Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 Next
Comments 21001 to 21050:
-
DrivingBy at 08:02 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
OK, I like this, but I don't get
"Feeding pattern makes the seasonal wobble on CO2 graphs. Up & down, up & down, year in year out. So like a heartbeat."
When it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere (the Greatest Hemisphere, the most Hemi Spherical sphere there's ever been ;-), it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere (Southern anything makes people lazy, this is proof ;-).
Um, anyway, it should be equally winter and summer in wherever locations, ignoring that land mass is unevenly distributed around the globe. So why the seasonal C02 jig-jag?
-
John Hartz at 07:25 AM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
Another aspect of yesterday's hearing is covered in:
Members of Congress met to discuss the costs of climate change. They ended up debating its existence. by Chelsea Harvey, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, Feb 28, 2017
-
John Hartz at 07:22 AM on 2 March 2017Republican hearing calls for a lower carbon pollution price. It should be much higher
For additional details about the social cost of carbon, see:
Q&A: The social cost of carbon, Carbon Brief, Feb 14, 2017
-
Doug Mackie at 04:32 AM on 2 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@8 yes rxn *can* happen. But which process CONTROLS carbon cycle in GREAT America over non-geological time? See Wally Broecker (ldeo) books -
Nick Palmer at 00:31 AM on 2 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
I thought I'd see how many of the usual suspects were in it. Interestingly, I didn't find Christy or Peiser in there...
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich
ANDERSON, Charles R
BALL, Tim
BARTLETT, David
BASTARDI, Joseph
BELL, Larry S
BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, Sonja A
BRIGGS William M.
D'ALEO, Joseph S.
DOUGLASS JR.
DYSON, Freeman
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.
EVANS, David M. W.
HAPPER, William
HUMLUM, Ole
IDSO, Craig
LEGATES, David R.
LINDZEN, Richard
MANUEL, Oliver K.
MISKOLCZI, Ferenc Mark
MOCKTON, Christopher
MOORE, Patrick
MORNER, Nils-Axel
MOTL, Lubos
SCHMITT, Harrison H.
SINGER, Fred S.
SOON, Willie
SPENCER, Roy W.
WHITEHEAD, David -
Paul W at 21:19 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@7 http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/gpg/projects/carbon-sequestration
Mg2SiO4 (olivine) + 2 CO2 (from gas or fluid) = 2MgCO3 (magnesite) + SiO2 (quartz)
-
Doug Mackie at 20:02 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@4: Dissolution 1x carbonate rock (weathering) uses 1x CO2 & makes 2x bicarbonate (not carbonate). Weathering = sink CO2. Equatn 4 OA not OK
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:01 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
Next, refering back to one of Tom's earlier posts to Rudmop here.
Here is another graph from the same paper.
To explain the graph. the upper curve is direct observations from a satellite, the lower calculations from theory. The upper curve is shifted up for clarity, they are actually almost identical. Theory matching observations really, really well.
They are measuring the intensity of infrared radiation coming up from the Earth, wavelength by wavelength. The observations were taken by the Nimbus 3 satellite in April 1969
The area under the curve is how much energy is being radiated to space. And as you can see the curve isn't smooth, as we might expect. There arest chunks missing from it. The biggest one, centered at a wavelength of 15 microns, is due to CO2. Predicted by theory and directly observed before Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon.So there, directly observed, is the major role of CO2, that gas that makes up only a small part of the atmosphere.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:40 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
Responding to your comment to Tom.
"The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher" Why? You are making a quantitativestatement but not supplying any numbers for the argument.
The question is this. When a typical photon of IR radiation is emitted from the surface, are there enough CO2 molecules in the air column above it to intercept it before it reaches space? If no, it escapes easily and there is no heat trapping effect. If yes then it is trapped, its energy is added to the atmosphere and it contributes to modifying the climate state.
So there are two key numbers that you need to think about (actually 3).- How many photons are emittet, per seconds from say 1 m2 of surface?
- How many CO2 molecules lie between them and space?
- And the thrid question covers how likely it is that the CO2 molecule will absorb the photon if they meet, and how many times per second a CO2 can do this?
Note that this does not depend on the relative proportion of CO2, its percentage of the atmosphere. So you are focusing on the wrong measure.
So the starting point for thinking about this is how many CO2 molecules are there? Not their proportion.
Pick a patch of ground and picture a square meter of ground area that photons might be emitted from. Now go up 1 meter. Thats 1 cubic meter of air. CO2 is around 400 parts per million of that cubic meter. How many CO2 molecules is that?
8,500,000,000,000,000,000,000
8 1/2 thousand million million million CO2 molecules. And the same in the next cubic meter above it and the next and the next....
