CO2 Saturation and Global Warming: What's the hoopla about? Explained in layperson's terms
bhan...@netscape.net
how it is "debunked".
But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in
global warming, you don't really understand what
all this is about, so you have to take somebody's
version of facts, on blind faith.
This is an attempt to correct the situation, and
explain CO2 saturation in laypersons' language.
Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging
a zoo that's been releasing more Panda bears in
the zoo. There is a lobby that is saying there are
too many Panda bears already, and that
the forest will be de-forested due to these
extra Panda bears, causing bad problems.
If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you
may notice something wrong about that - Panda
bears only eat bamboo. So once all the bamboo
is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing.
Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
(Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda
bears can continue to live fine without bamboo, just
on water.)
Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding
any more doesn't affect the forest.
CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear.
They are picky eaters of radiation.
"CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in
science since early 1900s.
"CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are
like Panda bears. You may have heard that
CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere,
heating it up. What you may not have heard
is that the CO2 molecules can only trap a very
small subset of the heat. That's right - CO2
molecules can only trap a very small fraction
of what is known as "infra-red wavelengths".
We call this small fraction "CO2 bands".
Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules
are very selective.
The bamboo in this case -- the energy in
the CO2 bands -- is all gone. So adding
CO2 molecules means the new molecules
have nothing to "eat". So they cannot
absorb any more energy.
This part is not disputed. Global Warming
supporters have some arguments, though,
which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation.
These arguments can be seen at:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
1) The Global Warmist argument is: The
early scientists' experimental equipment
or calculation was bad.
Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that
the absorption had not been reduced by
more than 0.4% when he lowered the
pressure, but a modern calculation shows
that the absorption would have decreased
about 1%".
That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
But actually, the quote above is a crystal
clear case of a very intentional attempt to cheat.
In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6%
because 100% - 0.4% = 99.6%
Even if modern calculations saying "1%"
are right, that simply means CO2 saturation
is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not
really so large. It is really insignificant.
The Global Warmists know fully well that
they are trying to cheat. Quote: "But even if
he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would
have thought this an insignificant
perturbation. He failed to understand..."
Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming.
He had nothing to do with either Global
Warming supporters or deniers. He
was just some scientist from a long
past. There is no reason to just assume
he was incompetent ot dishonest.
So why are the global warmists attacking him?
How do they know what he would have thought?
Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when
given the difference between 0.4% and 1%,
and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%,
would indeed have thought this an
"insignificant perturbation".
2) The other Global Warming "debunking"
argument is:
ok, the energy gets depleted. But then
it gets re-emitted, and re-abosrbed
by higher layers, so it goes all the way
to the top.
This is not as bad as argument 1, where
it is clear that they are _knowingly_
attempting to cheat.
In this case, it is indeed possible that
they are being honest, and just happen
to be not very good at doing
arithmetic.
So let us do the arithmetic for them.
Some of the heat will get lost via conduction
and convection (normal heat loss processes.)
A very fair top estimate of re-radiation
is 30%.
Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than
100 meters of CO2.
So what happens by the time we get to 1000
meters up in the atmospheres?
By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and
re-radiations of the heat. Each at a
maximum efficiency of 30%.
30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator,
and multiply it by .3. Multiply it by .3
8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
What do you see in the calculator?
If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total
of 10 multiplications, you should be seeing
a number with five zeros after the decimal point!
This is so small that it's close to
zero for all practical purposes.
So both the arguments (1) and (2)
that are supposedly "debunking"
CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
The real reason CO2 saturation is
ignored, is that scientists who
brought up these issues were fired
and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
bhan...@netscape.net
Reposting the above to sci.physics, since
it seems there is some interest from
that newsgroup as well.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
saturation is ignored..."
nope....
Roger Coppock
the CO2 in the atmosphere. If we were near saturation,
the following graph would plateau, instead of increase.
Please see:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig3.png
bhan...@netscape.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see Coppock has posted something in the
thread. I stop reading those who are overly
foul-mouthed (as I used to do in sci.physics) - in
the sci.environment and alt.global-warming ng's,
that's Coppock, John M. and Lloyd.
But if Coppock has posted a valid observation,
and someone trying to honestly follow the
discussion has a question, please feel
free to repost the observation with
any questions.
chemist
Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE
of warming, the warming could cause the increase
in CO2.
Sam Wormley
>
> Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE
> of warming, the warming could cause the increase
> in CO2.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2sm.gif
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.
Here are credible resources:
http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
What A Fool
wrote:
You really need to spend some time explaining and clarifying
it, just how and why do Antarctic temperatures rise, and where does all
the CO2 come from so quickly to cause those abrupt warmings.
Bill Ward
> We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the
> atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would
> plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
>
> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig3.png
The parent link to the source of the graph is:
<http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/>
"RADIATIVE FORCING CALCULATIONS"
"To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we
have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse
gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see
Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are
derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an
uncertainty of about 10%."
Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a
model.
Bill Ward
Don't bother - it's desperate BS. He's tried to pull it before and got
caught then, too.
Bill Ward
> chemist wrote:
>
>
>> Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE of warming, the warming
>> could cause the increase in CO2.
>
>
>
> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2sm.gif
>
> What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about
> global warming?
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
>
> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
> years or so.
Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts
to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay,
not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to
change.
<snip>
Roger Coppock
Let's see if you can finally get it, now.
On Jan 18, 1:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
> > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the
> > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would
> > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
>
> >http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig3.png
>
> The parent link to the source of the graph is:
>
> <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/>
>
> "RADIATIVE FORCING CALCULATIONS"
>
> "To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we
> have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert greenhouse
> gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative forcing (see
> Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative forcing are
> derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and generally have an
> uncertainty of about 10%."
