Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MoreCarbonOK on 09/03/2013 19:43:23

Title: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 09/03/2013 19:43:23
A simple random sample of mine showed we are cooling, for at least the past 12 years
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

Most seem to agree with my dataset

link here (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend)

Furthermore, my data set on maxima shows we will be cooling for some time to come.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

this will cause a shift in cloud formation and condensation causing some places to get much cooler whilst other countries might get some GH benefit- even though they will see less sun…

an example is Alaska (getting much cooler) and CET (getting warmer)
Title: Re: Our earth is cooling...
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/03/2013 19:54:46
"A simple random sample of mine"
How was it randomised?
Title: Re: Our earth is cooling...
Post by: CliffordK on 09/03/2013 21:37:15
Your Hadcrut, RSS, etc charts, you are conveniently only showing a single decade.  Obviously the picture is different when looking at more than one decade.

The best one can say is that it has been flat for the last decade or so.  It would be hard to calculate trends from that.  We are in the middle of one of the weakest solar cycles in a century.  But, I think a lot will be learned from this solar cycle, and perhaps the next couple of cycles.

My biggest question is whether the increases in temperatures that most charts are showing from about 1980 to 2000 are real, or if there is some systematic error that is creating a bias in the samples.  Or, of course, whether it is part of a cycle.

From looking at the data, it is my belief that the temperatures are increasing somewhat, but there is a cyclical nature of the temperature increases that wasn't fully incorporated into the future projections.  And, thus the overall rate of temperature increase is lower than had been projected.

We may well be in a downswing now, continuing at least until about 2020.  However, it likely will not make up for the earlier temperature gains.  In fact, flat temperatures when temperatures should be decreasing may be a sign for bad things to come in the future.

One of the problems, though, is that I don't think there is a good understanding of the consequences of possible temperature (and CO2) increases.

While local dry weather, and heat are often associated, that is not necessarily true on a global scale as warmer weather is also associated with more evaporation, and greater moisture in the atmosphere.

And, of course, while C4 plants may not benefit from increasing CO2 concentrations, C3 plants likely will have a substantial benefit.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 10/03/2013 09:22:55
@bored chemist
The sample was random in that I only approved the (weather) station if it had complete or near complete records.
I also balanced it by latitude and 70/30 @sea and inland, more or less. Longitude does not matter as we are looking at the average yearly temperatures,
which includes earth's  seasonal shifts and earth turns every 24 hours. T
he interesing part is to look at the maxima, you can do a very nice binomial fit if you set the speed of cooling out against time.
@CliffordK
11 years is one whole time span of one sun cycle.
If you do a binomial on the speed of cooling versus time of the maxima you get high correlation but .... wrong, I hope.
It must be the sine wave fit that applies.
 :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: CliffordK on 10/03/2013 10:38:06
There are several overlapping climatologic cycles.

I am a bit suspicious about data continuity with all the equipment changes.  However, I do believe that we are seeing real, and long-term changes in the Arctic, so perhaps the northern ocean will act as a secondary confirmation about global changes.
Title: Re: Is our Earth cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 10/03/2013 15:07:23
@CliffordK
Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense, people looked at the planets to explain weather cycles, rightly or wrongly.
see here
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
to quote from the above paper:
"A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with
maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence....

end quote

Acording to my table for maxima, I calculate the date where the sun decided to take a nap, as being around 1995.
and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted. please correct me if you think I am wrong.
This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998.

Anyway, look again at my best sine wave plot for my data
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

1900 minimum flooding - end of the warming
1950 maximum flooding - end of cooling
1995 minimum flooding - end of warming.
predicted 2035-2040 - maximum flooding - end of cooling.

Do you see the pertinent correlation with my sine wave?

I share your concern about looking at older data which is why I looked only at data from 1973-1974, when automatic recording began.

I really don't trust the base line of temperatures before 1925 as it seems nobody can supply me with a calibration certificate of thermometer from those days.
Also, the way of recording, meant that you did a reading every 4 hours or so,
which may have affected the average for the day, nevermind the fact if people were sick or on leave and the job just did not "get done"
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2013 21:53:49
"Before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense,"
Let's just clarify a few things about this so called "nonsense"
CO2 is a strong absorber of IR
Not all those IR transitions are saturated so more CO2 absorbs more IR.
The sun is much hotter than the earth so it emits proportionately more of it's radiation in the visible range and less in the IR.
We know that the CO2 levels are rising.
We know that (on a global basis and a reasonable time frame) the temperatures are rising.
We know that mankind is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

But you still call it nonsense.

Nope, nonsense is saying "I know we but another blanket on the bed,
and I know we are warmer,
but I refuse to accept that there's any relation between those two facts."

Also, a "random" sample, doesn't mean cherry picking data that's taken over a very short timescale.


Incidentally, can someone sort out the screwed up formatting of this thread?


Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 10/03/2013 22:20:26
Incidentally, can someone sort out the screwed up formatting of this thread?

Done.  It has to do with someone posting long urls without using the
 [url_=www.mylink.com][/url_] tags (removing the _). 
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 11/03/2013 06:03:11
@bored chemist
The greenhouse effect and the principle of re-radiation
 
Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);

“The Earth’s surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.”

I am watching with amusement all scholar discussions on the green house effect as I realised again that the people that I encounter on most scientific blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of absorption and subsequent re-radiation. In fact very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. … They know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) “absorbs” in the 14-16 um region. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then it absorbs again, and so on, and so on…and all the absorbed light is continuously transferred to heat…Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas, that is in fact not what is causing the heat entrapment.

I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.

The best way to experience re-radiation for yourself is to stand in a dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Humidity must be high. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour. This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere.A third way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.

 We can conclude from all these experiments that what actually happens is this:

in the wavelength areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little spherical mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. We may assume that at least 50% of a certain amount of radiation is sent back in a radius of 180 degrees in the direction where it came from. (However, because the molecule is very small and therefore might behave more or less like a sphere, it could be up to ca. 62,5% ). This re-radiation in the sun’s spectrum and in the earth’s spectrum is the cooling effect, or warming effect, respectively, of a gas hit by radiation. An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!!

Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas (i.e. the closed box experiments). If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects. If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:

http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o

- never mind the fact that the amounts of radiation heat from the sun’s 5525K and 210-310K from earth displayed, are completely out of proportion -

just see how the absorptions that are apparent in the spectra of the individual components of the atmosphere affect the outgoing radiation of earth and see how they affect the incoming radiation. For example, let us look at the absorption of ozone at between 9-10 um? It makes a dent in earth’s outgoing radiation at 9-10. In other words what happens: Radiation from earth of 9-10 goes up, hits on the ozone, most of which is high up in the sky and which is already absorbed to capacity, and therefore a great percentage (at least 50%, probably more) is sent back to earth, leading to entrapment of heat, leading to delay in cooling, leading to a warming effect. Also look at water vapor and CO2 around 2 um and see how that makes a dent in the incoming solar radiation. Notice that the ozone shields us from a lot of sunlight by absorbing and re-radiating in the UV region. In fact, if you really grasp what you are seeing in this graph/ representation (from a cloudless day), you would realize that without the ozone and CO2 and H2O and other GHG’s you will get a lot more radiation on your head. In fact, you would probably fry.

For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec

They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.

This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):

http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).

I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me. In the case of CO2, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 could be underestimated, i.e. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 may be only 1% of its total energy output, but how many Watts per m2 does it cause on earth? Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin.

In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject.

CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of  0.01% of CO2  that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.

There are no such results in any study, let alone in the right dimensions. FOR EXAMPLE, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions.

For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(the ratios show that it was maxima pushing up means and minima, not the minima pushing up means - due to a delay in cooling by increasing GHG's)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The above results suggest that a cooling cycle started around 1995 looking at energy-in (maxima) and 1998 for energy out (means)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2013 21:01:44
"I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas."

I happen to be a spectroscopist: and I do understand it.

"Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum."
Not really, no. Please tell me what the excited state is and what the strength of the absorbtion is.
".So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction."
No, and this is obviously wrong to anyone who ahas been around at sunrise.
In particular it was clearly nonsense when they built Stonehenge.
If the light came in from all directions than they couldn't have lined the stones up with the sun.

"This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere."
Wrong again.
The light is scattered back by whatever is in front of you.
One group of so called "primitive" people who developed sunglasses were those living in the extreme North. The air there is typically dry, but the glare is intense.
Glare is also commonly observed in the hot deserts of the world.

" (However, because the molecule is very small and therefore might behave more or less like a sphere, it could be up to ca. 62,5% )."
From what orifice did you pull that number?

"An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!! "
Yes, the IR emitted by the earth is back scattered by the atmosphere.
That's what keeps the planet warm.

This:
"Radiation from earth of 9-10 goes up, hits on the ozone, most of which is high up in the sky and which is already absorbed to capacity"
doesn't make sense.

And the paper you cite saying "For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here: " doesn't show cooling, it shows that
the earth's atmosphere contains CO2 (etc)
and that the earth is not at absolute zero.
Neither of those was a matter of contention.

"So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2?"
Mainly warming, as pointed out by a lot of atmospheric physicists who know more about it than you clearly do.
The simple reason for this is that the ground is warmer than the high atmosphere.
The CO2 near the top can re-radiate energy into space, but it hasn't got much.
The stuff near ground has more energy, but it can't re-radiate so well because there's a lot of CO2 in the way.

Saying "I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me." doesn't help much either.
On what basis do you reject the analysis?
Is it just because it doesn't fit with your belief?

It would also help if you made up your mind.
Do you mean "In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject." or do you mean "An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!! "

And don't use CAPS LOCK to highlight things that you don't  understand like units.
"FOR EXAMPLE, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions."
Using the wrong units (such as " W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours") doesn't make you look any more credible  at best, but telling other people to use the right units when you don't is silly.

Anyway, I'm missing something interesting on telly, so I won't bother with the rest of your post for the minute.

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 06:06:56
bored chemist says
And the paper you cite saying "For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here: " doesn't show cooling, it shows that
the earth's atmosphere contains CO2 (etc)

henry@bored chemist
We measure radiation specific to the spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon and you don't call that radiative cooling? It is radiation coming back from earth going back to space. If CO2 is increasing then so is the back radiation caused by the CO2.
Here is another graph that illustrates my point even better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
the yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2.
(I think many people know that (more) UV + O2 => (more) O3 but not all people know that in a similar way HxOx (peroxides) and nitrous oxides are also formed TOA that also cause more back radiation if there is more of it. I was able to correlate the beginning of the decline of ozone with the beginning of warming (1950) and the start of cooling with the increase in ozone (1995). We can measure ozone both on the NH and the SH, but not the peroxides and the others. Hence we are cooling because ozone and others are increasing as F-UV and/or E-UV is (or must be) increasing)

So, anyway, what is important to know is that incoming radiation from the sun is being back radiated in the absorptive regions of the CO2 in the UV, 1-2um and 4-5um and hence,  this will increase if there is more of it in the atmosphere similar to the back radiation going back to earth of the 14-16 um.   
At this stage we should not forget that incoming radiation is 5000K and outgoing (14-16um) is 210K.

