Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Henry Pool on 27/04/2009 15:25:47
-
Without Carbon dioxide there wouldn't be any supper on the table. Yet, if we read the papers and magazines it is singled out as the biggest culprit for global warming. The problem is: I have never seen any evidence for this from any real physical tests. Is it really true? If yes,
How much is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere on global warming? I am particular interested in the range of 0 - 500 ppm . (Current CO2 content in the air is about 375 ppm. It has increased by about 70 ppm's since 1960 and it is apparently increasing by about 2.5 ppm per annum)
-
Here is a lecture given by Nicholas Stern recently. It is his Blueprint for a Safer Planet and was given at the London School of Economics. It's very interesting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/science/podcast.xml
Click on the link, and it's the second podcast down.
IIRC, there is no chance of CO2 levels remaining below 500 ppm. 550 is a minimum, and could very easily go to 750.
-
yes, I did listen, and he does exactly the same as what everyone else does in this field, blame carbon emissions and resulting green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof.
-
You're welcome.
And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes?
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.
-
SORRY, thanks, for your help!
But I am not there yet! I am trailing years behind. I must first be convinced that CO2 is a green house gas, for which I have not yet seen any physical evidence. My current opinion is that CO2 absorbs in the infra red region, meaning it blocks IR, keeping it out, rather then in. (Similar to ozone blocking UV). So I say that CO2 is not a green house gas. My current theory is that global warming is (mostly) caused by just heat (caused by human activity).
-
SORRY, thanks, for your help!
Ha! No worries [:)]
Wikipedia is often a reasonable first-stop-shop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
I haven't read all of the following, but in any case shows a history of the CO2 GHG case.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
-
SORRY, thanks, for your help!
But I am not there yet! I am trailing years behind. I must first be convinced that CO2 is a green house gas, for which I have not yet seen any physical evidence. My current opinion is that CO2 absorbs in the infra red region, meaning it blocks IR, keeping it out, rather then in. (Similar to ozone blocking UV). So I say that CO2 is not a green house gas. My current theory is that global warming is (mostly) caused by just heat (caused by human activity).
Why have you ignored the evidence put forward in the other thread you started about this?
-
sorry, but I have still not yet seen any evidence from anyone that proves to me that carbon dioxide is a green house gas.
-
sorry, but I have still not yet seen any evidence from anyone that proves to me that carbon dioxide is a green house gas.
Henry, you have provided the evidence yourself. You make this statement. "My current opinion is that CO2 absorbs in the infra red region, meaning it blocks IR, keeping it out, rather then in."
Guess what, you have it half right. The incoming radiation, principally short wave (to which CO2 is transparent)but the outgoing radiation transmitted from the surface in long wave (i.e. infra-red) is absorbed by the CO2.
Let me repeat that, so that you are clear. The incoming radiation that heats the Earth's surface is of a frequency that readily passes through carbon dioxide. The outgoing radiation, of longer wavelength, is trapped by carbon dioxide (and water vapour, and methane) for precisely the reason you have stated.
-
This could make some sense to me. But I still want to see the proof. How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out) and then subsequently a warming effect (by keeping some IR in), making the net result more or less zero? I really would like to see the experimental proof of what you say, i.e. proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e. warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
-
This could make some sense to me. But I still want to see the proof. How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out) and then subsequently a warming effect (by keeping some IR in), making the net result more or less zero? I really would like to see the experimental proof of what you say, i.e. proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e. warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
This could make some sense to me. But I still want to see the proof. How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out) and then subsequently a warming effect (by keeping some IR in), making the net result more or less zero? I really would like to see the experimental proof of what you say, i.e. proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e. warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
There are a wealth of experimental data demonstrating the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2. You appear to have accepted these data. That is only one half of what makes it a greenhouse gas. The other half is the fact incoming solar radiation from the sun is dominated by short wave radiation - and CO2 is transparent to this - while outgoing radiation is long wave, which is absorbed by CO2. It is the difference in inocming and outgoing wavelentghts that allows the CO2 to act as a greenhouse gas.
