CO2 Global Warming

Quote:

---

So, my source says temps have been dropping for 15 million years...

---

Climate changes have a reason, a forcing that cause it that can be the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases, changes in ocean circulation and in larger time scales the moving of continents. Except for the increase in greenhouse gases, nothing can explain this recent warming.

Quote:

---

Your graph can be explained by variances caused in the solar cycle.

---

Actually it can't. I won't deny there was a correlation in sunspots number (just a correlation) that ended in the 70's and that's it. Still there is one major element we have that show us that the sun isn't responsible for this and that is that the upper most part of the atmosphere is cooling, if the sun were to blame it will heat up all of Earth while an increase in greenhouse effect will mean less energy to the upper most part of the atmosphere and cool it.

Quote:

---

Also, data shows CO2 levels follow temperature. Thus the whole cruxt of global warmers argument is undermined to the point they had to make up a new theory about how something jumpstarts something or other.

---

Actually data shows that during glacial terminations something caused temperatures to rise, warmer the oceans which released CO2 which also had a warming effect on climate.

CO2 increases cause an increase in temperatures but increases in temperatures are caused by other things besides increases in CO2...and that's what data shows.

Quote:

---

Answer me this seba. What is the ideal temperature for this planet? Why?

---

In terms of what is best for life...no sudden changes.

Quote:

---

And, one other thing. How do you propose we control the non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases? They completely eclipse anthropogenic sources...completely.

---

Don't propose to control them, only our sources.

Natural sources and natural sinks have been on equilibrium, it is our emissions that broke that equilibrium and therefore greenhouse gases concentration have been increasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Climate changes have a reason, a forcing that cause it that can be the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases, changes in ocean circulation and in larger time scales the moving of continents. Except for the increase in greenhouse gases, nothing can explain this recent warming.

---

Says who? Mars is experiencing much the same phenomenon...is it SUV's there too?

Something can explain it. It's called the Sun.

Quote:

---

Actually it can't. I won't deny there was a correlation in sunspots number (just a correlation) that ended in the 70's and that's it. Still there is one major element we have that show us that the sun isn't responsible for this and that is that the upper most part of the atmosphere is cooling, if the sun were to blame it will heat up all of Earth while an increase in greenhouse effect will mean less energy to the upper most part of the atmosphere and cool it.

---

Actually, it can.

Quote:

---

Actually data shows that during glacial terminations something caused temperatures to rise, warmer the oceans which released CO2 which also had a warming effect on climate.

CO2 increases cause an increase in temperatures but increases in temperatures are caused by other things besides increases in CO2...and that's what data shows.

---

That's that whole "jumpstart" thing I was talking about, right?

So, what happened to the apocalyptic global cooling that was predicted in the 70's? These are the same alarmists that promised us glaciers in Missouri by 2000. Aren't they? And, where the fuck were all the Cat 5 Hurricanes I was promised?

Quote:

---

In terms of what is best for life...no sudden changes.

---

Well, nothing seems to be happening suddenly.

Again, what is the ideal temperature for this planet? What's wrong with growing seasons in Greenland?

Quote:

---

Don't propose to control them, only our sources.

Natural sources and natural sinks have been on equilibrium, it is our emissions that broke that equilibrium and therefore greenhouse gases concentration have been increasing.

---

That's bullshit. Volcanic activity alone varies dramatically from millenium to millenium. There's no equilibrium there. The planet adapts and responds.

So, if things are so dire why is Al Gore's Carbon Footprint the size of Belgium?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Says who? Mars is experiencing much the same phenomenon...is it SUV's there too?

Something can explain it. It's called the Sun.
Actually, it can.

---

Allright, here's Nasa bit about sun activity:

Quote:

---

Scientists are still debating whether or not the Sun’s activity increased during the latter half of the 20th century, but even the highest estimates of activity can’t account for the warming observed since about 1950. Studies do show that solar variability has significantly influenced past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Northern Hemisphere’s Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when temperatures dipped low enough that rivers that don’t freeze in today’s human-warmed climate froze over.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...rmingQandA/#03

---

Quote:

---

So, what happened to the apocalyptic global cooling that was predicted in the 70's? These are the same alarmists that promised us glaciers in Missouri by 2000. Aren't they? And, where the fuck were all the Cat 5 Hurricanes I was promised?