So, if you want to claim that an increase in CO2 causes a net warming effect, you first have to show me a balance sheet. And how much cooling is caused by the CO2 by the increase in greenery?
bored chemist says
Anyway, I'm missing something interesting on telly, so I won't bother with the rest of your post for the minute.

henry says
yes do go back to your telly. You might learn something there.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 06:53:14
CliffordK says
But, I find it doubtful that we will dip down to the levels in the last trough in the 1960's. 

@CliffordK
Actually, I do think we will dip to where we were in the 1950 and that all the arctic ice will come back.
There are several markers that point me in that direction,
namely as referred to in my previous post, the change in ozone is remarkable in that it follows exactly  on my a-c wave as predicted. Too much co-incidence there. This has led me to consider that this whole CFC scare was also a bit of a red herring and that the actual effect it had on the ozone layer was probably very little. There are natural processes that dominate the production of chemicals on TOA. Most probably it is a re-distribution within  TSI that is causing a difference in the composition of the chemicals lying on TOA.

Those that point to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in (maxima)  and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2012-88= we are in 1924. Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. But by 1950 all that ‘lost” ice had frozen back.

I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will come back, from 2015-2040 as also happened from 1925-1950.
Don't invest in the arctic, is my bet.

So, I  guess what I am saying is that I agree with your graph of the sine wave but I think it is straight. It has just been curling up because of differences in accuracy and changes in methods of testing that occurred in the past.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: CliffordK on 12/03/2013 09:07:00
The Arctic vs Antarctic is a bit of an enigma.

I was expecting the Arctic sea ice to start rebounding by now.  But we are still hitting very low sea ice levels.  Although looking at the maps, it is really only a few areas on the Atlantic side that were slow with icing over this winter.

However, the one thing that the Global warming isn't accounting for very well is the Antarctic sea ice, which last year the maximum extent was about 1 million km2 greater than average, and the minimum was about a half million km2 greater than average, in the same time frame the Arctic was hitting record lows.

Perhaps the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation) would have an extraordinary effect on the Fram strait, as well as the sea ice in general, especially on the Atlantic side which was slow freezing up this winter.

However, a bad sign with the Arctic is that both the Northwest Passage and the Northeast passage haven't been generally open several years in a row for at least 200 years, not that I'm convinced that early sailing ships would have been able to detect and utilize a few weeks of open passages for travel between the Pacific and Atlantic.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: evan_au on 12/03/2013 10:24:57
Chlorofluorocarbons are potent greenhouse gasses. Fortunately, the Montreal protocol capped production of these, and levels in the atmosphere are starting to decline. This should slow down one aspect of lower-atmospheric warming=>upper-atmospheric cooling.

Unfortunately, CO2 does not have so many substitutes readily at hand, and so the rapidly escalating production of CO2 will soon overwhelm any small gains from the Montreal protocol.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 11:22:03
evan_au says
Unfortunately, CO2 does not have so many substitutes readily at hand, and so the rapidly escalating production of CO2 will soon overwhelm any small gains from the Montreal protocol.
henry says
clearly you missed what I posted earlier on, namely 11/03.2013 at 06:03:11. Perhaps you want to check that out again. And bring me your balance sheet. Or you can also go and watch the telly and "believe" everything they tell you there.
Just for the record here: I am saying the warming and cooling can be explained by natural processes. Hence we are now cooling, as proven to you by my post at the beginning of this thread.
Anyway, don't worry about the extra CO2 that we produce either. They recently discovered that they could not find 60% of it back. It simply disappeared.....into "thin" air, so to speak...

 Now we all know where that went. Right, we all want more trees, more lawns, more crops, more coffee, more wine, don't we?
Cheers.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 11:34:49
@CliffordK

My forefathers (William Barentz from the 16th century etc) were convinced that a passage did exist. They even died on Nova Zembla trying to find it. I think they must have heard in their "history" lessons from the Norwegians that the passage must have been open at some time in the past, which is how the Vikings were able to move so quickly. ... That could have been in the Medeviel Warm Period, as referred to in the 2nd graph, shown here,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
in the time when Greenland was really green.

That time has not arrived and seeing that a cooling process has now started it will not happen.
All bets should be off on developing the arctic. It will all freeze up there aqain in the next few decades.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 11:53:16
@CliffordK

BTW it seems there is some similarity between the AMO
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg/300px-Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg.png

and my a-c curve for the drop in global maximum temperatures,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

but there maybe some lags/unlags due to other interference, like earth's own volcanic activity, rotation if the iron core, etc.
Just remember with maxima, I am looking at energy coming through the atmosphere whereas with AMO we are looking at the energy going into the sea, from all directions, including earth itself.

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2013 19:37:40
"We measure radiation specific to the spectrum of CO2 coming back from the moon and you don't call that radiative cooling? It is radiation coming back from earth going back to space. If CO2 is increasing then so is the back radiation caused by the CO2."

You are muddling the two uses of the word.
It's the transfer of heat but, to a good approximation, all that heat was just provided to the earth by the sun so the earth isn't cooling.
You are trying to call a process "cooling" even though it doesn't result in anything becoming cooler.
that's just playing with words.

And you seem not to have noticed that I shot holes in all your major points.

What would be the point of a balancesheet?
Give your inability to choose the right units to aclculate an outcome from that sheet, you wouldn't understand it if we gave you one.
Secondly, and more importantly.
Screw the calculation: we have the experiment. The earth is getting warmer.
If the balance sheet didn't agree with that observation, it would be the wrong sheet.
So it's not going to tell us anything that we don't already know.
The earth is getting hotter.

Incidentally, the Montreal protocol was to stop us screwing the ozone layer. That's a good thing, but it wasn't designed to alter the greenhouse effect.
It will, but only to a rather small extent and only "by accident".
It would be better to leave it out of the discussion of global warming.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 19:59:33
bored chemist says
Give your inability to choose the right units to aclculate an outcome from that sheet, you wouldn't understand it if we gave you one.
Secondly, and more importantly.
S_____ (Mod edit) the calculation: we have the experiment. The earth is getting warmer.
(sic)

henry says
I think my units are right. I addressed that problem here.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/#comment-294
But I am open to other suggestions.

I think we should not  not allow the word "screw" and "screwing" on a public blog website such as this.
Clearly, you are entirely missing the point of my initial  post which was to show that earth has been cooling, globally, for the last 11 or 12 years.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2013 20:11:55
These are the wrong units
 W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours

And I don't understand your problem with the word.
Nor did shakespeare
But sS_____ (Mod edit) your courage to the sticking-place,   
And we’ll not fail.
http://www.bartleby.com/46/4/17.html

And I'm ignoring your questionable data over a carefully chosen interval for the reasons I and others have given above.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 20:20:24
@bored chemist
We may have to think about this a bit and develop a thought experiment. If you understood my posts here, we would have to try an experiment in a vessel that is open from the top i.e. not a closed box experiment. Lets assume we can get two football sites next to each other walled like a normal GH but not covered from the top. This must be somewhere on earth where we have average 342 W/m2. It must also be sunny and wind still, or as wind still as possible. Then, in the one box we introduce CO2 and the other box we leave as is. Now, CO2 is heavier than air, so I am expecting that we will be able elevate the CO2 in the air of the one box somewhat. In both boxes we are monitoring CO2 and temperature at various distances from the ground, continuously.
At this point we have to consider that earth shines 24 hours a day while the sun shines 12 hours a day. (if we conduct the experiment at a time when the exposure is indeed 12 hours sunshine)
So we have to do an experiment at night and mulitply the result by 2
And we have to do the experiment by day and realize that this is all you get in 24 hours.
I imagine the result would be something like a difference (when we increase CO2) of a cooling effect during the day between the two boxes and a warming effect during the night between the two big boxes.
The dimension would be deltaT which can be converted to W/m2/m (height of the sensor from the ground) per % CO2 in the surrounding air per m2 per time period
You agree? I am very open to your ideas as I am not a very good engineer.
Seeing that W/m2/m= W/m3, I think that my dimensions were correct.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/03/2013 20:25:54
@bored chemist
you can ignore my data and those of all the others of the past 11 years (= one full solar cycle)
but the snow will still follow you....

LOL
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2013 21:37:07
The units you cited (W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours) are W/m^5/day/% CO2
Watts per day is stupid enough but having a term in metres to the fifth is absurd.

The units you really want are K
For example, the temperature rise is 0.3K
You might want something like K/century as the rate of change.

Anyway, as I said, we know the temperature is going up.

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/03/2013 05:36:47
Bored chemist says
Anyway, as I said, we know the temperature is going up.

henry says
no it is not! in the graph below we still see CO2 rising but global temperature rise has stalled.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.8/trend/plot/uah/from:2008.5/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise:0.5/scale:0.5/offset:0.34

As shown in my first post, if we take it to the past 11 years we see temperatures have started falling. Also, even CliffordK's graph shows this. We both think or suspect that the observed incline of that sine wave could just be due to changes in equipment and methods of testing, over time.
On top of that, if you had understood my previous postings of how the GH effect works, namely that it causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect, then it follows that if more CO2 or more H2O or more other GHG's were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minima rising faster, pushing up the means. That has not happened. If you look at my tables here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
you will notice that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period, we find a ratio of maxima : means: minima of 0.036:0.014:0.006. That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means. And not the other way around.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2013 21:37:02
"On top of that, if you had understood my previous postings of how the GH effect works, "
You explained wow it doesn't work
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 15/03/2013 17:24:39
@bored chemist
Clearly, you did not even read or understand my very first post and the implications of my results, especially the last sentence.


You can ignore them, but to ignore them is the same as ignoring the truth. The truth has a habit of showing up, eventually,
(John 19-37&38 - how appropriate for this time of the year),

(I am not worried except for the waste of $trillions, on so-called climate science, and expensive energy alternatives).

How on earth are we expected to do terra forming on future planets if we cannot even get the basic science of the ideal atmospheric composition right?

Here you can see that putting up more CO2 in the air is good for you,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

People wanting less CO2 and less H2O are actually denying their own father and mother.....
if you go far enough back in time. Chris should have figured that one out.
Anyway, goodbye, God bless you all,
I wish you and all my brethren here the best for the future.