So as a starting point, there are huge numbers of CO2 molecules, even though they are only a small percentage of the atmosphere.
That cubic meter contains around 20,760,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of all types.
This is the problem with trying to think in terms of ratios, proportions, percentages etc. Small percentages might seem insignificant but actually it is the absolute magnitude that matters, not the percentages. -
One Planet Only Forever at 15:31 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
I like the Death Spiral presentation of the Arctic Sea Ice Mass.
It may be even more effective paired with a regular line graph. The line graph would show how the rate of reduction has noticeably increased since the late 1990s (no statistical evaluation required). The spiral makes it difficult to see that there was only a slight reduction from 1978 to the late 1990s (the first 20 years) compared to the more recent rate of reduction (the most recent 20 years).
The implication is that although the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has been generally steady some of the impacts on significant aspects of the global climate system are accelerating, even through the period of time that some people still try to claim was a hiatus or stop of the warming of the surface.
-
stephen baines14492 at 14:34 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface."
The constant mixing ratio to 90km in the atmopshere, provided by Tom, is measured. Your contrary evidence from periodic overturn of meromictic lakes and tree lines is purely circumstantial. You hypothesize a pattern in CO2 from those observations, but the measurements disagree with your predictions, so your hypotheses are wrong. The effect of CO2 emitted by lakes and the location of treelines are easily explained by other hypotheses (lag in mixing, and temperature).
"The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change."
This is assertion with no evidence. Measurements show O2 and N2 have little effect on IR radiation, while CO2 and H2O do. Models based on physics of CO2 predict a clear effect. You have to understand why they do so, before you can question those assumptions. Warning: those models are based on an enormous body of observations.
"If you throw in hundreds of volcanic eruptions where the Carbon cycle cannot keep up then maybe, but eventually it will even out."
Again, assetion without evidence. Annual human emissions of CO2 are in fact on the order of 100x the contribution by volcanic eruptions. The carbon cycle can't keep up with that. The increase is measured. The carbon can be attributed to humans using multiple lines of evidence.
"Isn’t it more feasible that the solar minimum/maximum cycles with the maunder minimums that happen control the temperature, which then affect the CO2 levels based on the things already mentioned?"
No. This hypothesis has been addressed and found wanting. Solar inputs are flat or declining since the temperature began increasing in earnest in the 1980s, when CO2 levels began taking off and CO2 effects rose above natural variation. Patterns of warming (night/day, troposphere/ stratosphere) have the fingerprints of warming due to greenhouse gasses. No model can recreate current temperature increases and these fingerprints from natural solar or albedo variations.
At this point. I'm going to stop, because I have barely got through a few paragraphs and addressed all your questions with links to this site that clearly show you are working on false premises and drawing false conclusions. You need to start with the data and work through the resulting theory. I suggest you list your questions and read the relevant posts. Then post questions if you still have them.
-
KR at 14:12 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop - I'm afraid your assertions regarding Arrhenius are incorrect, as his 1896 paper clearly include a climate sensitivity estimate including feedbacks. That comes out to roughly 6C/doubling of CO2, considerably higher than modern estimates, although in his 1906 "Worlds in the Making" (quoted here) he revised that downwards to about 4C/doubling, due to errors regarding mutual displacement and concentration of CO2 and water vapor in the reference samples he received from Langley. That's well within the range currently considered possible by the IPCC, which is quite impressive considering that the stratosphere hadn't even been detected when he wrote it.
"On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." (p53)
It's pretty clear that you are unfamiliar with the references you have been criticizing. And as I stated before, your arguments and predictions are contradicted by the experimental evidence.
-
stephen baines14492 at 12:51 PM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
Doug is right @1. Formation of solid phase calcium carbonate stores 1 C atoms in sediment, but it removes alkalinity from ocean that (at current pH) could store ~2 C atoms. So net loss of C storage between oceans and sediment that must go back into air.
Now, how one would explain that to Trump, I have no idea. I can't believe he could get past tweet number 3 before he would lose interest, much less make it to 23.
-
tmketner at 12:45 PM on 1 March 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Thanks for the responses. I really want to understand this, so I am coming into this discussion with an open mind. I hope you are patient.
- Tom: My comment: "CO2 is not an upper atmosphere gas. It is the heaviest of the primary atmospheric gases."
I did not mean that CO2 does not exist in the upper atmosphere, because of course it is a gas, and temperature, wind, volcanic activity, etc. will effect levels of concentration based on your graph. It is also trapped in water, so will exist in water vapor, clouds etc. My point is, based on my “lake rolling over” and “tree-line” statements, it is concentrated closer to the surface.