>
> Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on a
> model.
>
So, unless you successfully challenge the model for atmospheric
greenhouse gas saturation,
a constant times the log of the ratio of the new concentration
over the old concentration,.
we are nowhere near CO2 concentration.
CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of
mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
Q
The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
>
> The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
What A Fool
Nothing can be done to save us from "the effects of mankind's
Carbon Dioxide emissions", we all have to breathe.
Hey, there's another idea to get a few more bucks out of
those who want to save the planet, rebreathing devices that remove
the CO2 from the breath and seal it in a filter container.
Europe has been really doing good in the CO2 emissions
department, they haven't had as much gas to burn, but some may
be having problems staying warm.
What A Fool
Yeah, those 30 MPH winds when it was -1 F Thursday had
lots of inertia, my hand couldn't open the door, I had to stay inside
where it was 80 degrees all day.
Mr Right
>
> - Show quoted text -
< CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of
< mankind's Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
Roger, are you saying that CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us
from a non-existent problem?
Mr Right
Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes
time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2
into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the
change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well
understood process.
This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2
levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans
produced any significant amount of CO2.
Please note, I am NOT claiming that this is the only modern source of
atmospheric CO2. Humans are now contributing to atmospheric CO2. This
extra CO2 has very little effect on the temperature, just like the
natural CO2 has very little effect on the temperature.
AGWers are too scared to acknowledge this natural variation of CO2
with temperature, because they fear that it would destroy their
already weak theory.
Mr Right
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:00:53 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> chemist wrote:
>
> >>> Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE of warming, the warming
> >>> could cause the increase in CO2.
>
>
> >> What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about
> >> global warming?
> >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
>
> >> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
> >> media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
> >> At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
> >> rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
> >> during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
> >> periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
> >> years or so.
>
> > Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2 starts
> > to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to be a delay,
> > not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to
> > change.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
< The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
The inconvenient fact is that AGWers can not explain how a change in
CO2 levels can affect the temperature 800 years BEFORE the change in
CO2 levels.
Q
> On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> < On Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote:
> < [ . . . ]
> <
> < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
> <
> < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
>
> Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes
> time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2
> into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the
> change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well
> understood process.
>
> This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2
> levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans
> produced any significant amount of CO2.
But the real point is that the CO2 released from the oceans AMPLIFIES a
relatively weak forcing effect of the Milanchovich cycle and the ice
caps retreating causing the Albedo to come down.
>
> Please note, I am NOT claiming that this is the only modern source of
> atmospheric CO2. Humans are now contributing to atmospheric CO2. This
> extra CO2 has very little effect on the temperature, just like the
> natural CO2 has very little effect on the temperature.
Unfortunately CO2 is a very effective GHG, solve the radiative transfer
problem for the longwave IR part, double CO2, and you get a systematic
forcing at the tropopause.
> AGWers are too scared to acknowledge this natural variation of CO2
> with temperature, because they fear that it would destroy their
> already weak theory.
AGW'ers know what they are talking about, publish in prestigious science
journals like science and nature, win the nobel prize, and therefor get
all science funding.
AGW deniers don't seem to get accomplished anything nowadays except
maybe here and there a bombshell paper that they misinterpret for the
next 20 years.
Q
Q
Roger Coppock has a friend called Q
Mr Right
Because of AGW, scientists are now ranked between politicians and used
car salesmen, in surveys looking at trustworthiness.
Because of AGW, nobel prizes (especially the peace prize) are an
object of ridicule and derision.
I like the way that you are so open about things that the IPCC would
rather keep quiet. Giving all funding to AGWers is what non-AGWers
have been claiming for a long time. The IPCC denies it, but you
confirm it.
I take it that you are on the gravy train. I understand that science
is now considered part of the oldest profession.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the
atmosphere."
you got that right......
Sam Wormley
And your scientific conclusion is?
TimK
"Mr Right" <Mr.I.A...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21b4724e-2f2f-4f0c...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>Because of AGW, nobel prizes (especially the peace prize) are an
>object of ridicule and derision.
Yeah but be fair - only so by mouthbreathers who thought Sarah Palin would
make a good VP because she was fuckable, you know, walmart shoppers who view
anyone with an education as "elitist." People who don't see subject matter
knowledge as a prerequisite to informed debate.
People like you.
bhan...@netscape.net
> "Mr Right" <Mr.I.Am.Ri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dude, you have been openly invited to
discuss "subject matter".
Go back to the first message in this topic,
and comment on the subject matter.
Your message contains no subject matter,
only insults.
So who exactly is it who "do[es]n't see
subject matter knowledge as a prerequisite
to informed debate."?
Put up or shut up.
Bill Ward
Nope. Pay attention. The graph is based on radiation models which are
highly questionable. More recent work shows that radiation contributes
less to tropospheric heat transport than convection of latent heat.
<http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
<http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
Bill Ward
1. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to change.
2. You don't understand much of what you post.
Q
Your car also causes CO2 to increase.
> 2. You don't understand much of what you post.
The popular game of ignoring CO2 and Temperature continues I see. Does
this behavior increase your exxon mobile pay check?
Q
Bill Ward
Imaginary?
Bill Ward
So explain the relevance to CO2 lagging temperature.
Bill Ward
And the ice core data show CO2 does not cause that. Temperature does,
then the CO2 follows it up. When the temperature starts down, CO2 again
follows. If CO2 were a significant warming factor, the temperature could
not fall while CO2 was high.