Henry
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2013 09:22:30
Or, in the real world:

"Earth's temperature is changing faster now than at any time since the last ice age, according to a new analysis of global temperatures spanning the last "
from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 16/03/2013 15:25:19

@bored chemist
it appears there were inconsistencies with the statistical analysis there

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/16/marcotts-uptick-a-result-of-proxy-sign-inconsistency/

I already gave you a link to the greenland ice core analysis earlier up the thread which clearly you did not read or understand


now please, can I, for once,  be the one who has the last word on this blog?
I am sure you have better things to do than educate a "screw-up" like me.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2013 02:24:29
BC you are fighting a losing battle here. This is not only a man of good old fashioned common sense, he also goes with God at his side as I get it, reading :) 

Anyway, you being right won't solve this. Only divine intervention will.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2013 09:18:26
Indeed,
As long as you can quote the Bible you don't need to supply actual evidence to overrule reality: just point out that someone on some site somewhere disagrees with it.

I think part of his problem is that he thinks it's a blog.
If it were then he could have the last word, as it stands, there is no reason why he should.

I think the evidence should have the last word.
What does everyone else think?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Henry Pool on 17/03/2013 15:03:18
@bored chemist
Remember Steve McIntyre? You think
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/

there, we got that sorted out for you.

Your-on is a bit off. I always make my observations and judge the results.

I wish you many happy wet and snowy days - be glad that you are right:
it is getting warmer in central England
Paradoxically it gets warmer in CET because globally it is getting cooler,
… it is called the GH effect…..

remember my name
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2013 19:57:03
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 29/03/2013 16:54:01
I especially like 'Remember my name'. It's soo, Hollywood?

Anyway, with more humidity you will get more water coming back from the atmosphere, some as rain some as snow, and all things in between :) When the Arctic melts you get open waters, where there formerly was ice reflecting back the suns rays. That means that the water will consume 'heat' from those rays, and store it to release, as well as transport it to other parts of the world, depending on streams, winds, etc. Greenland and the Arctic are getting a lot of heat those days, keeping Greenland over zero The Greenland melt. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/the-greenland-melt/) . Sweden, parts of USA, and England  (Europe) on the other hand is getting a lot more cold and snow. The reason being  It’s Official: Arctic Sea Ice Shatters Record Low (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/its-official-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-breaks-record-low-15018) and those (new to us at least) atmospheric conditions that it creates. The Winter the Polar Vortex Collapsed. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/22/1195793/-The-Winter-the-Polar-Vortex-Collapsed)

But this is a new situation, and I'm sure we will see more of it as the number one 'reality show' global warming reveal itself for us. And remember, we're all participants this time :)

==

If you only read one of the links, choose the Greenland melt. Because that one gives me worries.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 29/03/2013 18:03:49

@Yor_on
you completely removed my last comment, implicating UEA, in part, for the whole global warming scam...
Nevertheless, I will answer your comment. Count back 88 years? where are we?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Read the whole newspaper report. The warming was caused by the warmer Gulf stream.
As I said: all "LOST" arctic ice will freeze back in the next 2 decades, as it did from 1925-1950.
You don't have to worry. Except, of course for more snow there, where you live...
just keep shoving it...
and still believe the world is warming...
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 29/03/2013 18:27:57
:)

It's okay. Wasn't writing about your sources. Only presenting what is commonly thought of, amongst those working with with climate, as being the explanation for the winters we've seen recently in northern Europe, and parts of the USA. As for climate conspiracies :) Well. I'll leave that to you.

I expect the peer reviewed papers to be okay, especially after being scrutinized. It may well be that a former weather reporter, as your link goes too, is competent to have a differing view, but? I will put my money with those working in the field, bringing home their conclusions in form of good peer reviewed papers :) And those consist of a overwhelming majority, finding us to creating a global warming.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 29/03/2013 18:31:41
Eh, I haven't removed a thing btw?
You need a moderator for that.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 29/03/2013 18:41:22

Yor_on says
It may well be that a former weather reporter, as your link goes too, is competent to have a differing view, but? I will put my money with those...
Henry says
I was talking about the newspaper report he was showing from 1922
Read it and get wise>
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 29/03/2013 18:52:20
You do see this as your blog, right?
Far from me to discourage you, but we do have 'new theories'. I'm not sure that it covers this material, but if it doesn't we need to create one more :) And I read, and laughed the whole way through :) You made my day Carbon, thnx.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 29/03/2013 18:58:08
Blog? You call this a blog?
I am the one laughing....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2013 19:09:41
Blog? You call this a blog?
I am the one laughing....
No, you called it a blog 16/03.
"now please, can I, for once,  be the one who has the last word on this blog?
I am sure you have better things to do than educate a "screw-up" like me."
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 29/03/2013 19:49:24
Folks, let's keep it a discussion of the science of global warming and cut back on the snarky comments.

-mod
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: evan_au on 29/03/2013 20:49:46
Warmer ocean temperatures means more moisture in the air.
Fortunately, now we have global measurements from satellites, and a fairly good network of ground-based and ocean-based measurements, extending back over many years.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 30/03/2013 08:45:08
@Evan -au

All major indicators including SST (sea surface temps) and including my own data set, show we are cooling, globally,
as shown to you in my very first post, for at least the past equivalent of one solar cycle.(11-12 years)


looking at my own data set (for example by studying degree C, versus time square)  it is clear that global warming and global cooling are a natural process and that global cooling will continue, accelerating still and it will last until at least 2038 or there about....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 30/03/2013 18:23:55
Sorry, that should read:
by studying degrees C/annum versus time (years):
that gives you acceleration in K /t square
in my case it shows deceleration of warming or acceleration of cooling
A curved relationship indicates a natural process
just like if you were to plot the speed of a ball (in m/s) against time
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 02/04/2013 00:33:11
Let us keep it as simple as possible :)

If now that is possible. It's tricky, climate modeling is really tricky. One have to remember that we haven't really studied this extensively for more than maybe forty (fifty?) years? I'm not sure there as a real study should need to involve the best computing environment in the world, and if we use that as our definition, then we have only begun to study it. Another factor is that there are several layers in the atmosphere mixing with each other, and we have just begun to look at the stratospheres importance for the climate we notice on ground level. The same goes for the oceans at depth.

The scientific consensus of a man made global warming has nothing to do with those difficulties though, so when people want to dispute some new report/paper, or twist it into some denial of global warming, they are bicycling up the wrong tree.

To see that it is a man made warming we notice is easy statistically, it correlates very well with the industrial revolution, so the evidence there are very clear. But to know how it will express itself locally is almost impossible, unless we do it for some limited time. There are no computers able to do those calculations on earth, plus that we constantly find new interactions mankind didn't know existed before we started to take climate seriously, and made that field work.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 02/04/2013 15:59:33
yor_on says

a) or twist it into some denial of global warming, they are bicycling up the wrong tree.

b) To see that it is a man made warming we notice is easy statistically, it correlates very well with the industrial revolution, so the evidence there are very clear.

c) The scientific consensus of a man made global warming....

henry@yor_on

a) It is common knowledge that there has been no global warming for at least 15 or 16 years. If you deny that you are bicycling up the wrong tree.

b) we were indeed on an uptick, warming naturally, since 1927 according to my own best fit for my own data, as shown before, on maxima, which is an a-c sine wave with wavelength of approx. 88 years, on average. At the time when I determined this I was not even aware that the Gleisberg solar/weather cycle had already been determined from other data. A good (global) data base from before that time is murky, to say the least, because of poor calibration (no certificates) and poor recording methods (depending on people).

c) my  own data and those of most others, show a definitive cooling trend from 2002, and my own fit for my own data shows that we will cool further, until about 2038, when everything will be back more or less to where we were in 1950. We cannot have "an election" about this. In science, consensus is just nonsense. You only need one man to be right. I invite you to try and make another fit for my data on maxima,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 02/04/2013 16:28:17
Oh :)

A lone ranger mission, is it?
Correcting the results of those 'climate scientists'?

I don't know what to say here. I can argue myself blue, but I don't expect it to change your mind, because you are r i g h t. right? Let us put this way, there are a publication for physics arxivx, why not present your calculations and evidence to them? Instead of wasting your time with argue here?  Not sure they accept climate papers, but as long as you have the equations you might have a glimmer :) And sorry Jp, your turn.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 02/04/2013 17:16:03
Henry@yor_on
alone? you never got what I said in my first post?> most data sets now show a cooling trend from 2002, as I had predicted from my own data set
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 02/04/2013 17:30:57
Notes on how to cherry pick the aforementioned data to find a cooling period:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#trends
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 02/04/2013 17:59:25
Ánd no, consensus is not nonsense, not when it is a peer review. Neither Einsteins papers or any of QM:s was accepted 'as is'. There is always a peer review by those involved in the field of study. But do try arxivx, or why not real climate? But you will need all those data specified with time, location, and describe the exact measurements made, you will also need cross sections done using different sources, of the same date at least.

Because, using singular sources won't give you climate, only weather. Weather is always local 'singular sources' locally measured, climate on the other hand is a global phenomena, needing a whole lot more coverage by geographically differently situated 'local weather stations'. So you need to start with how you choose your measurements and cross sections, then you also need to prove the established climate models wrong, and preferably present some new observations, and tests, making your idea plausible. A table is not a proof.

That's also why Sweden can have a prolonged winter while Australia have heat waves and bush-fires. Globally counted on the temperature constantly is raising, but locally you might find something else. Climate is tricky.

But please, don't do it here. Direct it to those you're trying to disprove instead, and put some faith in science too :)
==

One more thing, 16 years do not give you enough to call it a trend. It's more of a fluctuation. It's just recently we have enough data collected to begin to use it in a statistically significant way. And doing that we find it to fit a global warming, not a global cooling. I could find you references but I won't today :)

If you really expect your data competent enough, then take it up with the right sites :)

Ahh, 2002 was it :) That's 11 years. You need at least 30-40 years, preferably more. I think the English Admiralty have some rather interesting historical weather observations from their sailing ships, around the globe, though, if I remember right? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/i/Fact_sheet_No._12.pdf
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 02/04/2013 18:01:31
henry@jp
now there is reasonably intelligent response.
the problem is the UAH.
That is the one station that I had excluded  because there is no correlation whatsoever with this one with all the other data sets.
btw
my selection was not cherry picked. I just chose the last equivalent of one solar cycle (= ca. 11 years).
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 02/04/2013 19:09:38
Hmm :)

you do have your ways set, don't you.
Reread my last post, added some stuff. If you want to base it on statistics that is?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Henry Pool on 02/04/2013 19:26:45
@yor_on
I am ur stats man. Please help me to see where I am wrong?
using my own data FROM 47 STATIONS  (not enough?)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/04/2013 19:56:51
Did you read the bit about needing data over a long period of time?
After all, if you knew the temperature of every square metre of the world's surface today that would be something like 500 million million stations,  it would tell you something about the weather, but nothing about the climate.
When it is known that there's a (roughly) 11 year cycle it's clear that 11 years isn't enough data- you can't tell if some cycles are deeper than others and, if so, how much deeper.