---

Don't know who was predicting apolalyptic global cooling on the 70's, surely not the national academy of sciences as their official stand on the matter was that more study was necesary.

Quote:

---

The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...970s_Awareness

---

Quote:

---

Well, nothing seems to be happening suddenly.

---

It is, you just posted a graph of temperatures changes in tha past 65 millon of years...that's the normal scale of large temperatures changes and not just 100 years like now

Quote:

---

That's bullshit. Volcanic activity alone varies dramatically from millenium to millenium. There's no equilibrium there. The planet adapts and responds.

---

We are dumping over 130 times more CO2 than volcanos.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Quote:

---

Again, what is the ideal temperature for this planet? What's wrong with growing seasons in Greenland?

---

Oh nothing wrong, the idea is thrilling. The only thing I want is for human to take the credit of the change and not just nature ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Climate changes have a reason, a forcing that cause it that can be the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases, changes in ocean circulation and in larger time scales the moving of continents.

---

This is true. It’s a very complicated set of circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Except for the increase in greenhouse gases, nothing can explain this recent warming.

---

False. Besides, what do you consider recent?

There is too much evidence that clearly shows the sun and soot have a larger effect than previously presumed.

Tell me. Go to post #1, and answer me the question, and I’ll tell you why it probably cannot be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Actually it can't. I won't deny there was a correlation in sunspots number (just a correlation) that ended in the 70's and that's it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Still there is one major element we have that show us that the sun isn't responsible for this and that is that the upper most part of the atmosphere is cooling, if the sun were to blame it will heat up all of Earth while an increase in greenhouse effect will mean less energy to the upper most part of the atmosphere and cool it.

---

That is not true because of the atmospheric gasses and wavelengths involved. The molecules absorb infrared more readily than the higher frequency wavelengths of the sun. Lean a bit about wave theory and absorption before you repeat such nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Actually data shows that during glacial terminations something caused temperatures to rise, warmer the oceans which released CO2 which also had a warming effect on climate.

---

There is no doubt some added increase by the release of CO2, but it is small. The change from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm actually has a rather small effect. About 0.9C if we assume the greenhouse effect is 12% by CO2 and causes 0.6C of the change from 280 ppm to 380 ppm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

CO2 increases cause an increase in temperatures but increases in temperatures are caused by other things besides increases in CO2...and that's what data shows.

---

The sun is the driving force of about 200K and the Earths core. About 55K is due to the magma. Only about 32K is due to greenhouse gasses. If 12% of the greenhouse effect is by CO2, then that amounts to about 3.8 C. If we place that figure at 280 ppm with an estimated 0.6C warming by CO2 to 380 ppm, then another 0.6C takes place at about 510 ppm. Thing is, we are learning that CO2 is not causing a 0.6C change. There is a known change of solar radiation barely over 0.1% from between 1900 to 1950. That alone amounts to a 0.2C increase before the amplification of greenhouse gas forcing. Soot at the polar caps are now estimated to have a larger effect than previously thought. Probably at least another 0.2C. Some scientists are now estimating that CO2 only contributes to 5% of the greenhouse gas forcing from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. That means it caused about a 0.03C increase and about a 0.16 during deglaciation, if we keep the 12% figure for CO2 roll vs. H2O and other gasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

In terms of what is best for life...no sudden changes.

---

So just how do we control nature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Don't propose to control them, only our sources.

---

We have controlled our sources. Other nations haven’t. We use clean burning technologies, and CO2 is not the problem people like to believe. It is soot and other atmospheric pollutants.

Talk to China, Mexico, India, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Natural sources and natural sinks have been on equilibrium, it is our emissions that broke that equilibrium and therefore greenhouse gases concentration have been increasing.