Bill Ward
> Mr Right wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: < On Jan
>> 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: < [ . . . ]
>> <
>> < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. <
>> < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
>>
>> Yes, when the temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes
>> time (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2
>> into the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the change
>> in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well understood
>> process.
>>
>> This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2 levels
>> followed the temperature so closely, long before humans produced any
>> significant amount of CO2.
>
> But the real point is that the CO2 released from the oceans AMPLIFIES a
> relatively weak forcing effect of the Milanchovich cycle and the ice caps
> retreating causing the Albedo to come down.
If CO2 causes significant warming, then how does temperature come back
down while CO2 remains high for 800 years?
<snip>
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:<snip>" The graph is based on radiation models which are highly
questionable. More recent work shows that radiation contributes less
to tropospheric heat transport than convection of latent heat."
http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
do you have any other sources from any other authors?Because after
reading the bibliography it is easy to conclude the author did not use
the most recent sources available, so i dont really think you can use
the term "Most recent work shows" anything from this paper. Bill
please try and be consistent and objective in your approach to
science....
Roger Coppock
Kook-A-Doodle-Do!!!!
This this the same crap that Mockton peddles.
Bill Ward
Which is all Roger can say, since he doesn't understand enough to
try to refute it. It must be very frustrating to be Roger.
Bill Ward
Yes, and I note you are attempting to maintain your ignorance.
> Does this behavior increase your exxon mobile pay check?
I'd respond, but it wouldn't be fair to shoot back, since you
are so clearly out of ammunition.
John M.
Unlikely, as it doesn't exist..
I've made sure some real physicists see your amazing scientific
aptitude, however, by posting it to a real physics newsgroup.
Tom P
feedback cycle? The CO2 lag is understandable in terms of deep ocean
release and capture in response to temperature, the H2O component as a
GHG should be larger and more direct.
Fran
wrote:
Isn't it this one?
http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/topics?hl=en
Fran
Fran
Bill Ward
<begin excerpt from above link>
Below is the letter written to Jeff Severinghaus, and his response:
Dear Jeff,
I read your article "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice
cores tell us about global warming?" You mention that CO2 does not
initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The
obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods
when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years?
If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can
it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods
at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time
response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2
levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only
do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of
cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather
impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling. We are talking
about planet Earth after all and not Venus whose atmospheric pressure is
many times larger than Earth's.
If there is also a time lag upon the onset of cooling, then it appears
that some other mechanism actually drives the temperature changes. So what
is the time difference between CO2 levels during the onset of a cooling
period at the end of a warming period and the time history of the
temperature changes in the ice cores?
[response]
Dear John,
The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in
the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes
in the Earth's orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine
is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called
Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" — eric], which
you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings
by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.
But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings
must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are
involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous
oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2
concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single
cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way
Nature works much of the time. [...]
<end excerpt>
Now there's some mighty fine tap dancing.
If CO2/WV is such a powerful positive feedback, how can the temperature
cool while the CO2/WV remains at peak for centuries? No answer for that.
Apparently it just has to be something other than the obvious conclusion
that temperature drives CO2.
Anybody remember thiotimoline?
Q
[snip]
> I'd respond, but it wouldn't be fair to shoot back, since you
> are so clearly out of ammunition.
I think I demonstrated a few times that you have it backward my friend,
now enjoy the day where Obama is inaugurated, which is more evidence
that you have lost your AGW denial debate.
Q
Q
Bill Ward should take a very long vacation.
Q
Q
A typical AGW denier tactic, reverse cause and consequence to raise
confusion. Yet another proof that AGW deniers have it backward.
Q
Anybody remember that AGW deniers always have it backward?
Mr Right
>
> - Show quoted text -
Q, it is you, and the rest of the carbon crackpots, who have it
backwards. The change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature,
is a well known and proven piece of science. I think that it is you
who should take a very long vacation.
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
>
> Q, it is you, and the rest of the carbon crackpots, who have it
> backwards. The change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature,
> is a well known and proven piece of science. I think that it is you
> who should take a very long vacation.
One should ask, what is the role of the oceans as a source or sink
for CO2? The basic chemistry is summarized by H. Franzen (2008) in
the following table:
Concentrations with changing P_CO2 (ppm)
P_CO2 [H+] [CO2] [HCO3-] [CO3--]
_________________________________________________________________
300 6.2 x 10^-9 1.0 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 5.4 x 10^-6
385 8.0 x 10^-9 1.3 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 4.2 x 10^-6
400 8.3 x 10^-9 1.3 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 4.1 x 10^-6
500 1.0 x 10^-8 1.7 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 3.3 x 10^-6
The results show that if P_CO2 changed from 300 to 500 ppm the
total dissolved CO2 (the total being CO2(soln), HCO3-(soln), and
CO3--(soln)) would change by about 5 x 10^-6 moles per liter or
by a fraction
5 x 10^-6 / 7.4 x 10^-4 ==> 0.007 of the total
This fraction is small because the majority of the carbon dioxide
in the ocean is present as HCO3- and is tied up by the charge balance
condition:
[OH-] + [HCO3-] + 2[CO3--] = [H+] + 2[Ca++]cc
The majority of the total dissolved carbon dioxide entered the
oceans as bicarbonate ion, probably as dissolved calcium bicarbonate.
Mr Right
Hide quoted text -
<
< - Show quoted text -
This realclimate article is almost worth reading, if you need a laugh.
I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science, more like pseudo-gibberish.
According to Eric Steig:
"First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is
actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial)
timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not
lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the
problem at hand (global warming)."
Eric Steig attempts to redefine the word "historically" so that he can
ignore the time ranges that don't suit him (this is called cherry
picking).