So you can't make any valid deductions about the earth's climate from 11 years worth of data.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Henry Pool on 02/04/2013 20:34:50
@ bored chemist

yes, we know that earth has been warming from around 1928
but this warming stopped around the start of the new millennium
now, almost all data sets including my own are showing this....
what is ur point?
why are you all claiming that it is still warming when clearly it is not?
who are you fooling but yourselves?
Are you hoping it will still warm when all indications are going in the opposite direction?
mankind must adapt to a cooling climate, not a warming climate.
get wise
live with it
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Henry Pool on 02/04/2013 21:06:07
mankind must adapt to a cooling climate, not a warming climate.


that means less agriculture at higher latitudes (e.g. Alaska, http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html#storylink=misearch)
and PROMOTING more agriculture at lower latitudes  (Africa/ South America)

\
MARK MY WORDS
\
DO SOMETHING
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 02/04/2013 23:34:23
Are you trolling?

"The Industrial Revolution spanned the 18th and early 19th Century. Over this period, global CO2 emissions were a fraction of current levels. During the 18th Century, global CO2 emissions were around 3 to 7 million tonnes per year.

During the early 19th Century, CO2 emissions steadily rose reaching 54 million tonnes per year by 1850.

Currently we are emitting over 8000 million tonnes per year."

See if you ideas fit any of those cited in skeptical Science  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php) it have the accepted, proven by field work, answer beside the argument.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not your blog. I'm starting to suspect that you just want to write about global cooling, and advertise your blog, at TNS expense? And you are not a prophet, coming down from the mountain. God is not your personal property, to use in whatever manner that please you. At least not on this site.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 03/04/2013 00:06:18
For your information.

"Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues have compiled 73 such proxies from around the world, all of which reach back to the end of the last glacial period, 11,300 years ago. During this period, known as the Holocene, the climate has been relatively warm – and civilisation has flourished.

"Most global temperature reconstructions have only spanned the past 2000 years," says Marcott.

Marcott's graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly reversing the previous rise.

Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions."

The cooling you want should have been here as belonging to Earths normal cycle, but it isn't, due to us. Instead we're going in the opposite direction, and we're just now finding that we might have a greater reason to worry about West Antarctica than thought before.

Hansen warned about it around twenty years ago, and if you bothered to look at the link I recommended earlier you can see that he's much closer to being prophetic than anyone else I know of. Here is Shaun Marcott et al summary, and FAQ. (http://proglacial.com/Public%20Links/FAQ%20-%20Holocene%20Temperatues.html)

Why not read it?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 04/04/2013 15:01:41
Here is another sign of times to come.

Polar research: Trouble bares its claws. (http://www.nature.com/news/polar-research-trouble-bares-its-claws-1.12015)

And then we have Krill and plankton. (http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/wildlife/krill.htm) Where the "Krill numbers may have dropped by as much as 80% since the 1970's - so today's stocks are a mere 1/5th of what they were only 30 years ago. The decline in krill may  in turn account for the decline in the numbers of some penguin species."

And what did those whales feed on btw?
He*, why not let Japan eat as many as they want? :) They're soon gone, or if smart migrating to the south pole, anyway. Just as we now start to see polar bears mating with 'ordinary' brown bears. Nature seems to have its own ways storing genetic information, but she do not plan for it with human 'times scales' in mind.
==

Btw, want to meet a winner?

"Another animal that feeds on the same phytoplankton food as krill, jelly-like colonial animals called salps that drift in the ocean currents have increased in the same time the krill have decreased."

Jellyfish.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 04/04/2013 15:53:31
Still, there are new breeds, amongst whales too. "The loss of Arctic sea ice is predicted to open up the Northwest Passage, shortening shipping routes and facilitating the exchange of marine organisms between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. Here, we present the first observations of distribution overlap of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) from the two oceans in the Northwest Passage, demonstrating this route is already connecting whales from two populations that have been assumed to be separated by sea ice. Previous satellite tracking has demonstrated that bowhead whales from West Greenland and Alaska enter the ice-infested channels of the Canadian High Arctic during summer. In August 2010, two bowhead whales from West Greenland and Alaska entered the Northwest Passage from opposite directions and spent approximately 10 days in the same area, documenting overlap between the two populations."

And Norwegian dna test, made as they started up their whale hunting again in 1993 have found arctic and antarctic minke whales mating and producing off spring. But this are recent developments, just as I will assume the mating between polar bears and brown bears to be. Think it's high time accepting that global warming is happening, and accept that we need to change our ways.
=

Maybe I will be shown wrong when it comes to the chances for those whales?

Even though the antarctic/arctic species of krill respectively plankton are decreasing there seem to be a inflow of 'sub- and -tropical' plankton following the global warming. It will depend on if they can, and will, increase to such numbers that they can feed a whale population? Also it will depend on what temperatures whales will feel comfortable in. But it would certainly be good if I was wrong there, wouldn't it :)

Although, there's no certainty to those findings yet, as this also is a new situation, not described before.

Tropical Plankton Invade Arctic Waters (http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2993)

And yes, not all whales feed on plankton. But maybe they will change their diet? I don't know.
Do whales eat plankton or krill?? (http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask02/0154.html)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 04/04/2013 17:12:09
I don't usually weigh in on these threads since most contributors seem to have a horse in this race and use the thread to promote their particular viewpoint on climate change.  It's also outside of my area of expertise (physics).  However, as I posted in one of yor_on's other threads, there was an interesting article in The Economist last week that discussed the lack of warming in the past decade and cited some recent studies.  It does appear to be a real effect, although it doesn't negate the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gasses, including CO2 do cause average temperatures to rise. 

What I can comment on is the proper way to deal with this data, which is basic science.  All decent models should include an analysis of uncertainties and include error bars.  Those that predicted a temperature rise over this past decade include error bars, and the lack of temperature rise does fit within those error bars, although if it continues it will fall outside the error bars of the model.  What this means is that the past decade is interesting, but not confirmation that the model is wrong. 

We also know that current models are not exhaustive: it's impossible to model every aspect of the earth's climate and all models make a lot of simplifying assumptions.  If these assumptions are wrong, the models will be off.  From what I remember from the article, two effects might be important: clouds and deep ocean warming.  Both need to be studied in more detail. 

I can also finally comment on the wrong way to do science, as I'm a scientist and this is a science forum.  It's bad science to come in with an agenda and cherry pick a few data points to "prove" you're correct--especially if you ignore the fact that the past decade is within bounds of current models.  Sure, more research is probably needed to figure out if the past decade indicates the models are wrong, but telling us you're correct because you can draw a sine wave through some cherry-picked data has little to do with the scientific method.  Similarly, arguing away the past decade as a meaningless hiccup in the data is also bad science.  Checking it against the error bounds in models is the proper way to do things--to see just how much meaning there is in the lack of warming. 

The Economist article is linked below, which includes references to the various studies involved.  Given the way such threads tend to go on the internet, I'm not holding my breath for a scientific discussion.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 04/04/2013 17:45:28
There are some interesting ideas.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=673
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/29/drop-in-warming-linked-to-water-vapour-decrease
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/

When it comes to both the atmosphere and the ocean it's really difficult to make those extensive studies. Before all they need to be funded. And considering how NASA:s budget looks those days, and what satellites etc, they plan to shoot up?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 04/04/2013 18:24:11
JP - stats isnt my strong point although I am now trying to set that straight, could you help me out a bit. 

If you have a mathematical model of a physical process ie given x1, x2,x3.... , y1,y2,y3 & z1,z2,z3 etc. we can predict a1,a2,a3 - I presume all of your input data has an observational error and uncertainty.   I would think that for an iterated process with high dependence on initial variation there is a methodological uncertainty introduced by your processing.   Both of these will be translated through to the prediction which will have confidence ranges and error bars etc.  Now your actual observations that you test against your predictions - in this case the global mean temperature, this will also have empirical error and uncertainty.   So to test your model you can plot observed against predicted - and hope that the observed falls within your error bars.    I hope this is right so far cos this is the bit I think I am sure about. 


1.  is there a single descriptive statistic that gives the probability that model gives results a1,a2,a3 and observation A1,A2,A3 - each numbered pair being temporally seperated and a new test.  the famous 5 sigma is your choice in physics - but isn't this for multiple observations of similar but unconnected events rather a single entity being observed over time?    (homespun example of what I am getting at - if I predict 3.5 for the roll of a die I will never be correct; however if the results are judged cumulatively rather than individually after a few rolls I will start to look pretty spot on)

2.  The article shows 5-95% and 25-75% percent confidence intervals - they look more like error bars to me.  And whilst I don't fully understand this page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval it doesnt seem to be talking about the same thing.  It looks from the graph as they are saying that of the models we have run only the top 5% and the bottom 5% are outside this coloured band - or is it saying that only if the error is in the 5% that would maximise or minimise the prediction would it be outside this coloured band. 

sorry that I could not provide a science response on the issue.  But i loved your post and felt it deserved a response. 

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 04/04/2013 18:53:39
Not too happy about this conclusion. "if, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models."

First of all, adjust is what we will do. The CO2 concentrations are not going down, they are raising.
Secondly, what it bears down too is an assumption of 'business as usual', with all that this will bring with it in forms of exploitation and a poorer Earth. It's like the id**s finding it good that the Arctic melts, because we can then prolong our usage of oil, methane, coal etc. It's not good, whatever makes you think that it is?

Greed?

And then using papers that's not been peer reviewed supporting such an assumption?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 04/04/2013 19:45:32
Are you thinking of how climate scientists define a Standard deviation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation) Imatfaal? Same as everyone else I would say?

"Standard deviation - A measure of the spread or dispersion of a set of data. The more widely the values are spread out, the larger the standard deviation. It is calculated by taking the square root of the variance."

Variance - A measure of the average distance between each data point and the data mean value; equal to the sum of the squares of the difference between each point value and the data mean." From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/help/glossary.php)

Look here The Science and Practice of Seasonal Climate Forecasting at the IRI (http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/forecast/tutorial2/) for some of the complexity of the task.
And here is a preliminary prediction 2012 Updates to model-observation comparisons. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/) And if you check the sources there you will see 'Skill and uncertainty in climate models.'