- Tom: I absolutely disagree with this: “The ratio is now 1 in every 2,500 molecules. Regardless of the specific ratio, so what? The world is full of substances which have very significant effects with very small quantities. Consequently you cannot quote a small quantity in absence of all other data and make any conclusion about effectiveness. (If you want to discuss this point further, please do so at the linked page.)
The levels of CO2 needed to cause the types of changes specified, would have to be much higher. Absorption, molecular structure, and the carbon cycle itself prevents the levels getting high enough to cause a significant change. If you throw in hundreds of volcanic eruptions where the Carbon cycle cannot keep up then maybe, but eventually it will even out. Isn’t it more feasible that the solar minimum/maximum cycles with the maunder minimums that happen control the temperature, which then affect the CO2 levels based on the things already mentioned?
- Glenn: This statement does not help the conversation at all “Then rescuers arrive later and they don't die. Hmmm, maybe it takes a short time for a concentrated amount to mix and that short period is all it takes to kill people before it mixes.”
Of course, over time, it will dissipate, but the length of time it takes to dissipate through re-absorption, or the concentration level enough to kill living things goes down, proves by design CO2 wants to remain in the lower atmosphere. Any of the other primary gases released in the same quantity would not have the same lethal effect. It kills everything for miles, not feet. There have been instances where houses 2 miles away, had a child survive in the top bunk, and the child in the bottom bunk died.
- Glen: I have a hard time with this “Then most of it ends up back in the ocean straight away - most rain falls on the oceans. Of that falling on land, most ends up flowing into the oceans anyway, snow only halts that process temporarily.
In the oceans (and to a very, very minor extent lakes), it becomes part of the broader carbon cycle. And some of the carbon ends up being outgassed back to the atmosphere again.”
I would think this would be correct if it falls directly into a river or the ocean, but the ease of absorption by earth, plants, rocks, ice, etc., makes that hard to swallow. Colder temperatures would slow this process greatly, where warmer temps would speed it up, going back to my original statement CO2 levels are controlled by temp, not the other way around.
- Tom: Can you elaborate on this point: “ You cannot argue from the glacial data that there is a connection and simply ignore the magnitude of the effect, but once you allow for the magnitude of the effect, it becomes very clear that the 20th century temperature increase is not the cause of the 20th century CO2 concentration increase.”
Because CO2 is easily absorbed by pretty much everything, wouldn’t it be an exacerbating effect? If ice melts, water evaporates, rocks and soil dry out from the rising temperatures, wouldn’t all of the CO2 that is trapped in these things raise the levels of CO2 concentration found in the cores? The more temperatures keep rising, the more CO2 releases into the atmosphere.
- Eclectic: “tmketner @283, you have forgotten that to be a properly controlled experiment, your second can of soda would have to be put into a refrigerator as large as the "room temperature" room, in order to properly minimise the back-pressure from the CO2 released from the liquid soda drink. Did you do the experiment that way?”
I have done the experiment in my garage on cold nights and my car on cold nights. You may have a point about pressure, because I seem to get the best results when it is in my car, and no one opened the door. With my garage and refrigerator opening and closing, pressure does not come into play.
-
Digby Scorgie at 10:36 AM on 1 March 2017Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
Tom Curtis @11
Okay, so we only need to get worried if we see an organization like the Brown Shirts forming. The trouble is, it seems to me that a segment of American society is already exhibiting similar attitudes to the Brown Shirts. One hopes they don't get organized.
-
Paul W at 08:11 AM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
@1 Doug Mackie, while you're technically correct that steps 23 & 24 are sources of CO2 steps 16, 17, 18 & 19 skip the formations of soluble magnesium and calcium silicates, the precipitation of silicic acid which is the step that takes the acid function from CO2 with the formation of bicarbonates.
Over all, the CO2 from the air dissolves rocks, goes into carbonates in the shallow oceans but the details that were skipped don't help a 6 year old "Winnie the Pooh" level thinker like Trump to understand the science. Moot point?
-
BaerbelW at 07:09 AM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
The 49 tweets went out on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/skepticscience/status/836637742272503808
-
John Mason at 04:20 AM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
In terms of total carbon though (which is the subject here), half the carbon from bicarbonate swishing around in the sea gets locked away as calcium carbonate. Hence the specific description of limestone as a CARBON sink, not a CO2 sink. Every description of the slow carbon cycle mentions the same. Carbon locked up in limestone is mostly out of the way, unless it gets cooked or weathered - and for a lot of limestone that's only a minor, localised process.
-
Doug Mackie at 04:07 AM on 1 March 2017Dear Mr President: another message from across the Pond
23 & 24 so WRONG! Calcification a SOURCE not sink of CO2. See Equation 1 of OA not OK (link left side bar). COMPLEX - some buts and ifs.
