain the end of the ice ages? I thought the end of an ice age was triggered by a change in the earth's orbit around the sun and then the warmed ocean started outgassing CO2. And this in turn would have led to increasing temperatures, and so on. I'm not able to calculate how much the ocean would have warmed by a change in the earth's orbit. But after reading your post, it seems to me that the ocean would not have warmed sufficiently for there to be significant CO2 outgassing. Something seems to be missing here? Or perhaps it's just me who is missing something? -
michael sweet at 03:09 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Chemist 1: I read several pages of your reference at #12 and it appears to support Dr. Franzens position. It describes the ocean as complicated on the page you cited, but on page 62 it estimates ocean uptake of CO2 as 2 Gt per year. It certainly does not say that AGW violates the first and second law of thermodynamics, as you claim. You need to find a reference that actually supports your position, not one that contradicts what you are asserting. If you cannot find a reference that supports your position perhaps you should reconsider. -
Bibliovermis at 02:59 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel, Those who express certainty that the scientific community hasn't considered [x], [y], or [z] come across as zealots rather than skeptics. -
Chris G at 02:54 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#5 Chemware, I'm sure I don't want to know, but from where does your friend with the ocean heat theory think that the energy to heat the ocean is coming from? Or, what has changed in the last 1-2 hundred years that should give the ocean so much extra energy? I mean, the oceans are warming, but not by 12 K. You could also say that they are loosing heat less rapidly just as well, it depends on how you want to look at it, but the physical science is the same. I'm having trouble grasping how someone who should have a good working knowledge of heat content and conservation of energy could be thinking that the oceans are heating spontaneously. -
Rovinpiper at 02:48 AM on 11 January 2011Humidity is falling
I was reading in Mark Bowen's book Censoring Science about the Vostok ice core. It says, "Methane, like carbon dioxide, rose and fell with temperature, whereas dust tended to go the other way. This made sense, as methane and carbon dioxide levels fell and the air cooled, it would have lost water vapor through feedback and become drier and more dusty." Yet, I also recall reading in a US Army Southwest Asia (Middle East) manual that as the temperature increases in summer the soil dries. Without water to hold it down dust goes into the air. So in that case warmer air is dustier. How can we be sure that increased levels of dust in layers of an ice core indicate lower humidity? -
Chris G at 02:37 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Chemist1, Look, Dr Franzen is describing the arc of a falling object as a parabola, and you are interjecting air resistance as a function of altitude, temperature, and humidity. Besides, it's more accurately an arc-segment of an ellipse. Yeah, we know there is more to it than what Dr Franzen describes above, but as he stated, it's a starting point. Unless you really feel that a student should be taught drag coefficients for various shaped bodies and how drag varies with atmospheric composition and approximately with the square of the velocity at the same time that they are taught about projectile paths using the mechanics of gravitational constants (which aren't constant, btw), your points are extraneous. You can get a working estimate of what a throw rock will do using a parabolic curve and 9.8 m/s^2, and you can get a working estimate of CO2 exchange between air and sea with the above. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 02:32 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
gallopingcamel The case has been made. It is accepted by the majority of climate scientists and by scientific bodies around the world, and is supported by a huge body of evidence coming from many disciplines. Up to you now to show where it's gone wrong if you think it has, and substantiate it with data analysis, not hypothetical musings. -
gallopingcamel at 02:23 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Anne-Marie Blackburn (#194), you said: "Do you have evidence, as published in the scientific literature, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally flawed?" You have it backwards. It is up to the proponents of AGW to make better case for the hypothesis. -
gallopingcamel at 02:11 AM on 11 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#193), Enough of the straw man approach. It may surprise you when I assert that CO2 "always" correlates with climate as it affects the energy balance through the well understood process of capturing long wavelength radiation. Where we diverge is in the magnitude of the effect in relation to other things that influence climate, such as water vapor, clouds, aerosols, cosmic rays etc.. What should be red flags to those of you who are so sure that CO2 is the magic bullet of climate change is the inability of the modelers to explain past climate change and their lack of predictive powers. As "apiratelooksat50" and others including myself have pointed out many times, the uncertainties are great. We are trying to measure changes of a few tenths of a degree in measurements that oscillate over very wide ranges from night to day and summer to winter. What we know about climate change is vastly exceeded by what we don't know. Those who express certainty that CO2 is driving modern climate come across as zealots rather than scientists. -