"Abstract

Analyses of skill are widely used for assessing weather predictions, but the time scale and lack of validation data mean that it is not generally possible to investigate the predictive skill of today's climate models on the multidecadal time scale. The predictions made with early climate models can, however, be analyzed, and here we show that one such forecast did have skill. It seems reasonable to expect that predictions based on today's more advanced models will be at least as skillful. In general, assessments of predictions based on today's climate models should use Bayesian methods, in which the inevitable subjective decisions are made explicit. For the AR4, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended the Bayesian paradigm for making estimates of uncertainty and probabilistic statements, and here we analyze the way in which uncertainty was actually addressed in the report. Analysis of the ensemble of general circulation models (GCMs) used in the last IPCC report suggests there is little evidence to support the popular notion that the multimodel ensemble is underdispersive, which would imply that the spread of the ensemble may be a reasonable starting point for estimating uncertainty. It is important that the field of uncertainty estimation is developed in order that the best use is made of current scientific knowledge in making predictions of future climate. At the same time, it is only by better understanding the processes and inclusion of these processes in the models, the best estimates of future climate will be closer to the truth."
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 04/04/2013 21:16:16
Not too happy about this conclusion. "if, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2°C in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6°C increase is trivial), the calculation might change. Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge. There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you do not live in an earthquake zone. In this case more adaptation rather than more mitigation might be the right policy at the margin. But that would be good advice only if these new estimates really were more reliable than the old ones. And different results come from different models."

That's a question of policy, not science, though and The Economist tends to be pragmatic about policy. 
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 04/04/2013 22:02:45
Mattew,

From what I understand of climate science, the confidence interval takes into account uncertainties in the model and predicts the results of measurements at different points in time (and potentially space).  Since any single measurement can't be predicted with certainty, the confidence interval simply says that X% of measurements should fall within this range if the model is correct.  Usually due to the law of large numbers, the confidence interval is a Gaussian distribution about the mean, and you can measure it in terms of # of standard deviation.  A measured data point that falls outside the 95% confidence interval would be only 5% likely to be due to random chance.  This might seem meaningful, but if you've taken 20 measurements, one of them is likely to fall there just due to random chance. 

Your example of a die is a bit tough, since the die is equally likely to come up 1-6, but you could always say that it will average a 3.5 with a 1/3 chance of being 3-4 and a 2/3 chance of being 2-5 (those would be your confidence intervals).  If you rolled a single 6, it wouldn't tell you much--only that it's outside the 66% confidence interval.  But if you rolled 20 6's in a row, then you could look at the data, find that such a result is incredibly unlikely, and start to question your model (maybe your die is loaded).

I'm not an expert on complex time-dependent processes, and haven't had to do any probabilistic analysis of them.  I assume the scientists developing climate models are experts and that they've rolled their model uncertainties as well as past measurements into the predictive powers of the model to correctly compute confidence intervals.  Then, like your die, you can count measurements and use statistics to quantify how likely your model is to be wrong based on those measurements.  (Remember, in science you don't prove a model correct--you can only say how consistent or inconsistent it is with data.)  I'm assuming climate scientists also do this, and that's what the article I linked hints at.  I haven't gone to the other analyses they speak of, but then I'm not the one trying to show that climate scientists are wrong. 
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 04/04/2013 22:43:05
I guess my take-home point is that it's insufficient to draw a line through existing data to "prove" your model.  That's not proof: that's developing a model to fit data.  "Proof" involves testing the model with new measurements that weren't already used to develop it in the first place!  More importantly, you can't prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove it, so most scientific advances happen when a new model is proposed and then scientists go out and collect data that disprove an existing model.  In the case of climate change, this would involve figuring out how likely our measurements of temperature are in light of existing models, and if they are exceedingly unlikely this would be grounds to accept a new model. 

I'm a physicist, and making the argument that the past decade disproves climate models is a bit like particle physicists taking a handful of measurement on the LHC and saying "we didn't see the Higgs, therefore it doesn't exist" without doing any statistical analysis of the results.  It turns out that if the Higgs existed, those measurements would be EXTREMELY LIKELY anyway because it shows up so rarely. 

Saying that the past decade "proves" cooling is like if I looked at those LHC measurements and came up with a theory for a JPoson particle that just happens to have the exact signatures of those measurements.  Of course it would 100% match those measurements by design so appealing to them as proof is absurd.  I'd have to make predictions (including confidence intervals) based on my theory and then gather more data before I could discuss how well it fits with data.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 05/04/2013 00:42:43
Yeah, pragmatism cements. But we're getting a new climate, and we really should try to adapt. Although pragmatically seen, I don't either expect that to happen, ahem, which is why I don't (normally) bother writing about this any longer. I find us very stuck in our ways, human momentum, whatever :) A little like a big ship, meeting the opposite of a iceberg? ah well, we live in interesting times, and our offspring will live in even more interesting. I would give a great deal to be here in fifty years, cause I'm terribly curious about what we will say then.

Physics is easier
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 05/04/2013 01:08:31
And beautifully explained JP, you have a way :) of breaking it down into understandable words. And that's also why we need more data, we all want to know how well the models will fit the future, don't we? And to know it well, we need as many measurements over time we can get, at as many locations as is possible. So we really need those satellites, and we really need those weather stations, and we need them to monitor continually over those fifty years. But amazingly NASA don't get the money, and then we have Canada who don't seem to 'believe' in using weather stations anymore. A Canadian climate scientist wrote that to get a really good weather report today (a year or so ago) she had to tune in to American weather :)

Isn't that slightly weird?

and I have more examples of the same type of behavior. So yeah, considering it all, I can't help but wonder what our offspring's judgment will be of how we handled the situation.
'
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 05/04/2013 11:04:04
Thanks JP. 

The more I read (and with your added explanation) the more errors I see in media presentation of facts.  And this is a problem - the science is robust and the scientific presentation correct, however the newspapers feel they have to simplify but then they lace the article and diagrams with buzzwords and jargon - often quite wrongly.  It is this that leads many honest (non-climate) scientists to look at the argument presented in the press and say "that's rubbish" - their error is to assume that the scientific argument presented in the journals suffers from the same problem.

With the Higg's / LHC in the press so much I spent some time reading up on the statistics that physicist used - and it blew my mind the complexity and subtlety of it; this is why I am on a course to start afresh from the very beginning.  I have no doubt that the climate scientists - who deal with a unimaginably complex system that is prototypically chaotic and  highly reliant on small variation initial conditions, and are under greater and harsher scrutiny than any other group of researchers - must use powerful and rigorously tested statistical methods.

I am sorry there will be no JPoson - I will certainly back your claim for precedence.  But as Peter Higgs and his colleagues postulated the breaking of electroweak symmetry before I (and I think you) were born, we might have a struggle convincing the rest of the world.  However I do know some pretty high ranking oilco executives  and if we can get them on board, well you never know - shamefully it has worked before in challenging and casting doubt on perfectly good scientific knowledge....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 05/04/2013 12:05:06
JP says
 (the cooling)  does appear to be a real effect , although it doesn't negate the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gasses, including CO2 do cause average temperatures to rise.

henry@jp

there is NO real evidence for this. Everything is based on what was presented 100 years or so ago,
i.e. the so-called closed box experiments. For example, there is the cooling effect of GHG's that has never been accounted for.
I have tried to explain this here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/


CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need both warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of  0.01% of CO2  that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.

There are no such results in any study, in the correct ranges, let alone in the right dimensions. For example, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions (of the test results).

If you claim that more CO2 causes more warming rather than cooling, you have to come up with that balance sheet....

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 05/04/2013 15:22:54
Henry,

From what you keep posting, I can see two possibilities.  Either you don't understand the scientific method or you're trolling us.  In either case, there isn't much point in arguing your ideas on climate change, since this is a science forum and you're not discussing science. 

If you're posting in good faith and don't understand the scientific method, I've tried to explain it in the posts above.  You can also check out wikipedia articles on the scientific method and hypothesis testing as good places to start.  Though I'd recommend using their links to more rigorous sources to really understand the methodology of science.  That will give us good common ground to have a scientific debate on the matter.  Until then I won't be responding to your posts since you keep repeating the same arguments and ignoring science and this is a science forum.

If you're trolling, then obviously taking the bait would just give you more ground to post links to your blog (promoting your own blog, by the way, a major no-no on this forum). 

If others want to continue debating, that's their prerogative.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 05/04/2013 17:29:48
Henry@jp
I believe you are one of the intelligent people here on this blog and I am hoping to get your ideas straight so that ultimately we can get the whole of Europe thinking straight.
Please look at my tables here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
(sorry for the reference but I don't know how to upload those tables here - anyway it is not like I am not advertising or selling anything)
If you take a careful look: these tables prove in a very simple way that there has been no warming due to the increase in CO2 or other GHG's.
Namely, if a manmade GH effect were real, we should see minima rising, pushing up means. Namely the GH effect theory (if you understand it) proposes that cooling (down of earth) becomes slower, as GHG % increases. Naturally, this should cause minima to rise faster. What I can see from the RATIO in my tables is that it was the maxima that were increasing (until around 1998-2000), pushing up means and minima at a ratio of about 6:3:1
So I have proven to you that there has been no manmade GH warming effect. The warming from 1973/4 was natural. Maximum temps. rising pushing up means.
Now, how and where is that not a logical procedure of investigation and where did I not use scientific method?
I  put it to you that you don't understand the scientific method or that you do not want to understand it.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 05/04/2013 19:09:23

henry@jp
I figure you got that story from the Economist just about right....you are so near and yet so far from the right track...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/05/warming-and-worry-go-awol/
one step for one man
a whole step for Europe and humankind
for you to become a skeptic (of man made climate change)
like I did
5 years ago.
God will bless you if you keep following the Truth, and nothing but the truth.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 07/04/2013 18:10:44
here is something to think about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_ZHI0INAHsc
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 08/04/2013 10:00:37
MoreCarbonOK

This is a text-based forum and argument and points of interest should be made if at all possible in writing.  Unadorned videos and bare links to your blog are not in keeping with the spirit of the site as a Science Question and Answer Forum.  Many of the members will not have the time, inclination, or ability to view a 10+minute video by an unknown amateur commentator.

In future, links may be deleted and videos removed unless they are entirely pertinent to the discussion and the points they raise or refute could not have been made in a more traditional manner

Thanks

imatfaal - moderator
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 08/04/2013 19:37:03
Everything I say or quote is clearly on topic and on target. There has been no "man made"  global warming for at least 16 years. Live with it. I wonder why you keep chasing away the real scientists on this site, i.e. those seeking the truth. Truth is important, you know. In fact your whole life (and after life) depends on it....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 10/04/2013 01:37:17
From your post #7:

I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.

I was fairly sure that I had signed off from this forum and that I would have no further input, but this has really provoked me! Let me explain what really happens when light is absorbed:

• it is true that light energy is converted to heat energy, and in the case of CO2 absorption at 4.25 µm this means an excitation of the O=C=O asymmetric stretch from the zero vibrational level to the first excited state vibrational level.