-
Nick Palmer at 02:41 AM on 1 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Let's look on the bright side. If that collection of climate science nobodies is all that Lindzen can muster for a headline petition to Trump, then he has clearly had to scrape the bottom of the barrel. This is emphasised by the misdirecting nature of the rhetoric in his letter, which attempts to persuade the reader that this handful of people has a lot more significance than they actually have.
-
BILLHURLEY13951 at 01:56 AM on 1 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Agreed. I'm not saying otherwise either. It's just that the famous 97% number relates to those who've written about 'climate' and the opposition ignores that (or doesn't understand that). If we continue to say "scientists", then it's promoting this confusion out there.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:45 AM on 1 March 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
BILLHURLEY @17, it may not be the case that 97% of all scientists accept climate science. Rather, 92% do. What is more, 97% of scientists consider climate science to be credible science (Q 18), with only 6.6% considering climate science less trustworthy than their own discipline (Q 20). Further, 63.5% consider climate science to be "mature relative to their discipline" (Q 19).
That last requires some explanation. Obviously practisioners of the most mature disciplines (eg, physics or chemistry) will not consider climate science mature relative to that discipline. But for other disciplines, climate science is considered comparably mature, by the pracitioners of those disciplines. This includes disciplines with solid research histories dating back to the mid-18th century:
So regardless of Lamar Smith's incredulity, climate science is accepted as a reliable, mature discipline by the overwhelming majority of all scientists.
-
BILLHURLEY13951 at 23:54 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
My congressman is Rep. Lamar Smith. A stronger denialist is hard to find. I recently went to his office and a staffer scoffed at the "97% of scientists" claim. I responded that -no, not scientists which include economists or political scientists, no. These are climatologists! Do you know the difference?
Actually I think even though green advocates know the difference, we should stop saying "...of scientists" because of this confusion. We're not as effective when people like Byorn Lomborg (political scientist?) can claim otherwise.
-
Eclectic at 19:37 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner @283, you have forgotten that to be a properly controlled experiment, your second can of soda would have to be put into a refrigerator as large as the "room temperature" room, in order to properly minimise the back-pressure from the CO2 released from the liquid soda drink. Did you do the experiment that way?
Besides, the death of humans and animals near a lake which has "rolled-over" and released large quantities of CO2 ..... is something relatively unimportant. Professor Lindzen and other deniers have often reminded us that CO2 is very beneficial to the world, as plant food.
-
chriskoz at 17:41 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Desmog provides some more trivia about the subject Lindzen list. I find especially funny this one:
...in reality, Lindzen’s list is a rehash of previous “open letters” and petitions going back almost a decade, carrying many of the same names and making the same worn-out arguments that CO2 is good for the planet
and this final one:
Lindzen’s list also includes several members of Principia Scientific International — a UK-based group that has claimed carbon dioxide is not even a greenhouse gas.
Climate science denier and British peer Lord Christopher Monckton once described a founder of that group, John Sullivan, as “confused and scientifically illiterate.”
This is terrifically ironic because Monckton is also on Lindzen’s latest list, except his name is spelled “Mockton.”
Cannot be any more ironic. And of course indicative that Lindzen may well made this list up and people who "signed" it don't even know of its existence.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:31 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
"It is so easily absorbed in water, when it rains; it literally flushes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, and traps it in soil, lakes, ice, etc."
Not quite. Yes it dissolves in raindrops, where it reacts with the water to form Carbonic Acid. This in turn largely dissociates into Bicarbonate ions and and hydrogen ions - lowering the pH. Some of the Bicarbonate in turn dissociates into carbonate ions and more hydrogen ions. As a result the rainwater drop is slightly acidic. Most of the carbon exists as Bicarbonate and Carbonate with only modest amounts of CO2.
Then most of it ends up back in the ocean straight away - most rain falls on the oceans. Of that falling on land, most ends up flowing into the oceans anyway, snow only halts that process temporarily.
In the oceans (and to a very, very minor extent lakes), it becomes part of the broader carbon cycle. And some of the carbon ends up being outgassed back to the atmosphere again. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:23 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
"Ever hear of a lake “rolling over”, and releasing the CO2 trapped in it? The CO2 kills everything within miles close to the ground. It does not dissipate into the upper atmosphere."
Then rescuers arrive later and they don't die. Hmmm, maybe it takes a short time for a concentrated amount to mix and that short period is all it takes to kill people before it mixes.
Moderator Response:[PS] To understand that gas is dominated by diffusion, not molecular weight, you might like to look Bromine(heavy) + air experiment. As measurements and diffusion theory tell you, it does indeed dissipate into upper atmosphere.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:19 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner
"Ever wonder why a tree line pretty much stays the same?"