Chemist1 at 01:54 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
hfranzen that is wonderful news since the bodies of water are major C02 sinks. If there is no release or no net release and oceans can absorb so much C02 due to things like algae and various biological life, then the buffering capacity is truly remarkable.But wait what do you make of this: http://books.google.com/books... It seems in your calculations you neglect temperature and regional effects on C02 release and absorption in bodies of water. -
hfranzen at 01:48 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Response to #8. Please read my discussion in GWPPT6 on my web site hfranzen.org. If you find any errors there please let me know. -
Chemist1 at 01:47 AM on 11 January 2011The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
Hansen predicted near snow free winters as did other climatologists. Hansen predicted larger sea level rise, far higher than is being now reported. Gore based his estimates and charts on Hansen's work. Hansen designed 3 different models of future temps all of which were off, but 2 were way off and were terms possible scenarios.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Please provide linked sources to these claims Hansen supposedly made. Unsupported assertions doth not convince. -
hfranzen at 01:45 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
I was explicit about this dealing with an inorganic model of the ocean surface. I was not, and cannot, deal with the whole ocean. It is my thesis that we need elementary models that catch the essence of the problem in order to communicate with skeptics. If the only models put forth require that one go into all of the myriad details we will, I fear, fail to communicate except with eachother. Thus this piece is simply a response to the deniers. many of whom still maintain that the oceans are respnsible for the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is demonstrated here is that a very simple model of the ocean, but one that catches the essence of the surface ocean inorganic chemistry because it includes all of the restraints, clearly shows that the average ocean does not give off carbon dioxide. The major point is that deniers (and many others) discuss the ocean-atmosphere interaction as though the carbon dioxide were simply free to pass back and forth without restraint. Most discussions of the topic fail to discuss the charge balance restraint. A striking point to me is that sitting in my office and working with established thermodynamic data (which are available worldwide in numerous texts and compilations) I can demonstrate using only the ,easured pH and the partial presssure of carbon dioxide hat some 90+% of the dissoved carbon dioxide is present as bicarbonate nad thus that the majority of what is in the ocean is of terrestrial origin. The only point that need be made about averages (and this is also the answer to the deniers who confuse weather and climate) is the if one averages over an earth-year they get an average temperature which means that if the local temperature increases at one place and/or time it will necessarily decrease in another. -
Chemist1 at 01:43 AM on 11 January 2011The Dunning-Kruger effect and the climate debate
The issue here is even climatologists who study climate for a living have a very limited understanding of climate. The biggest misunderstanding is the assumption that we can know what the global mean temperature is in the first place. We do not have technology as of yet that can do this. We cannot know for sure what the temperature deviations have been either.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You are prolific in your incorrectness, aren't you? See the left-hand column on every page? The thermometer-looking thingy? All your objections have been dealt with already on this site. Start by doing a little reading first. Use the search function if you have questions to see if your questions have already been dealt with on Skeptical Science. Odds are they have. You continue to betray your lack of understanding with every comment you have made thus far. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 01:36 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
JMurphy climate is the averaging of weather over a minimal timescale. Some are comfortable with 30 years, others 100 and others try and look at paleoclimate extending 400,000 or more years ago. 30 years is just a drop in the bucket in terms of climate. (-edit-)Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] 30 years or more is the typical standard used. Depending on the datasets and methodology used determines the length of time needed for a time series to be robust. JMurphy was trying to help you gain understanding in this matter and has ably demonstrated a robust understanding of climate science here over the years. Future inflammatory remarks will be deleted. -
Chemist1 at 01:33 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
The planet is about even between warming and cooling so there is no net temp change, or one that is neglible at best. It can be either very minor cooling or very minor warming.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Incorrect. We are now a bit over 2 degrees C removed from a glacial period (we are in an interglacial right now), with an expected further temperature rise of about 2-3 degrees (or more) C expected by 2100. Not a minor matter at all.