• This energy can be re-radiated, but the equation for rate of spontaneous emission goes as the inverse fourth power of the wavelength, which would mean a time of the order of seconds for the carbon dioxide to re-radiate.

• Is there an alternative? Well, yes there is. Our excited state molecule is suffering about 109 collisions per second if in the gas phase or 1012 "jostlings" per second if in the liquid phase. About 1 in 1000 of these interactions will be super-elastic -- that is, the excess vibrational energy of the carbon dioxide will be lost in the interaction and turn into translational energy of the solvent or other gases in the gas mixture.

• Once the excess energy is in the form of translational energy it will be conducted or convected away, eventually being transformed into heating of the cuvette and then of the laboratory generally. This is why you do not see your cuvettes warming and then exploding.

• In the atmosphere, and especially in the outer atmosphere, there are no "walls" and it is very likely that a stationary equilibrium will be set up, albeit at a slightly higher temperature, and this is what is being described when a respectable article talks about re-emission. You need to remember that in between the initial absorption and then re-emission, there will be a lot of nitrogen and oxygen molecules moving faster, and even being excited collisionally into vibrational states that can only be collisionally relaxed.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 10/04/2013 16:41:44
Sweet explanation Damocles :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 11/04/2013 19:38:13
Henry@damocles
clearly you have not understood at all the principle of the Gh effect and the reality of re-radiation.
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 11/04/2013 22:49:18
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...

On the contrary, there is plenty of mass. The lifetime for spontaneous emission of CO2 is of the order of seconds; the lifetime for collisional deactivation (in the atmosphere, specifically near the stratopause, because collision rates vary directly with pressure) is of the order of milliseconds. So the probability of collisional deactivation is at least 1000 times that of (immediate) re-radiation.

Quote
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)

This is a very technical paper. It is looking at the possibility of detecting life on Earth through features in its reflectance spectrum. The aim is to use the methodology on Earth-like planets that are discovered in other solar systems. The reflectance spectrum shows clearly the presence of CO2 among other things as an absorption feature (most clearly seen in Figure 7). I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

Quote
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.

You clearly have no real understanding of the nature of scientific debate. Science is a very conservative institution. There are good reasons for this -- it needs to change slowly in the light of good evidence of anomaly in the accepted picture. Even then, a certain amount of anomaly can be temporarily accepted -- difficult issues are often put on the back burner. You do not come to a scientific debate with a preconceived attitude of attack, because of your belief that something simply cannot be true. In order to attack the accepted position you need to
• have a deep understanding of all of the science behind the accepted position.
• understand why the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position -- and this means a respectful understanding; no conspiracy theories or assuming that all of the scientists who have accepted the position are less intelligent than you are.
• be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.
• effectively refute any arguments that are brought forward against you. An effective refutation does not mean continually referring an opponent to points you have already made; it means addressing their points on the terms and basis on which they have been made.
• recognize that the onus is on you to prove your point.

The whole reason for this is that science would be very unstable and unsatisfactory if every time anyone had a new thought it could quickly get into the mainstream.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 12/04/2013 01:29:55
Funny thing, the more sane the responses the less hits?
What is it with people :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 13:08:09
damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 14:32:51
Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus. Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts. Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 12/04/2013 18:03:28
You are stepping out of my comfort zone. The reason why I do not waste time with you is not that you in any way will be found correct. Damocles made some very valid points, that you just don't seem to accept? Taking a personal affront to them instead? Too many wild west shows maybe? The lone gunslinger coming to town, is it?

Cleaning it up??

Please, feel absolutely free to go somewhere else.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 18:15:16
ur-on says
You are stepping out of my comfort zone.

henry says
true science frightens you? I cannot help you/.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 12/04/2013 18:24:02
Well you can actually :)
please find some other outlet for your frustrations.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 18:28:15
@your-on
what is wrong with you?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 12/04/2013 20:17:09
Hmm?

It's not me refusing to accept facts. We've shown you statistical evidence and explained the energy distribution. And we do not fill the space in between with 'righteous calls' to, and for, some personal divinity, do we :) Let's just say I'm getting sick and tired on lone rangers wanting to disprove decades of scientific work on some loose assumption, or even worse, presumption, not accepting any answers. I've seen this kind of behavior before. And while I'm at it, why not learn how to read a name correctly?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 20:44:57
henry@your-on
seems to me you are refusing to accept the facts,
as you are clearly not engaging into the scientific debate we are having here?

I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 12/04/2013 20:49:33
Cool it with the personal attacks, folks, or I'll lock this thread.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 20:59:30
henry@jp
sorry
I agree that I should not have reacted to the remarks of yor-on
as he did not engage in any scientific argument or debate
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 12/04/2013 21:13:14
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.  Knock it off if you want this thread left open.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 12/04/2013 21:29:23
JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

increasingly I get the impression on this blog that you think you can turn the 60 years or so back (or have the right to do so) with all of your so-called "rules"
AS EFFECTIVELY IT MEANS : CONTROL OF INFORMATION
in the direction where you want it to go

I am waiting for the responses on my remarks I made to Damocles, from either of you or Damocles himself.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 12/04/2013 21:44:44
JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

It is not appropriate make disparaging remarks about Yor_on's posts to get in the last word after being warned by a moderator.  Hence the second warning and shrinking of your post.

In addition, if you have complaints about moderation, we'll take them up on the moderator board if you PM one of the moderators.  We do not argue moderator decisions on the forum, as its unprofessional and detracts from the purpose of the side: science Q&A. 

If damocles wants to respond to your posts, he can.  I'm only here to moderate.  I made my opinion of this thread's scientific content clear already and it'd be a waste of time to repeat myself.  :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 12/04/2013 23:45:21
Quote
damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

Thankyou henry. I can now at least see where you are coming from. Unfortunately the only part of this post that I can agree with is that "all these gases are GHGs". You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared. Any back radiation from that will be 50% directed towards the Earth's surface, and lead to warming rather than cooling.

Where is the balance sheet? I suggest that is is present in the fact that the steady state average temperature of the Earth should be around –20°C (easily calculated from Planck's black body radiation laws and a geometric consideration of the proportion of the sun's radiation that the Earth intercepts, and observed in the average temperature of the moon) and the fact that it is 15°C, now going on 16°C, because of a natural greenhouse gas effect from water vapour and carbon dioxide, now supplemented by an unnatural human input of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Quote
Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!

No i do not

Quote
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus.

In a sense it is, though! Certainly a mass popular vote by people who have no in depth understanding of the issues and can be easily persuaded by those with vested interests, one way or the other, is not the way that science works. But there is a scientific jury that weighs up every piece of science and judges whether or not it deserves to be incorporated into the mainstream, and its judgements are rather conservative.

 
Quote
Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts.

There is a lobby at least as strong by people whose livelihood depends on the continuing exploitation of fossil fuels (Do you have a vested interest to declare? I do not, by the way -- I am retired, and in all probability have only a short time to live.)

 
Quote
Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

Although I have worked in this field for some time I have never previously heard of Hansen, and I would never regard the publication that you cite as "a respectable scientific publication". There is a widely recognized convention of requiring peer review, and of not quoting editorial type articles. Hansen only comes into this story so that the journalist can introduce the real purpose of his article, which is to claim that net cooling over the last 15 years refutes the claim that the changing climate is linked to increasing levels of carbon dioxide

Quote
As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.

Your "clear definable pattern" does not show up in the ice core records. The fact of a decade of (slight) cooling does not refute the link between carbon dioxide and rising global temperature. You have provided evidence, but the evidence is neither well-organized nor good.

Quote
I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....

There are several possible reasons for my occasional silence. Not knowing the answers is certainly one of them. Here are a few of the others:

• I am operating on Australian Eastern time, and therefore probably asleep when the discussion here gets lively.
• I see nothing new in the points that are being made and cannot be bothered to keep on replying to the same ones
• I am too busy with real life issues to catch up with this forum
• I am not particularly well

------

My own view of these matters? I am greatly concerned about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am slightly agnostic about the link with climate -- there are too many earth systems involved, with complicated feedbacks, and they are too little understood. I think it is about 85% probable
that the increasing levels of CO2 will result in global warming. I am 100% confident that we cannot interfere with a natural system like CO2 to the extent that we have without causing some natural catastrophe (e.g. collapse of the oceanic food chain through increasing acidity of the oceans)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 13/04/2013 02:29:26
Some of the statistical, and experimental, evidence and ideas, you will need to refute MoreCarbonOK.
Climate change: How do we know? (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

And if it solely is the question if CO2 is the perpetrator driving a global warming from a long time scenario, and how that might work, you should have a look at How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm) And as always be sure to read the comments.

And to get that debate, take up your ideas there. See what they make of it.

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 07:15:27
damocles says
You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared.

henry@damocles
this is the point where everyone went wrong. The graph that I quote clearly shows you that incoming solar radiation (SW) is not constant if there is variation in the composition of the atmosphere..... More CO2 gas in the atmosphere means less (radiation) 2 and 4 um on your head. As long as I can get that in your head, you will be just fine. BTW most recently they also found some absorption of the CO2 in the UV.
What they ("the scientists") have done is not look at the whole spectrum of a molecule, but only the part of the molecule in the far infra red,  where earth emits....Obviously then you only see "warming' i.e. the closed boxed experiments.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 07:30:52
 
Henry@yor_on
 It is my experience that Skeptical Science have no respect whatsoever for dissenting views. They are the SS of science and they believe they have the right to remove comments as if it is nothing at all.....

Skeptical Science is the ONLY blog listed on WUWT as being completely unreliable due to a) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (b) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 07:53:58

damocles says
Your "clear definable pattern" does not show up in the ice core records. The fact of a decade of (slight) cooling does not refute the link between carbon dioxide and rising global temperature. You have provided evidence, but the evidence is neither well-organized nor good.

henry says
it does actually. e.g.

Reference
Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258.