Here is an interesting historical link on the topic.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
-
"How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out)"
"out " of what? The atmosphere is part of the earth.
-
when I was last at school I learned that the sun emits the whole spectrum of radiation, from the invisble UV right through all colours of the rainbow to the invisible on the other side. That includes the radiation that C-O. Has something changed in the 40 years that I was not at college? So my theory is still that the C-O blocks as much radiation coming in as what it holds by preventing it going out. (similar to ozone blocking UV). But tell me that have some experimental proof for the statement that you are making.
-
You see what the problem is? Whenever you ask for experimental proof it is simply not there. I still have not seen any physical proof or evidence from any tests that carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. Everyone thought that someone would do it, in the end no one did it. Surely, you can only believe in what you can verify?
The scientists who predict climate warming just study the increase in temperature of the oceans, and then they can quite accurately predict what the increase in energy per square area will be for the next couple of years or decades. Then they blame green house gasses. What else must they do? It has become a belief. That must be it. wow, sorry that I am not one of the faithful to this belief. My current theory, based on the proposed mechanisms, is that the so-called green house gasses may prevent as much heat from coming in as the heat that they trap.
Where does that leave us? well I still have my own theory which no one can proof wrong. I say; the reason why the temperature in the oceans are rising is very simple. It is the same reason as what you note what happens when you put the kettle on. It is the energy that you put in that makes the water in the kettle warm. I think all 6.7 million of us just do not realize how much energy we are putting in the kettle called earth.
-
I'm so sorry. Are we 6.7 billion now living on earth?
-
This could make some sense to me. But I still want to see the proof. How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out) and then subsequently a warming effect (by keeping some IR in), making the net result more or less zero? I really would like to see the experimental proof of what you say, i.e. proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e. warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
This is the way I understand it:
Sunlight (UV, visible, and infrared) arrives from the sun at our planet. When it strikes the atmosphere, some gets reflected, some gets absorbed, some goes right through and reaches the ground. When visible light strikes the ground, especially dark surfaces, it gets transformed into infrared. Anything in our atmosphere that has the ability to absorb infrared and allow our atmosphere to get warmer seems to be a problem. Higher CO2 in our atmosphere is not blocking infrared out, it is collecting it better than an atmosphere with less CO2. Both ways. Incoming and leaving. Who says that CO2 has ANY cooling effect?
-
"seems" is the word I caught. Show me the proof and I am your buddy!
It is I who said that CO2 causes some cooling. Because it absorbs IR in the IR region. Meaning it (also) blocks IR. And of course it traps it when it tries to return to space. So, the net effect is zero?
-
It is I who said that CO2 causes some cooling. Because it absorbs IR in the IR region. Meaning it (also) blocks IR. And of course it traps it when it tries to return to space. So, the net effect is zero?
So it absorbs it on the way in, heating the atmosphere, and then it absorbs it on the way out, heating the atmosphere...
Don't forget that there is IR created on the ground too - it's not that the only IR around comes from the sun.
Net effect is clearly far from zero...
-
Wake up man! If CO2 blocks IR radiation coming in, it means that it cools down (for us).Then it also traps it when it tries to leave. So it warms up. So, I say, the net effect is zero? Nobody knows. Did someone test it? It seems not/ I have not seen any data related to an actual verifyable experiment!
-
The CO2 in the air absorbs IR directly from the sun; this warms the atmosphere and some of that heat is transfered to the groud, partly by reradiation, partly by convection. Also visible light shines through the CO2 and warms the surface of the earth.
Both these effects warm the planet.
As the planet gets warmer it emits more radiation but, because it is a lot colder than the sun it doesn't emit any visible light - just IR.
Some of that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere's CO2 and is carried by the winds back to the surface.
In order to reach thermal equlibrium where the heat absorbed from the sun is the same as that radiated the world has to be slightly warmer than it would be without the CO2 getting in the way of some of the outgoing IR.
Also, you keep asking for proof. Did you watch the youtube video?
It's not great proof, but it's a lot better than any evidence you have put forward.