-
Ken Lambert at 01:29 AM on 11 January 2011Graphs from the Zombie Wars
#64 keithpickering Well we have the log equation for forcing F.CO2, but do we have equations for all the other terms (cloud albedo etc) and the climate response feedbacks? eg. We know S-B if we know the effective radiating temp which is then dependent on the temp difference across the atmospheric column which is dependent on the WV + ice feedback etc etc etc. If we take the forcings from Dr Trenberth's Fig 4 (August09 paper) the net warming imbalance is 0.9W/sq.m. The net is what is important here - not any one forcing. If these forward temperature projections are worth anything, the forward forcings must be knowable to a reasonable degree of accuracy. -
Chemist1 at 01:21 AM on 11 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
The equilibrium problem model is flawed. -
Chemist1 at 01:19 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Now keep in mind the claims of global warming violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Now keep in mind the topic of this post and the Comments Policy. Off-topic comments will get deleted. Comments on the violation of the 2nd Law can be found here. I would also suggest reading this post as well. -
Chemist1 at 01:18 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Two things:already read those links. They contain no robust data to defend your claims. More importantly according to fundamental principles in chemistry and yes, Physical Chemistry, greenhouse gases cannot lead to a large amount of warming but can only be involved in heating processes. I already read the claim that hfranzen is a physical chemist. Even if true no actual data from P-chem supports his claims.Moderator Response: Comment on those relevant threads, not here, where further off topic comments will be deleted. -
muoncounter at 00:43 AM on 11 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
#6: "C02 has been higher on this planet prior to humans being here." Effectively dealt with here. "C02 lags temperature changes." And dealt with here. I would challenge anyone who believes that the observable atmospheric CO2 increase is coming from the oceans to show some data supporting that assertion. See the relevant thread. -
JMurphy at 00:29 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Chemist1, it is obvious that you do not know the difference between climate and weather, and that you think that records are records because you probably read about them somewhere. Also, that you think that certain areas or regions of the world represent the world as a whole. I agree with the response you got on another thread : start learning by going here, here, and here. Once you have some facts and figures to back up any of your assertions, come back and try again. -
adelady at 00:13 AM on 11 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
@61 "Last winter the continent of South America had a record cold winter." http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/map-blended-mntp-201006-201008.gif This graphic shows a couple of cooler areas in parts of the continent. The report it's taken from mentions cold conditions in a couple of places, but *not* South America. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100915_globalstats.html Do you have a reference for the record cold winter? -
Chemist1 at 23:48 PM on 10 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Oh and yes I know about the claim of a statistical averaging in terms of climate versus weather along a 30 year or so timescale, but this is not really useful at all. For one even with all of the weather stations and satellites, floats in the ocean, and thermal imaging, we still are not able to evaluate and assess all sources and sinks in the real system. GCM's are getting better but are not very good at long term projections and are not predictive at all. One may make an argument of NOA being affected by global warming or the late Steven Schnider's prediction on cloud formations, but to date no empirical data exists to support such assertions.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] If you knew the difference between weather and climate you would not have just posted the previous comment. As for the other items you mention (satellite and ocean heat measurements, clouds, GCM's, "NOA [do you mean NAO?]), use the search function in the upper left corner to find a more appropriate thread to posit your questions on. Thanks! -
Chemist1 at 23:45 PM on 10 January 2011Not So Cool Predictions
Last winter the continent of South America had a record cold winter. The East coast is currently expreriencing record breaking cold conditions, (and snowfall in some places exceeding expectations of climate scientists and many meteorologists)California had a uncharactistically cold summer and is now experiencing an unusually cold winter, Europe has been experiencing a cold wave, NY had some heat waves but nothing record breaking, Minnesota has been experiencing extreme cold characteristic of what would be expected for that region, and Russia had some record breking heat waves. If there is no global cooling there is certainly no global warming either. -
Chemist1 at 23:40 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