Because average temperature decreases with altitude, by on average -6.5 C/km. So the tree line matches the isotherm at the limit of th trees adaptation to cold.
Here is an easy experiment, which can done at home although it will take a bit more work. Get a sealable container that you can fill with a large amount of CO2. Open two cans of soda, put one on the counter at room temperature, and put the other one next to it in the container which you seal and fill with a concentration of CO2 greater than what was in the can of soda originally. After a couple of hours, pour each one into a separate glass. It is obvious from the much higher carbonation, actually higher than it was originally, from the can left in your CO2 container, that CO2 is absorbed into the liquid much faster when the air contains higher amounts of CO2. -
Tom Curtis at 14:56 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
tmketner @283:
1) CO2 is an upper atmosphere gas as shown by these measured CO2 values (solid lines) at altitudes from 25 to 120 Kilometers above sea level:
(Source)
CO2 is heavier than air, and a release of cold CO2 gas will stay on or near the ground provided wind velocities are near zero. Even slight winds will cause the CO2 to mix thoroughly with other atmospheric gases up to an altitude at which collisions between molecules start becoming rare.
Just out of interest, here are the text book profiles of a variety of atmospheric gases:
(Source)
2) The ratio is now 1 in every 2,500 molecules. Regardless of the specific ratio, so what? The world is full of substances which have very significant effects with very small quantities. Consequently you cannot quote a small quantity in absence of all other data and make any conclusion about effectiveness. (If you want to discuss this point further, please do so at the linked page.)
3) Absent anthropogenic influences, the CO2 concentration is a function of the rate of volcanic release modulated by the rate of chemical weathering. This has varied over time, and in times of high CO2 we have had high temperatures. In the short term, the base concentration is further modulated by temperature, as you say. However, the rate of change of CO2 concentration relative to temperature in the gacial cycle would predict, at most a 40 ppmv increase in CO2 from the temperature increase over the last century. Using recent paleological data, the rate of increase durring the MWP, and decrease for the LIA would predict even less than that. You cannot argue from the glacial data that there is a connection and simply ignore the magnitude of the effect, but once you allow for the magnitude of the effect, it becomes very clear that the 20th century temperature increase is not the cause of the 20th century CO2 concentration increase.
For further discussion on that point, I suggest you read and then make further comments at this post.)
Some brief points:
You use the example of large scale CO2 release from volcanic lakes, and then say, "It does not dissipate into the upper atmosphere". Really? So according to you those pools of CO2 are still there? In fact these events almost invariably happen at night when the air is cold, and still enough to not dissipate the CO2, but within a few hours of dawn the CO2 is completely dissipated.
You argue that CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere by rain, which fails to explain why there is CO2 in the atmosphere at a slowly increasing amount despite all the rain we have. Indeed, you then give examples of CO2 being released from water (the cans of soda) contradicting that claim. In fact, CO2 in water will seek the same partial pressure as is in the atmosphere. That has resulted in about 50% of anthropogenic CO2 being absorbed by the ocean, but that leaves the other 50% in the atmosphere.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:45 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
And... in addition to that, please take a wild guess at how many actively publishing climate scientists there are in the world today.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:42 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
GB... Before anyone launches into that list, please describe how you would define someone as an expert.
-
Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
I do not know where the list comes from, but short look at WIKI, lists quite a few experts who do not agree. It is rather obvious that if one is making a living as Global Warming Scientist receiving funding, such a person would be a proponent of the issue. Personally, I am surprised that you did not include the list published by WIKI and chose instead to pick someone no one ever heard of. Its allarming that founder of Green Peace is among them. LINK
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
tmketner at 13:32 PM on 28 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Please address the following molecular make up of CO2.
- CO2 is not an upper atmosphere gas. It is the heaviest of the primary atmospheric gases.
Easy Analogy: Everyone knows the higher you go on a mountain, the harder it is to breathe oxygen. The CO2 molecule is 30% heavier than O2 (oxygen molecules), meaning it stays closer to the earth’s surface. Ever wonder why a tree line pretty much stays the same? It is because there is not enough CO2 to sustain that type of plant life that high.
- CO2 is the scarcest of the primary gases. For every 3000 molecules that make up our "air" (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, [CO2, Methane, Rare (inert) gases], there is one CO2 molecule.
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L9/web-L9.pdf
- Scientist have proven when the earth has heated up over the thousands of years of ice core history, that CO2 levels are higher. This proves CO2 causes global warming. WRONG! CO2 is the most easily absorbed of the primary gases that make up our atmosphere.