I take it you didn't understand my earlier post
""How can you be 100% sure that initially the CO2 does not cause a cooling effect (by keeing some IR out)"
"out " of what? The atmosphere is part of the earth."
If it's a sunny day and I put my hand up to keep the sun off my face, it doesn't help keep me cool, because my hand is still getting warm, and it's part of me.
-
I don't think you're paying attention.
CO2 absorbs some IR as it comes into the atmosphere from the sun. As the CO2 is a component of the atmosphere - this heats the atmosphere up.
The remaining radiation shines upon the Earth. Some of this is absorbed, some is reflected. Some is taken in as visible, or as UV, and given back out as IR. This 'new' IR radiates out towards space. It is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere, heating the atmosphere up.
Do you see why "the net effect is zero" is an implausable statement?
Anyway, what you want is experimental evidence - Look up John Tyndal and Svante Arrhenious. Furthermore, look up "Greenhouse effect" in wikipedia - that'll give you a good grounding of the evidence.
-
here we go again. Endless circles. But I do appreciate your help! Please do provide me with the physical evidence (from actual performed experiments, tests and measurements) that would somehow prove to me that CO2 is a green house gas. Not just the "theory". Please try not to refer to books and historical people, stories and anecdotes.. I'm really not interested. I just want to see the actual proof, by way of physical testing, in such a way that a layman can understand it. I just want to verify myself the test results.
I do not have the books that you have. I did find a report that seems to apportion blame to 'green house gases" by way of "radiative forcing" .
In this respect CO2 is "responsible" for RF of 1.66 W/m2> I am not sure what physical experiments (on gas) are behind such a measurement. I think it is just from temp. measurements of the sea that they apportion blame, based on the "growth" of the chemical in the air. I am really not sure. It is all still a mystery to me. I think... I am really stupid? Maybe, the people wanting to prove climate change, just made it too difficult?
-
Once again.
"Sod this pointless argument. Let's take a planet and add lots of CO2 to the atmosphere and see if the temperature goes up.
OK, done that. It did. End of debate."
-
Henry - why don't you do your own research? You clearly have internet access, so start with wikipedia and google the things you find interesting. I gave you two names - look up their publications for a start. both of those scientists did repeatable experiments into the capacity for certain gases to act as greenhouse gases over 100 years ago.
We have given you the lay mans explanation. If you want more detail then simply research it!
Did you look up either of the people I mentioned? Did you look at the emission/absorbtion spectra on wikipedia? These things are gathered through the sorts of experiment you're asking for - so simply look them up.
-
Henry,
the University of Iowa offers an set of online notes (with extensive references) on the subject of global change:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/
In particular Unit 1-12, the Global Energy balance, directly addresses the points you seem concerned with and expresses what many here have been saying, perhaps with greater clarity and cohesion.
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/forcing.html
Please read this and the related references. Once you have done so come back with any remaining questions you may have. Frankly, if you choose not to do so I shall be forced to believe you have no interest in learning, but wish to remain permanently ignorant on this matter. I hope that is not so.
-
look folks, with all due respect, I don't have the facility to download millions of bytes here. I did do some research and got stuck with radiative forcing. I don't know how they measure it. (Dimensions: W/m2 for a gas?)
The question I asked was simple. Why do we blame CO2? Most chemists here agree that the difference between CO2 and the other natural gases is that it absorbs in the IR region. But that must also mean that it blocks IR coming in. (similar to ozone blocking UV). O then said that much more shorter radiation passes through to earth which is reflected (by the earth) as IR, meaning the net effect is much more entrapment. I then said: good,show me the proof. Ben and the others believe that there is no blocking of IR by CO2. (so no cooling effect, only warming). But no proof. I have not seen any test results or formula's from the scientists who apparently proved that CO2 acts like a blanket.
As to the second part of my question, i.e. what is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 on global warming: I must say that I am disappointed that I did not get any results from anyone and I also could not find any results myself. One would have thought that the big stake holders (like fuel companies) would have done extensive research on this aspect of their product, i.e. to make accurate predictions as to where we are going with this.