This post has several flaws in it. Most notably a far too superficial discussion on thermodynamics and a vague discussion on averages. When I have more time I will go into detail but for now temperature changes can greatly affect how much C02 is exchanged naturally from oceans to the atmosphere. Second what does hfranzen mean by "on the average?" There are many ways to measure averages loosely or central tendency, so on what timescales in what way is the claim average being made and actually measured? C02 has been higher on this planet prior to humans being here. Oceans supply most of our oxygen supplies as well. C02 lags temperature changes. C02 has very different effects in an open system than in a closed one like in a lab experiment where controlled conditions do not necessarily mimick real world, natural behavior. Thermodynamics also limits how much temperature changes can be possible due to rising greenhouse gases. Large amounts of C02 and CH4 can be added to the system with no net temperature change. As hfranzen correctly mentions: the oceans are full of life and complex biological cycles and buffering capacity. Water with a high heat capacity covering around 75% of the earth's surface with incredible depths can trap heat indefinitley as it goes from the warmer body to the cooler body due to temperature differences. This is basic thermodynamics: heat travels to the cooler body.Even process like convection and advection are not going to grab all of the heat and trap it in a manner that raises temperature, which is just the statistical averaging of kinetic motion of molecules. It is still impossible to actually average global temperature though the GCM's and techniques are getting better.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] My, that is quite the Gish Gallop. I would suggest you go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcomers-Start-Here.html to learn more. Thanks! -
Bernard J. at 22:59 PM on 10 January 2011The physical realities of global warming
Hi John. Would it be possible to update the second figure to include the 2010 value, perhaps in a separate colour? I think that it would demonstrate a point... -
Chemware at 22:56 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
Thanks boba10960 - exactly what I wanted - I have a mate (a scientist !!!) who is in deep denial, and "warming oceans" is his pet theory. Nice to know that the oceans have not warmed by 12 C or so. -
boba10960 at 21:38 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
One can find extensive technical information that backs up the post of hfranzen on the web site of the Carbon Dioxide Information Data Center: CDIAC Chemware: You can download CO2SYS from the CDIAC web site as an Excel file to perform the calculations you may wish to play with. It is well documented so that educators can use it for classroom exercises. Others have used full ocean models to calculate the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration in response to the changes in whole-ocean average temperature. I don't remember the source or I would cite it, but the sensitivity is about 7 or 8 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 per degree of warming of the ENTIRE ocean (mainly the deep ocean). Since the deep ocean has warmed hardly at all, and the surface ocean has warmed only a fraction of a degree, the contribution to rising atmospheric CO2 by warming of the ocean over the past century is negligible. One other comment: The calculations described by hfranzen are for a lifeless ocean. The net effect of organisms in the ocean is to transfer carbon from the atmosphere and the surface ocean down into the deep sea, commonly known as the "biological pump". The net effect is that the dissolved carbon concentration in the deep ocean is about 10% greater than it would be in a lifeless ocean, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is much lower than it would be if the ocean were lifeless. Calculations done in the early 1980's indicate that atmospheric CO2 could be as high as 450 ppm in a lifeless ocean. These calculations are summarized more recently in the textbook "Ocean Biogeochemical Cycles" by Jorge Sarmiento and Niki Gruber. Despite massive human impact on fisheries, as yet there is no evidence that humans have measurably perturbed the biological pump, but perturbation remains a possibility that could lead to either a positive or a negative feedback for atmospheric CO2. For example, the idea to lower atmospheric CO2 by adding iron to the ocean around Antarctica is based on stimulating the biological pump to transfer more carbon into the deep sea. -
Anne-Marie Blackburn at 21:35 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