Then he tells a blatant lie, because CO2 has NEVER led temperature (of
course you can not prove him wrong, because you don't know what time
range he is talking about).
Then he says "But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the
problem at hand (global warming)". If it doesn't matter, then why did
he bother saying it?
---------------------
"Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations
behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate
changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed,
Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this
finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the
cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records,
well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature."
So Jim Hansen predicted that CO2 would lag behind temperature 17 years
ago. Has he ever told anybody this? I guess he didn't tell Al Gore,
because in "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore told everybody that the CO2
level changes caused the temperature changes. This implies that the
CO2 changes must precede the temperature changes, because a "cause"
must precede an "effect".
--------------------
"Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his
treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out in
our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would actually
further strengthen Gore's case, rather than weakening it."
Apparently the more mistakes that Gore makes, the stronger his case
becomes. His case must be getting VERY strong by now.
Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
there for anybody looking for more laughs.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
> there for anybody looking for more laughs.
Take some time and read up on green house gases and how the work.
Here's a good start:
"Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming Home Page
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/sitemapgw.html
Global Climate Change Resources
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
Slides from Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
Mr Right
> Mr Right wrote:
>
> > Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
> > there for anybody looking for more laughs.
>
> Take some time and read up on green house gases and how the work.
>
> Here's a good start:
>
> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
>
> RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
>
> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming Home Page
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/sitemapgw.html
>
> Global Climate Change Resources
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
>
> Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
> http://www.ipcc-data.org/
> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
> http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics.htm
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
> http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
>
> Slides from Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting Dec. 17, 2008
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
I have read about greenhouse gases and how they are supposed to work.
My summary would be, "a beautiful theory, ruined by an ugly little
fact, it is not what happens in reality".
Sam Wormley
How will you convince climatologists and atmospheric scientists?
How will you keep from being ignored?
Mr Right
>
> - Show quoted text -
AGW is slowly collapsing under the weight of its own lies.
The disparity between what AGW predicts, and reality, is turning more
and more people into skeptics.
Once a critical mass is reached, the truth will prevail.
Sam Wormley
>
> ...the truth will prevail.
I agree that the empirical truth will prevail!
marcodbeast
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:27:50 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:00:53 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> chemist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE of warming, the
>>>>> warming could cause the increase in CO2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and_Temp2sm.gif
>>>>
>>>> about global warming?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public
>>>> sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain
>>>> it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have
>>>> shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years)
>>>> after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These
>>>> terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends
>>>> of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
>>>
>>> Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2
>>> starts to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to
>>> be a delay, not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature
>>> causes CO2 to change.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And your scientific conclusion is?
>
1a. And vice versa.
bhan...@netscape.net
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:27:50 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> Bill Ward wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 05:00:53 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>>> chemist wrote:
>
> >>>>> Coppock has not shown that CO2 is the CAUSE of warming, the
> >>>>> warming could cause the increase in CO2.
>
>
> >>>> What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us
> >>>> about global warming?
>
> >>>>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
>
> >>>> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public
> >>>> sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain
> >>>> it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have
> >>>> shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years)
> >>>> after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These
> >>>> terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends
> >>>> of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
>
> >>> Realclimate doesn't seem to mention the inconvenient fact that CO2
> >>> starts to fall 800 years after the temperature declines. It has to
> >>> be a delay, not a positive feedback. The data indicates temperature
> >>> causes CO2 to change.
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >> And your scientific conclusion is?
>
> > 1. The data indicates temperature causes CO2 to change.
>
> 1a. And vice versa.
That makes for a nice little loop doesn't it?
Let's go back in time a few million years ago.
1) High temperature caused CO2 to increase.
2) High CO2 caused temperature to go even higher.
3) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
4) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
5) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
6) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
...
So right now the earth is a molten ball of lava,
and you never wrote anything, and I never responsed...
Saves a lot of trouble, I guess?
John M.
Interesting. It fails to show up when one "googles" for sci.physics
inside groups.google.com/
John M.
Alas, the oceans are not water. They are a complex solution of many,
many different chemical species.
Lloyd
Again, to use an analogy:
You set up an apparatus to add HCl to a beaker of water drop-wise and
the pH goes down. You take a coffee break. Someone pours in a little
NaOH. You come back and HCl is still being added slowly but the pH
has gone up.
Do you conclude "HCl does not lower pH"? Sounds like you would.
Lloyd
Didn't learn anything though, did you?
> My summary would be, "a beautiful theory, ruined by an ugly little
> fact, it is not what happens in reality".
Yep, you didn't learn anything.
What makes you think you know more about science than scientists?
Look up "hubris."
Lloyd
Yeah, still just every scientific organization agrees with us and not
you, and all the articles in scientific journals agree with us and not
you. That's really "collapsing." Of course, you love to ignore facts
when they disagree with your preconceptions anyway.
Sam Wormley
>
> Let's go back in time a few million years ago.
>
> 1) High temperature caused CO2 to increase.
> 2) High CO2 caused temperature to go even higher.
> 3) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
> 4) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
> 5) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
> 6) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
And now, burning fossil fuels is causing CO2 to be
higher that it's been in the last few million years! :-o
What A Fool
wrote:
This is a discussion group, aren't there enough Hansen and
Gore disciples here already?
As if any of the above has any importance to the average
person, the big issues are staying warm, getting something to eat,
and having a place to sleep for family and self.
Somebody please turn up the heat if you can find the
thermostat.
Q
Let me then explain it once again, AGW deniers have it backward.