Don't you people think that is disgusting?
-
Why are you ignoring the biggest ever experiment on this question?
-
Dear BC. As I said before, unless and until I am myself convinced that the problem really is CO2, I have to go with the theory that I can believe in.
You don't know how much energy has gone into earth by all the fires and wars and burning and transport caused by human activity. So you cannot prove that my theory is wrong.
If it is your belief that the problem is CO2, then why not tell me what experimental proof you have for that belief, other than saying: see it is there, so it must be true?
-
Henry - please pay more attention to what people say.
When you talk about co2 'blocking' IR - what do you mean? Do you think it magically dissipates the IR? We know from experimental evidence that co2 absorbs IR. You are quite correct to assume that this means less IR will hit the ground. You seem to be ignoring the fact that this IR is absorbed in the atmosphere - thus making it warmer.
We are also aware, from experimental evidence (the spectra that falls on the moon for example) that the earth emits more IR than first falls on it, for reasons that Bored Chemist explained earlier.
So the evidence is there - in the absorbtion spectra of CO2, the emission spectra of the earth...
No-one here has the time to collate all of the facts and figures for you - that's your responsibility.
-
Today's logical fallacy is the argument from personal incredulity.
-
If you people think the questions are answered, fine. I don't. I am not even convinced CO2 is a contributary factor to the problem. I actually hoped to see some facts and figures. I thought someone would be able to convince me with data from actual experiments. I could not find such.
-
Henry - It is your burden of proof to show that CO2 is NOT a GHG, since the worldwide scientific consensus is that it is. Until that happens, I would say that you are on your own.
-
When this discussion started a couple of decades ago, I remember thinking that I hoped that someone would think of some way of testing the influence of the various gaseous compounds on heat retention. It seems to me that that very thing that I had been thinking has not really happened. I cannot believe in what I cannot verify. If I am the only dissenting scientist, fine. It does not bother me. That has happened before, and sometimes I was proven right.
-
If you people think the questions are answered, fine. I don't. I am not even convinced CO2 is a contributary factor to the problem. I actually hoped to see some facts and figures. I thought someone would be able to convince me with data from actual experiments. I could not find such.
Start with wikipedia Henry - the facts and figures are there.
Stop coming here to lie about the missing data, when you just haven't bothered looking.
By the way, the first experiments into this are well over 100 years old.
-
I am sorry, but I did look in wikipedia and could not find any data. Is all about the people in the past who have said something on it. But no formulas and no test results. In any case, as to the second part of my question - can I ask you your personal opinion? Supposing that this question of mine had been properly researched and supposing that they had found no difference in heat retention in between 350 and 700 ppm CO2, (in other words: maybe there is some sort of a saturation point in heat retention), don't you think that would change the whole warming debate completely? In what way?
-
Don't just stop with Wikipedia - it's usually a good place to start, but have a go through this site. It lists many journals in which you will find ones that are specifically atmospheric oriented. Then go through the articles.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal_browse.cws_home
Can I just say that you state that you are a scientist, and yet the approach that you are taking appears to be anything but. Surely you must be aware of how to properly research something?
-
I am too old now. That is true. So I am trailing behind, with technology getting faster ahead of me. But you can do it for me? I will kiss you if you find some test results from actual experiments and tests/
-
I am too old now. That is true. So I am trailing behind, with technology getting faster ahead of me. But you can do it for me? I will kiss you if you find some test results from actual experiments and tests/
Hmm, tempting, but no thanks.
-
You also couldn't find any data from actual experiments?
-
Dear BC. As I said before, unless and until I am myself convinced that the problem really is CO2, I have to go with the theory that I can believe in.
You don't know how much energy has gone into earth by all the fires and wars and burning and transport caused by human activity. So you cannot prove that my theory is wrong.
If it is your belief that the problem is CO2, then why not tell me what experimental proof you have for that belief, other than saying: see it is there, so it must be true?
OK
If you have to go with a theory you can believe in that's fine, but it's nothing to do with science and you are, therefore, posting on the wrong website.