Hall presented “radiocarbon and geomorphologic data that constrain [the] late-Holocene extent of the Collins Ice Cap on Fildes Peninsula (King George Island, South Shetland Islands: 62°10’51″S, 58°54’13″W),” which, in her words, “yield information on times in the past when climate in the South Shetland Islands must have been as warm as or warmer than today,” based on field mapping of moraines and glacial deposits adjacent to the ice cap, as well as radiocarbon dates of associated organic materials. Such data, according to Hall, “indicate ice advance after ~650 cal. yr BP (AD ~1300),” which she notes is “broadly contemporaneous with the ‘Little Ice Age’, as defined in Europe.” She also says that this was “the only advance that extended beyond the present ice margin in the last 3500 years, making the Little Ice Age in that part of the world likely the coldest period of the current interglacial. And the fact that “the present ice cap margin … is still more extensive than it was prior to ~650 cal. yr BP” led her to conclude that the climate prior to that time — which would have comprised the Medieval Warm Period — may have been “as warm as or warmer than present.” And this conclusion, along with the findings of the other studies reviewed herein, suggests there is nothing that is unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the current level of Earth’s warmth, which further suggests that the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may not have had anything to do with concomitant 20th-century global warming.

more studies that confirm a time when it was warmer on earth and when CO2 concentration was 100 ppm lower, can be found here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 08:30:38
damocles says
...through increasing acidity of the oceans...

henry@damocles
now there is another myth.
Why don't you do a test in the lab. and see how much bicarbonate you need to put in the seawater to see any visible change in pH.
I am not an expert on this, but here is a whole list of graphs on that subject:
http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/acidification.php
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2013 13:24:58

Why don't you do a test in the lab. and see how much bicarbonate you need to put in the seawater to see any visible change in pH.
I am not an expert on this,

Clearly not, since pH changes are not visible.
Also, there's already a fair bit of carbonate and bicarbonate in sea water, we are considering the effect of adding more CO2, rather than bicarbonate.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 13/04/2013 14:09:43
Henry, here is the fallacy in your reasoning:

Yes, the strength of the far infrared radiation is far greater in the incoming solar spectrum than in the outgoing radiation spectrum of the Earth, and consequently you might expect that the influence of carbon dioxide in absorption would be greater on the incoming solar radiation than in the outgoing earthly radiation. That would certainly lead to cooling.

But most of the incoming radiation is in the visible and UV region, and almost all of the outgoing radiation is in the far IR. There has to be a balance between incoming and outgoing radiation (else the Earth would keep on heating up without limit). So in the steady state what matters is the proportion of far IR radiation in the total radiation spectrum, and that means an increasing relative amount of absorption in the outgoing spectrum, leading to warming rather than cooling.

We all know about the "little ice age" in Europe that followed a late 13th early 14th century optimum, but I fail to see anything that structures it into periods of 100 years. In fact I even recall that there was a published article that purported to find periodicity of 200 years. And when I was referring to "ice cores" I was meaning research like Vostok and Law Dome that pushes the climatic record back further in time, with oxygen isotope ratios as the proxy for temperature, rather than glacial moraines which cover a much more recent period and have much more questionable proxies.

Quote
damocles says
...through increasing acidity of the oceans...

henry@damocles
now there is another myth.
Why don't you do a test in the lab. and see how much bicarbonate you need to put in the seawater to see any visible change in pH.
I am not an expert on this, but here is a whole list of graphs on that subject:

I am also not an expert in this area. I would imagine that the amounts of bicarbonate that I would need to add would be astronomical, but then I would be adding carbon dioxide rather than bicarbonate. [;D]

I find that the database on which the study relies is rather patchy, without much duplication. I also find it rather strange and inappropriate to assume that the IPCC figures can be dismissed so summarily, especially in view of the warning that at 450 ppm the whole game may change as other factors come into play.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 16:34:59
Damocles says
Yes, the strength of the far infrared radiation is far greater in the incoming solar spectrum than in the outgoing radiation spectrum of the Earth, and consequently you might expect that the influence of carbon dioxide in absorption would be greater on the incoming solar radiation than in the outgoing earthly radiation. That would certainly lead to cooling.

But most of the incoming radiation is in the visible and UV region, and almost all of the outgoing radiation is in the far IR. There has to be a balance between incoming and outgoing radiation (else the Earth would keep on heating up without limit). So in the steady state what matters is the proportion of far IR radiation in the total radiation spectrum, and that means an increasing relative amount of absorption in the outgoing spectrum, leading to warming rather than cooling.

Henry says
I fail to see where this is an answer to my reasoning here:
this is the point where everyone went wrong. The graph that I quote clearly shows you that incoming solar radiation (SW) is not constant if there is variation in the composition of the atmosphere..... More CO2 gas in the atmosphere means less (radiation) 2 and 4 um on your head. As long as I can get that in your head, you will be just fine. BTW most recently they also found some absorptions of the CO2 in the UV.

Remember: the sun emits 0-5 um. The main absorption here in the spectrum of CO2 are 1-2 um and 4-5 um. There is also some absorption of CO2 in the UV which is why we now can identify it on other planets, quantitatively as well,  I think. Earth emits 5-20 um. CO2 absorbs  here 14-16 um, as does water vapor, btw.

So what you are saying is: don't worry about incoming SW, it is only the OGLW that we are worried about. That makes no sense.You first have to make a balance sheet to determine what the net effect is of more of a GHG in the atmosphere. What you are saying,  for example, in the extreme  case of ozone, which has also absorption 9-10 um,  that more ozone will lead to warming of the planet rather than cooling.
Yet every scientist  who is sane must realize that more ozone will lead to less UV coming in.....i.e. less heat going into the oceans.

if you don't get this understanding, you will not understand what actually causes the different periodic climatic cycles,
to which I will come back later.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 13/04/2013 17:17:59
So you mean that you don't have to read it, because you already 'know' it must be wrong? I'm getting tired of this. Read How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm) if you're serious, then tell them, not us, where they go wrong :) also understand that you need to read the papers linked, to refute it..
=

And stop this bs here.

If you bother to check the link they, amongst other things, take up the same things as you discussing radiation, and do it quite well. The sun heats us up, the earth radiates it back as IR, the atmosphere gets kinetic energy from it, some molecules store more energy than others. It's not that difficult to comprehend, unless one are getting some benefit out from being contrary of course. Then everything is open for dispute, and no statistical or experimental evidence will be enough, as long as one still get followers impressed by bs :) A little like politics maybe :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 17:29:19
here is the reaction that the alarmists are worried about:
cold + CO2 (g) + 2H2O => HCO3-  +  H3O+ (1)

the gas sinks/dissolves forming bicarbonate and hydronium ions

heat makes the reaction go in the opposite direction:

heat + HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH- (2)
 
Hence the causal relationship between increasing warmth and increasing CO2 (because there are giga tons and gigatons of bicarbonate in the oceans).

At this stage I should perhaps just clarify, that water and carbon dioxide are like your mother and your father. Anyone wanting less of either must be daft. We need a minimum of 180 ppm's CO2 (0.02 % of the atmosphere) for life to survive. Tests with tomatoes showed much increased growth at 1000 ppm and hence we are adding CO2 in the real GH's.
CO2 in the atmosphere will start dropping if it gets cooler, hence if we fall into in a glacial, all life on solid ground will simply come to a halt because the CO2 will keep on dropping.
Over the past 60 years, CO2 increased from ca. 0.03% to about 0.04%.
This increase in fact does not tie up with what we put in the air. Ca. 60% of that what we put up is being "used up" because we all want more trees, lawns, more crops, more wine, etc...

Anyway, my point was, that you would need hundreds of thousands ppms in the air (100000's) , if you want to change the pH of the oceans by a miserable 0.1 or so, and this was checked and verified by tests;
so any alarm about oceanic acidification is just another myth.

Most studies (that I looked at)  on pH change are very small scale and cannot be regarded as globally representative. Anyone working with pH meters knows that you need daily if not hourly calibrations because of the drift in the probes.

Either way, even if there is a shift in pH, to lower,  as alleged,  then it is most probably caused by the global cooling of the past 11 years, as shown to you by me and others, which will result in more sinking of CO2 in the colder regions,  i.e. reaction (1)


Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 13/04/2013 17:44:42
Eh, the " Hall, B.L. 2007. Late-Holocene advance of the Collins Ice Cap, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. The Holocene 17: 1253-1258. " that you refer too.

Did you get that one from Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group, eh. sorry, "http://www.co2science.org/about/mission.php" or from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-period/

It doesn't impress me if so, and don't lecture us on what's biased please.
Read the link I gave, go there and discuss. They discuss the same as you.
==

And so should you guys and gals expecting Carbon to present the gospel :)

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 17:58:06
Yor-on says
So you mean that you don't have to read it,
Henry says
No,
I read it,
commented on it,
and found that all my comments have been deleted.
(btw. that was a few years ago)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 13/04/2013 18:04:22
Now that's a real good statement :)
Did I mention that I was expecting a Nobel prize, but somehow got missed in all papers before the medal had a chance to go to me?

A conspiracy?

Take a real good look at that 'scientific publication' :) http://www.co2science.org/about/mission.php Then have a look at what greenpeace has to say in http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/center-for-the-study-of-carbon/
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 18:18:54
henry@Yor-on

I wish somebody was in fact paying me trying to educate you all.... :X
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 13/04/2013 19:32:00
the worst problem with doubting a global warming isn't the doubt, as it is most common to just decide a thing and then find facts supporting it. Instead it seems to come as they start to check up if they're right. Because for each one checking it up the same discussion(s) will pop up, again. And people defending a global warming better have the patience of angels, which leaves me out of it those days.

When it comes to downright denying, well, that's different.
Don't need to be a angel there, do I?
heh. .
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 13/04/2013 21:10:28
Damocles says
I am retired, and in all probability have only a short time to live.

Henry@damocles
I am semi retired, just running two charities;
I just blog a bit at nights to train my brains ...just to keep me running...

Sorry to hear about your condition. I lost my mum recently and was devastated becoming a half-orphan.
I realized that we all have to face Gethsemane one day; we have to be ready for that.
but we are not one of those that are without hope?
Blog link removed

I prayed for you.

Henry

Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 14/04/2013 16:07:34
First of all MCK.

Normally we just argue here. If we think we have a hypothesis we either present it in a peer reviewed paper, or in 'new theories' if done without rigorous mathematics.

Secondly we do not invoke deity, no matter our religious beliefs. As a creationist one might find this inappropriate, but on TNS we expect ones ideas to be able to stand on their own worth, being proven by the same standards those use not being creationists.

As for that you "just blog a bit at nights to train my brains ...just to keep me running..". That's not how I read your posts? You seemed very convinced in your views, to the point where you refused to read links discussing the same?

As for the rest of your (last) post I agree. It's hard losing a loved one, and I'm sure we all appreciate the sympathy expressed there. But don't give up on us not religious, we might have a faith of sorts too :) and something to look forward to.

Anyway, can we stop this here?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: JP on 14/04/2013 16:30:48
Henry, I removed your link, since it's off-topic, about religion, and to your personal blog.  This thread has enough issues remaining a scientific debate already.   :)

Yor_on, if you feel another user is violating forum rules in their posts, please report it to the forum moderators for action.  We'd like to keep this thread on topic since its so contentious.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 14/04/2013 16:52:55
Sorry JP, will do.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 14/04/2013 17:39:52
henry@Yor-On

Going by your last two posts then, what you are saying, is that we must continue "to believe" in global warming, because it is the "accepted" theory,  even though most of the official indicators (including my own) show that it  has been globally cooling (for the past 11 years).
I have shown this to you in my very first post on the first page here.