apiratelooksat50 To put it very simply: looking at the causes of past climate change will not tell you much about the causes of current climate change. To understand current climate change, you have to look at the different factors which we know have an impact on global climate. Scientists have done that, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely cause of current warming, while other factors such as solar variability, the Milankovitch cycles, internal variability and volcanic activity are very unlikely to be the cause of current warming. It's not twisted logic, it's the conclusion reached by thousands of climate scientists based on evidence. Because one factor was responsible for warming in the past doesn't mean that factor is responsible for current warming. I have already asked you to tell me which mechanism is responsible for current warming, if not CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and you failed to answer me. So I'm going to ask you again: 1) Which factor is responsible for current warming, and what data do you base this assertion on? Can warming caused by this factor explain other observations, such as nights warming faster than days and stratospheric cooling? You seem to think that orbital changes are responsible for current warming - can you find me a single scientific paper that shows it? 2) Why would an increase in CO2, a gaz which absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, not have an impact on temperatures? Do you have evidence, as published in the scientific literature, that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally flawed? -
MarkR at 20:53 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
2/ plus humans are emitting CO2 at a rate faster than it's building up in the atmosphere. If oceans are outgassing it too, then where the hell are human emissions going and why is chemistry broken? And why do we measure falling ocean pH? The 'CO2 rise isn't human caused' arguments is one of the stupidest I can think of once you look at the data. Sure, to someone who's new to the whole deal and hasn't seen the figures it might make sense, but consistent 'skeptics' should know better. -
JMurphy at 18:58 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
cruzn246, could you post your location on the It's Freaking Cold thread (even if only generally, but more detailed than "Midwest") so we can all check when you might have actually last had any record high temperatures ? -
scaddenp at 18:49 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
3/ Well eventually this IS a carbon feedback, but outgassing from ocean as source of current CO2 is unsupportable. If this was true, the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 would be different from the observed. -
Chemware at 18:23 PM on 10 January 2011Seawater Equilibria
A couple of suggestions:- Provide references to the various data used in the calculation;
- Put the model into a spreadsheet, and provide a link for others to play with it;
- One skeptic theory is that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by outgassing from the warming oceans. What oceanic temperature increase would be required to produce this ?
- Have you searched the literature for work on this subject ?
-
archiesteel at 15:40 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
@gallopingcamel: "Trotting out that tired old graph shows that you don't understand what I explained in #154" It's not a tired old graph, and it shows exactly what apiratelooksat50 asked about: a correlation between CO2 and temperature. The "red herring" is your artificial requirement that CO2 and temperature must *always* correlate. That's simply not true, as aerosols and other forcings (such as orbital forcings) can also affect temperatures. What you and apiratelooksat50 have failed to demonstrate is how the current warming isn't linked to CO2, despite the mountain of evidence suggesting it is. Until you bring that evidence, you have no argument. Oh, and I wasn't briging up the funding issue, I simply stated in a colorful way that only a very small minority of climate scientists support your position, and that many of them appear to be scientists-for-hire given their past employers. I do agree that it's off-topic, however, and won't mention it any further in this thread. -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:32 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Sphaerica @ 189: "So, at the end, you come out with the same old, tired, wishy-washy nonsense. You agree with the logic, but there are "uncertainties" and things we can't quantify or know and "It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question."" We agree on some of the more basic mechanics and science of climate. Absolutley there are uncertainties and unknowns. Read the pro-AGW papers yourself and note the use of "uncertain" words like may, possible, potential, suggest, etc... Read the twisted logic in the last paragraph that started this thread. It says that CO2 did not initiate the shifts toward interglacials the past 400,000 years, but current climate change is driven by GHG's. It then has the audacity to say the conclusion was not based on analysis of past climate change. I'm a peacemaker by nature, and I realize that discussing climate change and it's mechanics are akin to discussing evolution vs. creationism. (FWIW I firmly believe in evolution). We will probably never agree with the other side, but serious, civil scientific discussion is always enjoyable. Only the march of time will decide who the victor in this debate is.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You misquote Anne-Marie's paragraph:"To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change."