Fran
The interface is occasionally a little flaky, but I found it by
entering it into the search text box and pressing "search groups".
Fran
What A Fool
Oh, sorry, turn down the heat please so I can get warm.
Who is John Galt
Q
You have my word on this, it is bad, not just a little bad, no, very
bad, actually even worse than that, extremely bad.
Just look at Venus, it is really very very very bad there at the
surface. Nothing survives longer than a few minutes.
Is that what you want? Venus like conditions on this blue planet?
Q
What A Fool
That's worse than the threat of hell if you sin, and just
because you say you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global
Warming?
Wow, what nuts the algore myth has produced.
JohnM
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:37:46 +0100, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote:
> >Who is John Galt wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>>> Let's go back in time a few million years ago.
>
> >>>> 1) High temperature caused CO2 to increase.
> >>>> 2) High CO2 caused temperature to go even higher.
> >>>> 3) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
> >>>> 4) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
> >>>> 5) Even higher temps caused even more CO2.
> >>>> 6) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
>
> >>> And now, burning fossil fuels is causing CO2 to be
> >>> higher that it's been in the last few million years! :-o
>
> >> and that would be bad because.....
>
> >You have my word on this, it is bad, not just a little bad, no, very
> >bad, actually even worse than that, extremely bad.
>
> >Just look at Venus, it is really very very very bad there at the
> >surface. Nothing survives longer than a few minutes.
>
> >Is that what you want? Venus like conditions on this blue planet?
>
> >Q
>
> That's worse than the threat of hell if you sin,
You Jebus-freaks just haven't thought it through, have you. What kind
of people will you have to mix with if you end up in paradise. Nowhere
to get a drink 'cos the muslims closed down the bars. Thousands of
mohammedan suicide bombers fighting over who gets which virgin - and
as all r. catholics know, there is only one. Sactimonious clergy
telling you that you musn't have sex with the virgin even if you
manage to get your hands on her.
Hell's got to be the thinking man's choice. All the great jazz
musicians from way back. Plentiful supplies of the narcotic substances
of your choice, with no chance of O/Ding because you're already dead.
No-one telling you to keep your dick in your pants, and the place
heaving with ladies of easy virtue.
bhan...@netscape.net
Sam, I think you can understand these things
if you put your mind to it. Just a tiny bit of effort.
What I wrote, is called "proof by contrapositive".
Look it up.
Once you understand that, and after that,
if you read my few little steps and understand
how that fits into being a "proof by contrapositive",
you may even realize how silly your little
non-sequitur comment is.
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:40:34 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: [ . . . ]
>>>> The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate.
>>> Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice.
>>
>> And the ice core data show CO2 does not cause that. Temperature does,
>> then the CO2 follows it up. When the temperature starts down, CO2 again
>> follows. If CO2 were a significant warming factor, the temperature could
>> not fall while CO2 was high.
>>
>>
>>
> A typical AGW denier tactic, reverse cause and consequence to raise
> confusion. Yet another proof that AGW deniers have it backward.
Temperature rises. CO2 follows 800 years later. Temperature falls, CO2
again follows 800 years later. Q has been watching too much Star Trek if
he thinks that ice core data shows that CO2 drives temperature. He
needs to get off the holodeck. Causes occur before effects in the real
world.
Sam Wormley
"Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
Sam Wormley
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.
Here are credible resources:
http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
Bill Ward
> Bill Ward wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:38:43 -0800, Fran wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 8:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:20:18 +0100, Q wrote:
>>>>> Mr Right wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: < On
>>>>>> Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: < [ . . . ] < < < The
>>>>>> inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. < < Yes.
>>>>>> It takes time to warm seas and melt ice. Yes, when the temperature
> Anybody remember that AGW deniers always have it backward?
Only in your dreams. In your AGWer world, effects precede causes and
decreasing "average global temperature" is evidence of CO2 induced global
warming.
I think most people can see who's on the wrong side of the mirror.
But keep up your humor - it's about all you've got left.
Sam Wormley
Just working through the basic chemistry and physics of global
climate change from the perspective of a physical chemist shows
there is little wiggle room... the climatologist are right and
over the years of continued global warming, you may come to start
understanding.
There are good resources to do some real self education:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
says the "red shirt"
Bill Ward
> On Jan 20, 8:52 pm, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote:
>> Bill Ward wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:38:43 -0800, Fran wrote:
>>
>> >> On Jan 19, 8:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:20:18 +0100, Q wrote:
>> >>>> Mr Right wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: < On
>> >>>>> Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: < [ . . . ] < < <
>> >>>>> The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. < <
>> Anybody remember that AGW deniers always have it backward?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Q, it is you, and the rest of the carbon crackpots, who have it backwards.
> The change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, is a well
> known and proven piece of science. I think that it is you who should take
> a very long vacation.
Hey, watch it! I thought it was very generous of Q to offer me a
vacation. I've been planning a nice ski trip for the extended family.
I'm sparing no expense, as I'm sure he wouldn't want to be thought a
cheapskate.
Bill Ward
> Mr Right wrote:
>
>
>> Q, it is you, and the rest of the carbon crackpots, who have it
>> backwards. The change in solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature,
>> is a well known and proven piece of science. I think that it is you who
>> should take a very long vacation.