Fact: CO2 absorbs in earth, rocks, water, and guess what, ice. As the earth heats up, water evaporates, ice melts, the CO2 trapped in all of these things, is released. It is an effect, not the cause. It is so easily absorbed in water, when it rains; it literally flushes excess CO2 out of the atmosphere, and traps it in soil, lakes, ice, etc.
Ever hear of a lake “rolling over”, and releasing the CO2 trapped in it? The CO2 kills everything within miles close to the ground. It does not dissipate into the upper atmosphere.
Here is an easy experiment, which can done at home. Open two cans of soda, put one on the counter at room temperature, and put the other in the refrigerator. After a couple of hours, pour each one into a separate glass. It is obvious from the carbonation remaining in the cans that CO2 releases much faster from the warmer can.
-
chriskoz at 12:44 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
As years go by, science deniers in US are finding support of their actions increasingly difficult. Famous Oregon Petition had over 31000 signers, among them 9000+ signers with PhD. Further:
a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."
Which is coincidentally (or maybe not) in line with 97% climate science concensus.
The nonsense herein (as opposed to this Oregon nonsense from 20y ago) can claim only 300 bogus scientists, lots of them exotic internationals. And not a single of them has been found to have any climate science credentials, except the lead perpetrator Dick Lindzen, a well known man who's been on the dark side for many decades, a lost soul.
-
chriskoz at 12:13 PM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
In Australia, the term "General Practitioners" is the same as "Physicians" or "Family Physicians" in US.
"Fellow of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners" is equivalent to AAFP in US.
So, to conclude about the credentials of dr Weston, FRACGP that John has started but did not have patience to finish: Weston a medical familly practitioner who clearly has nothing to do with climate science, who as private citizen denies climate science by signing such bogus petition.
The morons who push forward such nonsense should be punished by forcibly hiring climate scientists to perform urgent surgery on them (or better analogy on their children). Maybe you find among them a person as dishonest as dr Weston, who would perform the butchery, but all climate scientists that I know would, unlike dr Weston, say "thank you I'm not qualified for this job".
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:09 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
...and, whenever these sorts of lists of names comes up, I am reminded of Project Steve. How many Steves does Lindzen have on his list? Project Steve has 1409 as of February 13, 2017.
Granted, Project Steve was set up to counteract "Creation Science", but it's fun to think how many Steves we could get to sign a petition supporting the IPCC. (No, we won't - as Project Steve says in its FAQ, it's only fun once.)
-
Tom Curtis at 11:04 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Just FYI, a search of the document shows, 156 PhDs, 38 MScs, 34 BScs, 1 BAppSc, 9 MAs, 1 BA, 7 MDs, 2 Diplomas, and 32 with no qualifications to speak of. That is taking the highest qualification in each case. There are 27 with sundry qualifications not included in the search. I do not guaranttee those figures, but they should be in the right ball park. In all, that means roughly 50% are significantly qualified, about 66% have qualifications in science, and about 10% have no qualifications of any significance at all.
Given the breadth with which Lindzen has cast his net, this petition has a larger denominator as the Oregon Petition. In effect, Lindzen's letter is an admission that he could only get 300 out of 28 million potential candidates to sign to actually sign up.
-
MA Rodger at 10:44 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
The 309 people Lindzen lists out he describes as “eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world.” In saying this he doesn't claim that they are in any way either scientists expert in climatology or individuals qualified in climatology.
He later calls them his “fellow scientists” but this may refer only to those who are scientists and not the full 309.
But where Lindzen does exaggerate the qualifications of these 309 (as well as perhaps himself) is in describing “the signers of the letter” as having “the training needed to evaluate climate facts, and offer sound advice.” While the OP shows many of these 309 are not acknowledged experts in “climate facts,” there are also many who have set out their interpretation of the “climate facts” (as has Lindzen) and what is most noticable is that these interpretations do not agree on those “climate facts.” Rather, these interpretations are best characterised as presenting contradictory “climate facts.” The one thing on which "the signers" agree is in always espousing a do-nothing aproach to AGW, but always for fundamentally different scientific reasons.The Lindzen 310 is thus scientifically a profoundly dodgy bunch. And that is before they present fake science by together asserting that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, there is clear evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful to food crops and other plants that nourish all life. It is plant food, not a poison.”
-
nigelj at 10:18 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
The poll of 300 people is clearly weak, but like other polls and campaigns of denial it all adds up, and wears people down. Unfortunately many people don't have time to research what the poll really means, or who it includes, and these are the targets of the so called poll..
Scientists and open minded, reasonable people are going to have to fight back hard. I hate that science is getting tied up with politics, but there's no denying this has happened, so responses have to be commensurate with this unfortunate fact.