Furthermore, after analyzing thousands of daily data, from 47 weather stations, my results also seem to indicate that
a) the ratio of the rate of warming and cooling in the past suggests that the reason for climate change is naturally occurring cycles, not more CO2. 
b) we will continue to cool down, despite more CO2 coming into the atmosphere,

If you want a) and b) peer re-viewed you can do your own statistical analyses of weather stations?>
Thank you very much.

Lastly, to make the gravity of what we are discussing here even more clear:
the world has to wake up to the fact that it is globally cooling because it (i.e. more cooling) will have
dire consequences for global agriculture. In the little ice age thousands died because of hunger and starvation.

This is because the differential between zero latitude and 90 degrees latitude will become bigger. Naturally this will cause  less precipitation at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes.

So, to prevent famines in the future, for 7 billion people and counting, to survive,  we need to encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, e.g. Africa, south America.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 14/04/2013 18:59:49
Well, we will see more famines Henry, we already have them, although not in the developed countries. And that will be as natural a cause of global warming, as it would be from a global cooling. And you can't expect anything to stay the same under any of those processes, neither between countries nor inside them, as when it comes to farming. We will also see territorial disputes grow, as exemplified by Chinas newfound interest in the Arctic, although they have no borders to it. Those issues won't diminish either.

We will either all grow up, and accept our new role of caretaker of this planet, or we will behave as locust and devour what's resources that will be left, as climate change build up. And that either will include sharing those resources, or war.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 14/04/2013 19:36:11
henry@yor-on
your last comment seems to suggest that you do not mind what is causing the potentially disastrous climate change,
whether it is global cooling or man made global warming/
that is not very scientific....Anyway, despite the naturally occuring climate change, it is in fact still part of Grand Design to keep the temps. on earth within reasonable limits so that life can survive.
I have not even begun to start to explain this here....
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 14/04/2013 19:49:32
No, you're misunderstanding what I say Henry :)

I'm pointing out that both processes inevitably will lead to changes, involving both climate and local weather. And also that this is no news. Most Countries in the world are awake to this possibility, and as they also expect a global warming, they will plan for it, but from a local perspective. Meaning that we will 'compete' instead of 'share'. I could find you, and have found, several governmental policy makers, as 'think tanks' recommendations internally, as what is best for that particular country. That shouldn't surprise you, and neither does it surprise me. But a global warming, and diminishing resources, makes it essential to stop being provincial. In some ways I think of that as being one of mankind's final test.

We're not used to it, and it goes against our grain.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 14/04/2013 19:58:25
Your-on says
But a global warming, and diminishing resources, makes it essential.....

henry says
there is no more global warming
and there won't be
until at least 2040.


Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 14/04/2013 20:05:32
As for your 'Grand Design', why not place it in 'New theories', as a suggestion. Either that, or go to the sites refuting your view to refute theirs first. Then come back when your views are the ones agreed upon by a majority of peer reviewed papers and experiments, to show me where we all went wrong :)

But not before that.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 14/04/2013 20:19:25
henry@yor-on
I have given you a lot of clues in this thread. Go figure.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 14/04/2013 23:16:24
Henry, here is the balance sheet you have been calling for:

Incoming solar radiation: 1360 watt/m2
Far infrared component of incoming ~10 watt/m2
removed by CO2 absorption: natural ~ 100 milliwatt/m2
    anthropogenic ~40 milliwatt/m2
These last two components will cause cooling of the Earth's surface.

Outgoing Earth radiation 340 watt/m2
far infrared component of outgoing ~250 watt/m2
removed by CO2 absorption: natural ~2.5 watt/m2
   anthropogenic ~ 1 watt/m2

these last two components will cause warming.

The result? Net warming of the local atmosphere as the result of 2.4 watt/m2 natural and 0.96 watt/m2 anthropogenic.

However these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature) are only considering the effect of the CO2 greenhouse effect, and do not take into account interactions with other Earth systems.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 15/04/2013 18:56:57
Damocles says
however these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature)
henry@damocles
if you will take the time to investigate where these figures come from, you will find out that they "calculate" this from models. Furthermore, the models are based on observations.
When I first realized what had happened I said:
you cannot calculate that which has never been measured.
The initial value of 1.7 that was used for a long time came originally from the IPCC  AR4 2007.
When I first studied this, I realized what they had done. 
1) make a decision: earth is getting warmer, and man is to blame.
everybody agreed.
2) scientists then went ahead and made a (proportional) weighting of various factors that changed from 1750-2005 versus the amount of observed warming 1750-2005....
the weighting for CO2 increase ended up at 1.7

You see what the problem is? You are looking from the wrong end because you have not established exact cause.... It is the worst mistake a scientist can make... and I blame the IPCC and all that signed their names to it.

so if you want to impress me and prove to me that these values are real, you have to come up with actual test methods and actual test results.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: yor_on on 15/04/2013 19:16:14
Ahh yes :)

The c o n s p i r a c y unfolded..
=

Henry, if you just would exchange 'the scientists' for  'the evil climate wizards.'
That would really catch my imagination :)
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 15/04/2013 19:37:32
henry@damocles

I already know (from my own research) that the 88 year Gleisberg solar weather cycle is very real. That is why we are currently cooling and we will continue to cool until ca. 2038.

going back to cliffordk's sine wave on the first page of this blog

assuming that his observation is correct, and that precision of temp. measurement and recording stayed constant from 1850 -and this is a big IF -

then it could also be that we are in a number of further solar/weather cycles

like

the De Vries and other cycles which have much longer periodicity than the Gleisberg cycle...

This is what they forgot at the IPCC
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: peppercorn on 15/04/2013 22:39:41
MCok ~ "my own research" will not be accepted here (on a science forum) as statements with any scientific validity. Therefore, it and other, posts failing to offer supporting scientific evidence (peer reviewed, without question) have and will continue to be 'shrunk' by the Mod team.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 16/04/2013 06:07:20
The Gleissberg solar cycle exists, and my own research merely confirmed its existence. You can google it.  Here is some peer reviewed research about it:

Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.

I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again or else stand accused of deliberate censorship to further your own particular (financial ?) aims here.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 16/04/2013 06:14:51
@peppercorn
btw
I must add, that I only stumbled upon it (i.e. the Gleissberg solar/weather cycle) by accident. I had to interpret some puzzling data coming from a random sample of 47 weather stations.....I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again. Thanks.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 16/04/2013 10:03:28
MoreCarbonOK

Accusations of impropriety and imputations that moderators act for personal financial gain are beyond the pale.  We moderate this site because we love science - all the moderators are volunteers. 

To situate my moderation note properly please note that Chris and the Naked Scientists maintain this site as a Science Question and Answer forum where interested members of the public and listeners to the radio show/podcast can find answers to scientific questions both straightforward and quirky alike.  The makeup of both the membership and the moderators range from professional research/academic scientists to the rank amateur (like me) - we come here to pose and debate questions of a scientific nature. 

Your insinuation of an ulterior motive and outright claim of financial bias, your refusal to accept the scientific method, and your actions in treating this as a blog rather than a debate are all completely at odds with the ends, spirit, and foundational underpinnings of this site.  I have suspended your posting rights pending a full moderator/admin discussion


 
../ snipped
I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again or else stand accused of deliberate censorship to further your own particular (financial ?) aims here.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 16/04/2013 10:16:47
I have locked this thread.  It may be opened at a later date - however, if you have a question that has been raised but not quite answered by this topic why not open a new thread? 
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: imatfaal on 17/04/2013 16:22:47
Topic moved to New Theories and re-opened.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: MoreCarbonOK on 17/04/2013 18:00:20
I will only discuss this further if you put up my last comment that was incorrectly censored by peppercorn?
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: Ophiolite on 17/04/2013 23:09:01
I will only discuss this further if you put up my last comment that was incorrectly censored by peppercorn?

Well, that's a relief.
Title: Re: Is our Earth is cooling?
Post by: damocles on 18/04/2013 00:59:52
First of all, I will point out to anyone reading this thread that henry comes to this thread with a preconceived notion -- his chosen name and the fact that he was so ready to weigh in when I introduced ocean acidification, his continual referrals to non-mainstream publications and websites all provide good evidence of this. So I am going to be unable to convince him, or, indeed, elicit more than an adversarial response.
I will admit that I do as well, so if there are any of you out there who are going to be persuaded by scientific evidence, I have a response to henry's latest points:

Damocles says
however these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature)
henry@damocles
if you will take the time to investigate where these figures come from, you will find out that they "calculate" this from models. Furthermore, the models are based on observations.

Let me just point out that my "balance sheet" was a "back of envelope" effort. It was based on the wikipedia discussion of the solar constant,  which is the source of both my 1360 W/m^2 and my estimate of the amount of far IR in the spectrum was based on the (observed, which agrees with theoretical) graph in that article.

340 W/m^2 is just one quarter of 1360 W/m^2 because the Earth's interception of solar radiation is based on the amount of radiation intercepted by the Earth's disk (π*R^2) and the amount of Earth's radiation, which must balance or there will be sudden and catastrophic heating, is based on the Earth's surface area (4*π*R^2).

The proportion of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is based on experimentally measured Earth radiation.

Even if these figures are not quite accurate, there is no possible reason why the anthropogenic greenhouse effect should work in a different direction to the natural greenhouse effect, and there is no question that the natural greenhouse effect (mainly H2O vapour) is responsible for the Earth's surface being about 35°C warmer than it ought to be.

There is no modelling involved anywhere in my reasoning.

Quote
When I first realized what had happened I said:
you cannot calculate that which has never been measured.
The initial value of 1.7 that was used for a long time came originally from the IPCC  AR4 2007.
When I first studied this, I realized what they had done. 
1) make a decision: earth is getting warmer, and man is to blame.
everybody agreed.
2) scientists then went ahead and made a (proportional) weighting of various factors that changed from 1750-2005 versus the amount of observed warming 1750-2005....
the weighting for CO2 increase ended up at 1.7

You see what the problem is? You are looking from the wrong end because you have not established exact cause.... It is the worst mistake a scientist can make... and I blame the IPCC and all that signed their names to it.

so if you want to impress me and prove to me that these values are real, you have to come up with actual test methods and actual test results.

The IPCC worked at its various meetings by splitting up into several groups of experts which examined and reviewed the various bodies of experimental and observational evidence, and reported back to the full group. The detail of their deliberations can be found in the complete proceedings of the various meetings. The executive summary may well give the impression that henry refers to, but it is backed up by intensive labour (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/fifth-assessment.aspx). Note that the last two stages are subject to political interference.