>
> One should ask, what is the role of the oceans as a source or sink for
> CO2? The basic chemistry is summarized by H. Franzen (2008) in the
> following table:
>
> Concentrations with changing P_CO2 (ppm)
>
>
> P_CO2 [H+] [CO2] [HCO3-] [CO3--]
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> 300 6.2 x 10^-9 1.0 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 5.4 x 10^-6 385
> 8.0 x 10^-9 1.3 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 4.2 x 10^-6 400 8.3 x
> 10^-9 1.3 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 4.1 x 10^-6 500 1.0 x 10^-8
> 1.7 x 10^-5 7.2 x 10^-4 3.3 x 10^-6
>
> The results show that if P_CO2 changed from 300 to 500 ppm the total
> dissolved CO2 (the total being CO2(soln), HCO3-(soln), and CO3--(soln))
> would change by about 5 x 10^-6 moles per liter or by a fraction
>
> 5 x 10^-6 / 7.4 x 10^-4 ==> 0.007 of the total
>
> This fraction is small because the majority of the carbon dioxide in the
> ocean is present as HCO3- and is tied up by the charge balance
> condition:
>
> [OH-] + [HCO3-] + 2[CO3--] = [H+] + 2[Ca++]cc
>
> The majority of the total dissolved carbon dioxide entered the oceans as
> bicarbonate ion, probably as dissolved calcium bicarbonate.
The original context was how the 800 year lag between temperature and CO2
could indicate CO2 drives temperature, opposite to normal causality.
You do realize, of course, that there is a lot of solid CaCO3 in contact
with the ocean which acts as a source or sink for CO2.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 02:31:16 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
> > We've been through this several times Mr. Ward. Let's see if you can
> > finally get it, now.
>
> > On Jan 18, 1:29 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:39:06 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:
> >> > We are currently nowhere near radiation saturation of the CO2 in the
> >> > atmosphere. If we were near saturation, the following graph would
> >> > plateau, instead of increase. Please see:
>
> >> >http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi_2008.fig3.png
>
> >> The parent link to the source of the graph is:
>
> >> <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/>
>
> >> "RADIATIVE FORCING CALCULATIONS"
>
> >> "To determine the total radiative forcing of the greenhouse gases, we
> >> have used IPCC [IPCC 2001] recommended expressions to convert
> >> greenhouse gas changes, relative to 1750, to instantaneous radiative
> >> forcing (see Table 1). These empirical expressions used for radiative
> >> forcing are derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models and
> >> generally have an uncertainty of about 10%."
>
> >> Read the rest and watch them try to dance around the fact it's based on
> >> a model.
>
> > So, unless you successfully challenge the model for atmospheric greenhouse
> > gas saturation,
>
> > a constant times the log of the ratio of the new concentration over the
> > old concentration,.
>
> > we are nowhere near CO2 concentration.
>
> > CO2 saturation is not going to 'save' us from the effects of mankind's
> > Carbon Dioxide emissions. OK?
>
> Nope. Pay attention. The graph is based on radiation models which are
> highly questionable. More recent work shows that radiation contributes
> less to tropospheric heat transport than convection of latent heat.
>
> <http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
>
> <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
laughing, "most recent work" is a slight, na it is an exaggeration, an
exaggeration that in his mind permits him to disregard other
information. Poor bill....
Bill Ward
I was kidding about the thiotimolene. It's fictional. There's none in
the ocean. The ice cores still say temperature drives CO2, unless
causality is reversed.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"It's fictional".
yeah, we know.....
Sam Wormley
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.
Here are credible resources:
http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/Global_Climate_Change_Resources.html
>
> You do realize, of course, that there is a lot of solid CaCO3 in contact
> with the ocean which acts as a source or sink for CO2.
and... would you like to articulate the interaction in the upper 50 meters
of the oceans? Please do.
Sam Wormley
>
> In your AGWer world, effects precede causes and
> decreasing "average global temperature" is evidence of CO2 induced global
> warming.
>
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
bhan...@netscape.net
None of your credible resources knows how
to add 800 to 1000.
There was a warming known as Medieval
Warming Period, circa 1000. Adding 800,
we get 1800. CO2 started rising in 1800,
right on the dot. There were no cars at
that time.
Bill Ward
> Fran wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 8:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:20:18 +0100, Q wrote:
>>>> Mr Right wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 19, 12:40 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote: < On
>>>>> Jan 18, 3:29 am, Q <q...@universe.com> wrote: < [ . . . ] <
>>>>> < < The inconvenient fact is that there is inertia in the climate. <
>>>>> < Yes. It takes time to warm seas and melt ice. Yes, when the
>>>>> temperature rises (due mainly to solar causes), it takes time
>>>>> (approximately 800 years) to warm the seas and release more CO2 into
>>>>> the atmosphere. This release of CO2 is caused simply by the change in
>>>>> solubility of CO2 in water, with temperature, a very well understood
>>>>> process.
>>>>> This process (and the reverse with cooling) is why historical CO2
>>>>> levels followed the temperature so closely, long before humans
>>>>> produced any significant amount of CO2.
>>>> But the real point is that the CO2 released from the oceans AMPLIFIES
>>>> a relatively weak forcing effect of the Milanchovich cycle and the ice
>>>> caps retreating causing the Albedo to come down.
>>> If CO2 causes significant warming, then how does temperature come back
>>> down while CO2 remains high for 800 years?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's an excellent discussion of this old trope here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2chrkl
>>
>>
>> Fran
>
> And Here:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw
That's the same article. Try reading your links first.
Bill Ward
> Mr Right wrote:
>
>
>> Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
>> there for anybody looking for more laughs.
>
> Take some time and read up on green house gases and how the work.
>
> Here's a good start:
>
> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
Then try:
<http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
and
<http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
for a clear explanation of why convection through the troposphere is far
more important than radiative transport.
Then you can read the Scriptures, not to be questioned:
Bill Ward
> Mr Right wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 12:17 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Mr Right wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
>>>> there for anybody looking for more laughs.