---

Not quite true. The equilibriums take a few hundred years of a steady state to occur. Much of the warming we have seen these last few years ago could easily be the stored energy in the oceans from the solar increases that started about 1900.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Allright, here's Nasa bit about sun activity:

Quote:

---

Scientists are still debating whether or not the Sun’s activity increased during the latter half of the 20th century, but even the highest estimates of activity can’t account for the warming observed since about 1950. Studies do show that solar variability has significantly influenced past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Northern Hemisphere’s Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when temperatures dipped low enough that rivers that don’t freeze in today’s human-warmed climate froze over.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...rmingQandA/#03

---

---

Nobody to my knowledge was claiming any significant increase after 1950 by the sun, at least directly. Like I pointed out in my previous posting, the oceans store the energy and release it slowly. I don't claim to know what the temperature delay is of the oceans, but the short term measurable lag of solar radiation is about 7.5 years for atmospheric temperature changes. Probably due to the surface waters rather than the deeper parts of the ocean.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...SSolarData.jpg

Doesn't that look like a rough sine wave?

Maybe in the next 50 years, we will be cooling!

Quote:

---

That is not true because of the atmospheric gasses and wavelengths involved. The molecules absorb infrared more readily than the higher frequency wavelengths of the sun. Lean a bit about wave theory and absorption before you repeat such nonsense.

---

Well then, aren't we cocky :) . Just because of curiosity, ¿more sun radiation means a cooler Stratosphere?, ¿or an enhanced greenhouse effect supposed to heat up the stroposphere as well?.

Quote:

---

The sun is the driving force of about 200K and the Earths core. About 55K is due to the magma. Only about 32K is due to greenhouse gasses. If 12% of the greenhouse effect is by CO2, then that amounts to about 3.8 C. If we place that figure at 280 ppm with an estimated 0.6C warming by CO2 to 380 ppm, then another 0.6C takes place at about 510 ppm. Thing is, we are learning that CO2 is not causing a 0.6C change. There is a known change of solar radiation barely over 0.1% from between 1900 to 1950. That alone amounts to a 0.2C increase before the amplification of greenhouse gas forcing. Soot at the polar caps are now estimated to have a larger effect than previously thought. Probably at least another 0.2C. Some scientists are now estimating that CO2 only contributes to 5% of the greenhouse gas forcing from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. That means it caused about a 0.03C increase and about a 0.16 during deglaciation, if we keep the 12% figure for CO2 roll vs. H2O and other gasses.

---

You are taking forcing factors without considering cooling trends nor feedback. CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is not 12%, is around 9–26% depending if it is alone or not. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Now the real danger about CO2 is not so much about its forcing alone, but the fact that it is a forcing gas that remains on the atmosphere that causes feedback gases to increase. So a doubling of CO2 warms the earth 1C, but considering the feedback (water vapor and loss of albedo) a doubling of CO2 ends up warming it 3Cº.

Take a look at this link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Quote:

---

We have controlled our sources. Other nations haven’t. We use clean burning technologies, and CO2 is not the problem people like to believe. It is soot and other atmospheric pollutants.
Talk to China, Mexico, India, etc.

---

CO2 is expecting to keep accumulating on the atmosphera, soot isn't. A molecule of CO2 emitted on the beggining of the industrial revolution could very well still be on the atmosphera, but not soot.

Still I praise your country and the EU for the developing of cleaner technologies that I should hope to be easlily transfer to China,etc. Now what I expect from the US is leadership, I can't ask China or India that because they lack the power to set rules to the international comunity.

Quote:

---

Nobody to my knowledge was claiming any significant increase after 1950 by the sun, at least directly. Like I pointed out in my previous posting, the oceans store the energy and release it slowly. I don't claim to know what the temperature delay is of the oceans, but the short term measurable lag of solar radiation is about 7.5 years for atmospheric temperature changes. Probably due to the surface waters rather than the deeper parts of the ocean.

---

Since the 1980 the warming is quite notorious, since we agree the sun has been radiating around the same amount of energy since 1950 then you must claim quite a long lag between increased sun activity and its effect on temperatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Well then, aren't we cocky :) . Just because of curiosity, ¿more sun radiation means a cooler Stratosphere?, ¿or an enhanced greenhouse effect supposed to heat up the stroposphere as well?.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

To my knowledge, the stratosphere has stayed pretty much the same. I haven’t seen data for a while on that layer. There are competing hypnosis’s on the subject. For cooling, one is that since the higher CO2 levels absorb more of the IR closer to the surface than before, there is less to be converted to heat in the upper atmosphere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

You are taking forcing factors without considering cooling trends nor feedback.