It's all part of the Trump attack on climate science. The latest Trump news has him wanting to increase military spending by 9%, which is pretty substantial, especially in a country already having a massive military.
And guess what Trump wants to cut to pay for the military spending? Spending on "Federal Agencies" like the EPA.
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/27/trumps-budget-54-billion-increase-defense-spending
And thank's for the link on the various consensus studies, and the history of climate sceptical research, and how it has been utterly and comprehensively refuted in the published literature. But listening to the denialist liars, you would think none of this has happened.
-
James Owens at 10:16 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
The letter is posted at https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu and can be downloaded as a pdf. The signers are there - the qualifications to comment on climate science remain another matter.
-
nigelj at 09:39 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
Paul D @3, the following article is good commentary on the psychology of lies, and how we respond when people like Trump repeatedly make (false) accusations against all sorts of people.
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658
One quote: "When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything."
-
scaddenp at 08:39 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
My favorite is McLean.
"Leading reviewer of WG 1 component of IPCC 5AR. Leading reviewer of WG I component of IPCC 5AR" .
I say it twice so it much be true?? And just what is Leading reviewer you might ask? Reviewers are self-selecting. You can see some of McLean's comment here Note how helpful the editors found them?
Letter pitched at those ignorant of IPCC review process. There are some amazing illiterate entries there as well as some funny attempts at CV polishing.
-
Paul D at 08:18 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
I'm reading 'It Can't Happen Here'.
Where is Doremus Jessop when you need him?
Sorry, but climate science is just one factor of the total Trump package.
Basic idea behind Trump is that you attack intellectuals, say the media are all liars that are against the people and the courts are against the 'people'.The only thing Trump doesn't have is his own private militia, which is probably the only thing that is stopping him from becoming a real dictator.
The petition mentioned isn't exactly anything new, we have seen worse in the past, it is effectively fabricated propaganda to prop up Trumps campaign against spending on climate science and the EPA.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
For contrast, there also exists a petition signed by "...more than 800 Earth science and energy experts in 46 states". In contrast to the Lindzen petition,
"All signatories are pursuing or hold a PhD in relevant disciplines, with a few exceptions for other leaders in the field. All are either American or work in the United States."
That petition is therefore, signed significantly more scientists, signed only be scientists who are citizens or residents, signed only be scientists with recognizable qualifications, and signed only by scientists who work in the field. In contrast, the Lindzen petition has had to pad numbers by relaxing all of these standards.
More importantly, there is an accompanying petition for those who do not meet those standards, which I strongly recommend you sign if you are a citizen or resident of the United States. Currently it has over 150,000 signatories.
-
ubrew12 at 06:43 AM on 28 February 2017Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
WUWT has the letter and the list. WUWT says 'The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists ... computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.'
I got a kick out of the emphatic: 'It is a long list'. But I also appreciated that among the 19 professions identified, none was 'climate scientist'. I guess they didn't want to get sued.
Also, as an American, we get a little rowdy over here when experts from Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Latin America tell our President what to do. We like to think we have enough experts right here to handle our own affairs. It's says a lot that Dr Lindzen couldn't locate more of them to pad his list.
-
nigelj at 05:43 AM on 28 February 2017Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
Just adding to the interesting article posted by TC, this article gives an excellent analysis of what motivates Trump, how he sells himself, and further insight on how he got elected.
www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11808168
The article presents Trump as a showman, with everything focussed on Trump and finishes by saying:
"But neither at his (Trumps) campaign rallies nor in the opening weeks of his presidency has he challenged the crowds' thinking. The Trump Show is, as ever, a spectacle, a cavalcade of provocations. It is designed not to prompt thought or even to persuade, but to sell tickets to the next performance."
-
Tom Curtis at 02:26 AM on 28 February 2017Trump can save his presidency with a great deal to save the climate
A must read for understanding how Trump got elected, and how democracy is being hijacked:
Moderator Response:[JH] More particulars on the article linked to above.
Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media
With links to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, the rightwing US computer scientist is at the heart of a multimillion-dollar propaganda network
by Carole Cadwalladr, Guardian, Feb 26, 2017
-
MA Rodger at 21:39 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @various.
May I offer firstly a question, secondly a prediction, thirdly some advice and fourthy why none of this is actually relevant to reality as we know it.
Firstly, a question at the most basic level. What is it you want here? It is not at all clear what that is. You have a grand theory. You tell us @249 that your grand theory has been sent off, submitted for publication 'Feb 21, 2016' which is before your first comment here. So why do you then add @249 “I am also ready for talks”? Your theory has been sent off for publication. Surely that is end of story.