>>> Take some time and read up on green house gases and how the work.
>>>
>>> Here's a good start:
>>>
>>> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
>>> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
>>>
>>> RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working
>>> climate scientists
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
>>>
>>> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
>>> http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scien...
>>>
>>> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
>>> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>>
>>> A Paleo Perspective on Global Warming Home Page
>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/sitemapgw.html
>>>
>>> Global Climate Change Resources
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
>>>
>>> Welcome to the IPCC Data Distribution Centre
>>> http://www.ipcc-data.org/
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics.htm
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm
>>> http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
>>>
>>> Slides from Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU
>>> meeting Dec. 17, 2008
>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
>>
>> I have read about greenhouse gases and how they are supposed to work.
>>
>> My summary would be, "a beautiful theory, ruined by an ugly little fact,
>> it is not what happens in reality".
>
> How will you convince climatologists and atmospheric scientists? How
> will you keep from being ignored?
The real ones already know, and the honest ones are speaking up.
Bill Ward
Only from your side of the looking glass. In the real world, decreasing
temperature means cooling, and causes precede effects.
Sam Wormley
Bill, I don't know what your background is, where you are coming from,
or whether you think this global change is politically motivated.
But what I am interested in is "what can the science tell us".
On this global climate change issue, I'm seeing you, and a number of
others, unwilling to question your/their sources.. As the world
continues to heat up over the next few decades and the data becomes
more and more compelling that CO2 is a major player in this warming
and rate of change of this warming... you may change your mind.
What I don't understand is the polarization and the hostility.
Yes, understanding the global climate is fiercely difficult, but
the picture is emerging. Why not dig into the science and understand
this better?
Why not?
bhan...@netscape.net
>
> What I don't understand is the polarization and the hostility.
>
I can explain some of it.
When you insist on writing mathematical
equations for simple things like "radiation
absorptions" and "heat conductance",
and when it's explained to you - even
in terms of your equations - what is
being discussed, and you still refuse
to try to understand, and simply repost your
entire posts numerous times -- is it any wonder
you are perceived as being intentionally dishonest?
What's so surprising about intentional
dishonesty giving rise to some hostility?
It's possible you were not being dishonest
in terms of the material, perhaps you simply
didn't understand the material. In which
case ask questions.
But when you are reposting your non-responses,
that gives the impression you are more interested
in giving some dumb bystanders the impression
that you are making some points.
Now if that's not clear, ask questions. Don't
repeat your posts.
Sam Wormley
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:17:33 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Mr Right wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, that is all I can cope with at the moment. There is plenty more
>>> there for anybody looking for more laughs.
>> Take some time and read up on green house gases and how the work.
>>
>> Here's a good start:
>>
>> "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
>> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
>
> Then try:
>
> <http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf>
This is an interesting paper and I and other will scrutinize it
and reply back.
Sam Wormley
The real equations are differential equations... and what I
have been posting are "conceptual" equation in hopes that
you might see flaws in your conceptual thinking. I often use
links to the papers or ebooks with the detailed mathematical
arguments in hopes that you and other naysayers might dig
more deeply into the mechanisms.
I am certainly bootstrapping my way to better understanding
and I would encourage you to do likewise.
Bill Ward
> bhan...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>> Let's go back in time a few million years ago.
>>
>> 1) High temperature caused CO2 to increase. 2) High CO2 caused
>> temperature to go even higher. 3) Even higher temps caused even more
>> CO2. 4) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps. 5) Even higher temps
>> caused even more CO2. 6) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
>
> And now, burning fossil fuels is causing CO2 to be higher that it's
> been in the last few million years! :-o
Why did it ever stop increasing, if it's a strong positive feedback? How
could it ever go down?
Bill Ward
> Who is John Galt wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> bhan...@netscape.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Let's go back in time a few million years ago.
>>>>
>>>> 1) High temperature caused CO2 to increase. 2) High CO2 caused
>>>> temperature to go even higher. 3) Even higher temps caused even more
>>>> CO2. 4) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps. 5) Even higher temps
>>>> caused even more CO2. 6) Even more CO2 caused even higher temps.
>>>
>>> And now, burning fossil fuels is causing CO2 to be higher that it's
>>> been in the last few million years! :-o
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> and that would be bad because.....
>
> You have my word on this, it is bad, not just a little bad, no, very bad,
> actually even worse than that, extremely bad.
>
> Just look at Venus, it is really very very very bad there at the surface.
> Nothing survives longer than a few minutes.
>
> Is that what you want? Venus like conditions on this blue planet?
BOO!
Did I scare you? You don't scare anyone either. Most readers know the
surface pressure on Venus is far more than on Earth.
Bill Ward
> On Jan 20, 12:08 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 7:56 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 18, 1:52 am, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 17, 3:44 pm, bhanwa...@netscape.net wrote:
>>
>> > > > You may have heard murmurs of "CO2 saturation" and how it is
>> > > > "debunked".
>>
>> > > > But chances are, if you are a layperson interested in global
>> > > > warming, you don't really understand what all this is about, so
>> > > > you have to take somebody's version of facts, on blind faith.
>>
>> > > > This is an attempt to correct the situation, and explain CO2
>> > > > saturation in laypersons' language.
>>
>> > > > Imagine a forest full of Panda bears. Also imaging a zoo that's
>> > > > been releasing more Panda bears in the zoo. There is a lobby that
>> > > > is saying there are too many Panda bears already, and that the
>> > > > forest will be de-forested due to these extra Panda bears, causing
>> > > > bad problems.