This issue has been examined thoroughly. Per the National Academies, global warming is an accepted fact and that we are causing it is a greater than 90% likelihood. The reason that past climate change is not a useful comp for what is empirically, measurably occurring today is that at no demonstrable point in the paleo record has CO2 ever increased in the atmosphere by such a large amount in such a short period of time in the absence of other causative forcings and feedbacks (the rate is the thing). If you don't understand the post and the material it links to, don't mischaracterize with terms like "twisted logic" or "audacity". Similarly, if you do understand it but disagree, do so respectfully. And provide links to peer-reviewed, published material that supports your disagreement. All else is hand-waving. -
gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
archiesteel (#186), Trotting out that tired old graph shows that you don't understand what I explained in #154. You misunderstood (deliberately?) "apiratelooksat50s" comment (#184). He was challenging you to match the CO2 curve to temperature over an extended period of time and that simply can't be done. The best you can hope for is a match over a few decades (e.g. 1975 to 2000) but there will be other periods where the correlation is in anti-phase (e.g 1934 to 1975) at least in the arctic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/twice-as-much-canada.html http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/coastal-average.png In an effort to find common ground, I support DB's opinion that the funding issue is a red herring.Moderator Response: {Daniel Bailey] I made no such claim about funding. But while I'm here, let's address your misunderstanding of archiesteel's graph. You are simply incorrect that a match cannot be done over a space longer than a few decades (a thorough reading of this post over at RC is called for), as archiesteel's graph covers a 160-year period. If you want still longer, than how about this (note the zero year is 1950):
-
villabolo at 15:24 PM on 10 January 2011What's in a Name?
Perhaps we should use a triple foundation of the following: Global Warming-the man made cause. Climate Change-the natural consequences Climate Crisis-the social consequences. -
apiratelooksat50 at 14:35 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Archiesteel @ 186 "It's not really in question. Just about the only "scientists" contesting this are financed by conservative think tanks, themselves bankrolled by the like of David Koch and his ilk." By this logic, "scientists" financed by liberal think tanks should be ignored as well.Moderator Response: Okay, fair enough. Now everybody please back off the politics. -
muoncounter at 14:27 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
#23: "I cannot remember... " Short memory? Looks like you were probably in the red in November. But now its moisture that keeps it warm? Can you substantiate that, with maybe some data?Moderator Response: Please, no substantiation. No discussion of local temperature records. -
cruzn246 at 14:18 PM on 10 January 2011We're heading into cooling
JMurph, I cannot remember the last record high temp in my area. Sure we had a warm summer, but it was the direct result of a nearly constant moist environment that kept nighttime temps abnormally high.Moderator Response: Enough with reports of local temperatures, especially ones based on personal memory. Stick to the topic of this thread. -
hfranzen at 14:04 PM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
P.S. to # 40. Please see comment #25 above. -
hfranzen at 14:00 PM on 10 January 2011The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
It is not the water vapor feedback that concerns me - GWPPT6 has no feedback included in the calculation. In GWPPT6 the effect of carbon dioxide alone is isolated and therefore there is no interference from water vapor included. That is, there may well be some important absorption lines of water vapor and caron dioxide that overlap and if this is the case the calculated absorption by carbon dioxide could be in error because of this overlap. I feel quite certain that this is not a major effect, but it could have some impact upon the calculations. I would suggest that an accurate estimate of the effect of carbon dioxide could be found by doing the calculation including the enormous number of absorption lines of both carbon dioxide and water vapor including allowance for line broadening (collision effects, and his would require partitioning the calculation into temperature intervals as a function of altitude). I not only lack the data and the experience to do this calculation, but it would also require a huge amount of serious computer time. However I feel confident of the result because the number that I get is in the right ball-park. In fact until I am made aware of a more detailed calculation that yields a result that it significantly different from that of GWPPT6 I am inclined to believe that as long as the interest is in climate change, as opposed to local weather, the results of GWPPT6 are quite satisfactory. -
muoncounter at 13:46 PM on 10 January 2011Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
Last time this stomata question came up, the geocraft.com site featured prominently (but that was on a different thread). Oddly enough, one point never gets mentioned by the deniers: The error bars around stomata reconstructed CO2 values tend to be +/-50ppm. See Figure 6 in Jessen et al 2005 (one of the sources for the graph in #9). Put those error bars on the orange line around 300ppm in the graph in #9 and it is no different from the ice core data. And the deniers claim tree ring data is suspect! -
Daniel Bailey at 13:23 PM on 10 January 2011Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels
(Reader Matthew posted this in a different thread at 12:54 PM on 10 January 2011; as a courtesy I'm reposting it here.)
Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years
A skeptic posted this and I went to know what you think of it. Thanks.
-
Bob Lacatena at 13:13 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
185, apiratelooksat50, So, at the end, you come out with the same old, tired, wishy-washy nonsense. You agree with the logic, but there are "uncertainties" and things we can't quantify or know and "It's the magnitude of these effects that are in legitimate question." No, they're not. At this point in time, multiple lines of evidence, from paleohistory to simple physics to GCMs all project climate sensitivity at between 2˚C and 4˚C per doubling, with somewhere around 3˚C being the best guess. So many lines of evidence converge on that point, as a matter of fact, that its nearly a certainty, and if there's any error in the estimate, it's in being too low. Still, at the end, you're position is simply that of the tired robots who are ideologically motivated and so can't be swayed by facts, because the facts can always be interpreted in a pleasing way to meet your wishes. And you've wasted everybody's time. Some simple irrefutable facts: 1) If we address the problem now, it will be cheap. If we don't both the suffering and the costs of climate change will be enormous. 2) Many of the solutions are in the ecological, strategic and economic interests of all parties anyway, completely separate from climate change issues. 3) There is immense inertia in the system. We have already dialed the planet's thermostat way, way up. Even if we found a way to completely stop burning fossil fuels today, the damage would be immense. The planet's temperature would continue to rise for some time. So your strategy of delay and deny and refute and vacillate and "let's just wait and see, shall we?" is going to have enormous, horrific repercussions. If we don't get things under control for 20 or 30 years, the price is going to be very, very steep. From the very beginning, I found your evolving tone of rational, mild resistance to be disingenuous. It set off all sorts of alarms in my denial detectors. I'm angry with myself for having held out hope, but on the other hand I'm certain that any number of lurkers have read our exchanges, and learned from them.Moderator Response: Additional comments on topics that are specifically addressed by other threads must be on those threads. I mean apiratelooksat50 and everybody else. Please. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:13 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
Re: apiratelooksat50 (184)"If CO2 levels are a major force force in global temperature increases, and we have this sharp increase, then the we should see a similar increase in temperature."
Strawman argument. Lest I must repeat myself, this was all discussed further upthread."Can you overlay that graph, as well?"
archiesteel at 186 and muoncounter at 187 have more than fulfilled this request of yours. The Yooper -
Utahn at 12:44 PM on 10 January 2011Temp record is unreliable
If anyone cares I emailed the folks who have done the GSOD database, and it sounds like the GHCN daily record has an overlap with 4131 GSOD stations, but that the GHCN monthly stations(which according to the above provide the 3 main temperature datasets) do not overlap with the GSOD stations. Still not quite sure I understand that so if anyone has any other info feel free to chime in! -
muoncounter at 12:32 PM on 10 January 2011Understanding the CO2 lag in past climate change
#184: "Can you overlay that graph" Already done, most recently here. If you would look at and read and learn from other threads, you would see that your 'objections' have answers. All except for that untouchable bottom line 'no it's not'. Perhaps you should answer the question: What caused you to become so convinced that you are correct? What allows you to disregard mountains of evidence and cling to your pre-conceived mindset? #185: "Nothing should be ignored, but instead should be considered in reality ... " Ahh, now we bring in the reinforcements: solar magnetic field, cosmic rays, blocking, solar UV and what not? 'ABC': anything but CO2! Archie beat me to it. Continuing to chase those other strawmen is off topic for this thread.
Prev 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Next