(Of course, there has been since submission the small but significant amendment to your theory resulting from input from Tom Curtis replying to your initial comment here @SkS on a different thread. You will of course be submitting a corrected paper to the publishers, complete with proper acknowledgement for the correction.)
But if your theory has been sent off, why would you be “told by a scientist at Oak Ridge Laboratories to find answers to (your) questions on the effects of CO2 on heating the climate, to come to this site (ie SkS).”? What specific questions are you asking?
I look back at your initial comments here @SkS and I see no questions whatever! So what actually is it you want here?Secondly, the chances are that your grand work will not be entered into the publications submission process but will be rejected at the first hurdle. But let us imagine that it is seriously considered for publication and is successful. Let us imagine it is published. What then?
There are scientists who regularly publised in the scientific press, scientists who are also misguided fools and just like you write up nonsense on subjects outside their competence. Being published scientists they do on occasion get published. It is not so difficult, especially if you chose your publication. As an example of such obvious nonsense consider Hermann Harde who is presently making a total twit of himself with his latest pack of twaddle - H. Harde (2017) 'Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere', Global and Planetary Change.
This is not the first time Harde has published denialist rubbish. In 2014 he published something not dissimilar in its implications to your grand theory. This was Harde's grand version of the GH effect & CO2's imact on climate - H. Harde (2014) 'Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2', Open Journal of Atmospheric & Climate Change. And what happened? If you visit Google Scholar you will find the impact of Harde (2014) has been sweet fanny adams.-
It has been cited by just five fellow-denialists in two years. Within proper science, Harde's nonsense does not even merit a serious rebutal.
Now you may feel it would be incredibly wrong when, if your grand work did somehow get published, it were to be simply ignored. But it will be because you have so far failed to do a very essential piece of work. You have to show not just that your sums add up, not just that your sums are valid (which remains work-in-progress for you): you have to additionally set out the argument as to why the sums being used by everybody else I the whole wide world are flat wrong. If you cannot do that, you are on a hiding to nothing. Your grand theory will simply be ignored.
And don't be surprised. Why should busy scientists have to spend time rebutting your nonsense. You have to convert your nonsense into compelling science. And the best of luck with that!!Thirdly, ad hominem is something you will have to rise above if you work in science. Do not ignore people because they call you a fool. Ignore them only if they have nothing sensible to say. You say you are a scientist so you should already know this. So why then all this pathetic bleating about ad hominem? (I ask in this manner as you evidently need a lot more practice in dealing with the sticks and stones of the scientific process.)
And finally, why none of this matters a jot. Why isn't your grand theory worth a bean? It is because your grand theory rests entirely on the proposition that the GH-effect is additive. It is not additive. Do you not see all those non-linear equations you use? And on top of that there are a whole bunch of non-linear equations that you fail to use. You cannot just add them up and divide by the total to gain a CO2 contribution to the GH-effect.
Certainly one area where your model departs into pure fantasy is the effect of CO2 at altitudes where H2O is largely absent. @238 your explanation is silly and non-quantative in nature. (Indeed as I set out @242, I conld not make head-nor-tail of what you were trying to describe with your “CO2 is more concentrated at higher altitudes” description.)
In this regard, you have already dodged one piece of reality which was presented tp you @243. It is not the only fatal problem with your grand theory but I would suggest it is simpler to define than most. (Tom Curtis @281 calls this problem "very damning to your theory.") Here is the reality presented again.
You need to explain to the big wide world why there is a stonking-great dip in the TOA upward LR. So far your grand theory flies in the face of the existence of that stonking-great dip. If you cannot explain it in terms of your grand theory, then your grand theory is dead.
So, can you provide said explanation?Moderator Response:[JH] Rudmop has unilaterally recused himself from posting on this website.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:22 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @279, the lapse rate above the troposphere on Earth is almost entirely a function of radiative energy transfer, and hence of which gases absorb solar radiation at what altitude, and which gases absorb and emit IR radiation at what altitude. It is something successfull predicted by the theory you reject as far back as 1967. We await your equivalent prediction with bated breath.
Of even more interest to me is when you use your theory to partition energy absorption by wavelength and predict the observed outgoing IR radiation spectrum thereby. This was a test successfully past by the theory you reject in 1969. This particular test should be very easy for you to impliment if there is any validity in your method. Your failure to use your method to predict this observable (and observed) value in favour of predicting an unobservable value is very damning of your theory.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:13 PM on 27 February 2017Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Rudmop @278 now sets an acceptable standard for confirming his theory as being a 22.5% error in predicting the surface temperature of Venus. In the meantime, he considers a less than 0.5% error in predicting the absolute global mean surface temperature of the Earth as an example of model failure:
Prev 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 Next