>>
>> > > > If you know about eating habits of Panda bears, you may notice
>> > > > something wrong about that - Panda bears only eat bamboo. So once
>> > > > all the bamboo is gone, adding more Panda bears will do nothing.
>> > > > Many Panda bears will have nothing to eat.
>>
>> > > > (Imagine, for our hypothetical situation, that Panda bears can
>> > > > continue to live fine without bamboo, just on water.)
>>
>> > > > Once the forest is "saturated with" Panda bear, adding any more
>> > > > doesn't affect the forest.
>>
>> > > > CO2 molecules are like the Panda bear. They are picky eaters of
>> > > > radiation.
>>
>> > > > "CO2 saturation" was an accepted viewpoint in science since early
>> > > > 1900s.
>>
>> > > > "CO2 saturation" says that CO2 molecules are like Panda bears.
>> > > > You may have heard that CO2 molecules trap heat in the atmosphere,
>> > > > heating it up. What you may not have heard is that the CO2
>> > > > molecules can only trap a very small subset of the heat. That's
>> > > > right - CO2 molecules can only trap a very small fraction of what
>> > > > is known as "infra-red wavelengths". We call this small fraction
>> > > > "CO2 bands".
>>
>> > > > Like the Panda bears, the CO2 molecules are very selective.
>>
>> > > > The bamboo in this case -- the energy in the CO2 bands -- is all
>> > > > gone. So adding CO2 molecules means the new molecules have
>> > > > nothing to "eat". So they cannot absorb any more energy.
>>
>> > > > This part is not disputed. Global Warming supporters have some
>> > > > arguments, though, which they claim "debunks" CO2 saturation.
>> > > > These arguments can be seen at:
>>
>> > > >http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>>
>> > > > 1) The Global Warmist argument is: The early scientists'
>> > > > experimental equipment or calculation was bad.
>>
>> > > > Quote: "Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption
>> > > > had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the
>> > > > pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would
>> > > > have decreased about 1%".
>>
>> > > > That sure sounds like a big error, by 2.5 times!
>>
>> > > > But actually, the quote above is a crystal clear case of a very
>> > > > intentional attempt to cheat.
>>
>> > > > In fact, 0.4% means a CO2 saturation of 99.6% because 100% - 0.4%
>> > > > = 99.6%
>>
>> > > > Even if modern calculations saying "1%" are right, that simply
>> > > > means CO2 saturation is 99%, because 100% - 1% = 99%.
>>
>> > > > The difference between 99% and 99.6% is not really so large. It
>> > > > is really insignificant.
>>
>> > > > The Global Warmists know fully well that they are trying to cheat.
>> > > > Quote: "But even if he had seen the 1% shift, Ångström would
>> > > > have thought this an insignificant
>> > > > perturbation. He failed to understand..."
>>
>> > > > Now Ångström was somebody pre-Global Warming. He had nothing to
>> > > > do with either Global Warming supporters or deniers. He
>> > > > was just some scientist from a long
>> > > > past. There is no reason to just assume he was incompetent ot
>> > > > dishonest.
>>
>> > > > So why are the global warmists attacking him? How do they know
>> > > > what he would have thought?
>>
>> > > > Simple -- anybody informed and honest, when given the difference
>> > > > between 0.4% and 1%, and knowing that it means 99.6% vs 99.0%,
>> > > > would indeed have thought this an
>> > > > "insignificant perturbation".
>>
>> > > > 2) The other Global Warming "debunking" argument is:
>>
>> > > > ok, the energy gets depleted. But then it gets re-emitted, and
>> > > > re-abosrbed
>> > > > by higher layers, so it goes all the way to the top.
>>
>> > > > This is not as bad as argument 1, where it is clear that they are
>> > > > _knowingly_ attempting to cheat.
>>
>> > > > In this case, it is indeed possible that they are being honest,
>> > > > and just happen to be not very good at doing
>> > > > arithmetic.
>>
>> > > > So let us do the arithmetic for them.
>>
>> > > > Some of the heat will get lost via conduction and convection
>> > > > (normal heat loss processes.) A very fair top estimate of
>> > > > re-radiation is 30%.
>>
>> > > > Also, the heat gets absorbed in much less than 100 meters of CO2.
>>
>> > > > So what happens by the time we get to 1000 meters up in the
>> > > > atmospheres?
>>
>> > > > By that time, we have had 10 absorptions and re-radiations of the
>> > > > heat. Each at a maximum efficiency of 30%.
>>
>> > > > 30% is .3. So punch .3 in a calculator, and multiply it by .3.
>> > > > Multiply it by .3 8 more times, to get a total of 10 layers.
>>
>> > > > What do you see in the calculator?
>>
>> > > > If you multiplied .3 by itself for a total of 10 multiplications,
>> > > > you should be seeing a number with five zeros after the decimal
>> > > > point!
>>
>> > > > This is so small that it's close to
>> > > > zero for all practical purposes.
>>
>> > > > So both the arguments (1) and (2)
>> > > > that are supposedly "debunking"
>> > > > CO2 saturation, are simply bogus.
>>
>> > > > The real reason CO2 saturation is
>> > > > ignored, is that scientists who
>> > > > brought up these issues were fired
>> > > > and/or otherwise harassed and intimated.
>>
>> > > Reposting the above to sci.physics, since it seems there is some
>> > > interest from
>> > > that newsgroup as well.
>>
>> > Unlikely, as it doesn't exist..
>>
>> Isn't it this one?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.physics/topics?hl=en
>
> Interesting. It fails to show up when one "googles" for sci.physics inside
> groups.google.com/
Looks like Google knows its market.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:37:46 +0100, Q wrote:
> > Who is John Galt wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
did you say something?