---

You are forgetting that forcing feedback applies to all factors, and solar more so because it is completely linear rather than sharing spectral areas with water. Forget feedback for a moment, consider it a constant that applies to all changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is not 12%, is around 9–26% depending if it is alone or not.

---

I’d like to see specifics on that. To my knowledge, there is always enough water present to pretty much block all transmissions of the IR at the spectral bands in affects. Only a very small amount has variance.

My take on it is that it depends on the starting temperature. The Earth for example in the Arctic or Antarctic at say -10 C or less has a blackbody temperature of about 263 K or less. Then at the Equator, the blackbody temperature could be about 310 K or more over land, and 300 K or more over the ocean. The spectra and intensity of IR is different as the temperature changes. There is band that CO2 absorbs that is almost nonexistent at higher temperatures

I already have some plots saved. They are at 200 K, 280 K, and 340 K. They do not represent the correct temperatures, but you can see that not only the total IR radiation to be trapped increased with temperature, but the wavelength number decreases at the peak. This absolutely changes the percentages that a particular gas has on the system. At 200 K, the peak is at about 1.3 watts. It increases to about 8 watts at 280 K and then almost 18 watts at 340K. Significant differences. Our 263K, 300K, and 310K are approximately 6.2 watts, 10.8 watts, and 12.2 watts. Makes some rather radical changes in the percentages by region, rather than by water percentage.

I believe that is the primary reason the greenhouse effect changes from 9% to 26% for CO2. However, those numbers are also generated by man made models that assume CO2 is the primary driver. There are no acceptable scientific facts that supports this beyond a hypothesis. It is speculation based on observation, ignoring the effects of the sun and soot. All these predictions by the alarmists are self fulfilling prophesies. ga and propaganda in reality, because the model is made on limited assumptions.

Here are the charts:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ckbody200k.png

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ckbody280k.png

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ckbody340k.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.

---

I am fully aware of that. In fact, H2O effectively absorbs nearly all of the overlaps with CO2. If you study the available charts, it is plain as day that as long as H2O is present, changes in CO2 have no effect for the same spectra. There is one independent band of CO2, which is already at close to 100% absorption. I think it covers about 10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Now the real danger about CO2 is not so much about its forcing alone, but the fact that it is a forcing gas that remains on the atmosphere that causes feedback gases to increase. So a doubling of CO2 warms the earth 1C, but considering the feedback (water vapor and loss of albedo) a doubling of CO2 ends up warming it 3Cº.

---

Not true. The 0.6 approximate we see has the feedbacks included. You don’t say that based on the trend and see another 1 C coming that already has feedbacks factored in, then add the feedbacks again.

Please… Thing a bit about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Take a look at this link
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

---

Be careful trusting anything from that site. They are an agenda driven site, and will brilliantly baffle you with bullshit. I have taken the time to show a few of their pages nonsense in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

CO2 is expecting to keep accumulating on the atmosphera, soot isn't. A molecule of CO2 emitted on the beggining of the industrial revolution could very well still be on the atmosphera, but not soot.

---

But the soot sits on top of the ice, until it completely melts away. It is absorbing an additional 800% of the solar radiation rather than reflecting it harmlessly back out to space. Then when additional water is uncovered, the water heats up more than normal, heating up areas that were once completely dark. It takes time for that heat to be realized. I think it’s several decades, but I’m not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seba5618

Since the 1980 the warming is quite notorious, since we agree the sun has been radiating around the same amount of energy since 1950 then you must claim quite a long lag between increased sun activity and its effect on temperatures.

---

This goes back to the stored heat in the oceans from collecting the heat over time. Someplace I have the same data I used for the solar cycle graph. I used I think a 60 year rolling average. That takes the rising trend into now, and then some.

I forget where it at, but someone made a rather good article in the past about an energy imbalance, saying that we have stored ocean heat to increase by I think another 1 C. Lags truly exist in nature.

Bump

Profe, your discretion is brutal.

With your leave, I'd like to dismiss myself.



WH23