I can calculate the energy released by all the fires wars and so on. I can do this because practically all of that energy is derived from the combustion of fossil fuels which add CO2 to the atmosphere. Since I know how much CO2 is being added I can calculate the energy release (actually, it's a bit more complicated than that because the plants pick up some of the CO2 released but there's a way round that. It involves the relative amount of radiocarbon in the air and it's well off topic)
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Unless you genuinely believe that we are each and every one of us responsible for wasting some sizable fraction of 20 million watts then you are talking nonsense as I have already repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored.
I have proved your theory wrong; you just didn't understand the proof.
I have shown that a greenhouse which has walls that are transparent to visible light, but opaque to IR works- it gets hotter inside.
I have personally measured the IR absorbtion of CO2. I hardly need to point out that CO2 is transparent to visible light.
I have, therfore made measurements of a model system and shown that the greenhouse effect works. I have shown that, like the glass in a greenhouse, the CO2 absorbs IR.
What more proof do you want>
Just in case this helps convince you, we have a gadget at work called a photoacustic IR spectrometer. We use it to measure the concentration of gases.
It works by shining a beam of IR into a gas mixture and observing the rise in temperature.
You are the one making extraordinary claims; start proiducing the extraordinary evidence that you need before anyone will take you seriously.
-
You keep approaching this problem from the same angle, I can see
1) you have not done that calculation
2) actual energy reaching earth by the sun is much lower then you were claiming
3) what about all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing"
how much energy was that?
3)what about all the nuclear plants, how much energy was that?
etc/etc/etc
You see what the problem is? You cannot prove my theory wrong because I know that I am right, the only thing I don't know (yet)is the percentage that energies from human activities are contributing to the warming up.
The thing that I am looking for is to find some data from experimental tests that would tell me how much the influence of various amounts of CO2 is on the warming up of the earth.
If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike.
-
You keep approaching this problem from the same angle, I can see
1) you have not done that calculation
2) actual energy reaching earth by the sun is much lower then you were claiming
3) what about all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing"
how much energy was that?
3)what about all the nuclear plants, how much energy was that?
etc/etc/etc
You see what the problem is? You cannot prove my theory wrong because I know that I am right, the only thing I don't know (yet)is the percentage that energies from human activities are contributing to the warming up.
The thing that I am looking for is to find some data from experimental tests that would tell me how much the influence of various amounts of CO2 is on the warming up of the earth.
If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike.
But Henry, with your idea the following applies:
1) you have not done that calculation
2) You do not know how much energy reaches the earth from the sun, and seem to ignore that fact that energy absorbed in the atmosphere contributes to the temperature of the earth
3) You do not know how much energy was supplied by "all the atomic bombs that were exploded mostly for 'testing""
3(sic))You do not know "about all the nuclear plants"etc/etc/etc
And yet you firmly believe you are right. You have no right to make this assertation.
You also have no right to claim that people who do not have the time or inclination to spend time researching a topic for someone who
a) cannot be bothered to do their own research
b) ignore the advise of those trying to help
c) have made it quite clear that they will not accept any evidence anyway
...cannot find the data. It's not up to dentstudent, it's up to you.
Please be advised that this sort of behaviour isn't really acceptable on this forum.
-
As I said.
I have proved your theory wrong; you just didn't understand the proof.
I grant you I haven't done that calculation.
But I can show that someone else has.
There's some data about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
It shows that primary energy production (500EJ)is about a ten thousandth of the energy we get from the sun (4,0000,00 EJ).
You can also find data on nuclear energy on WIKI.
"As of 2005, nuclear power provided 2.1% of the world's energy"
Now you know why I ignored it.
The bombs have yields measured in kilotons or megatons. A ton of TNT produces a lot less energy than a ton of coal.
How long does it take for the world to burn a megaton of coal?
Well, looking at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
its a matter of hours. (total use is 6195.1 million tons per year 17 million tons a day.)
Unless we set off a megaton nuke every hour the energy released won't be comparable with the energy released by burning coal.
It's even less significant than nuclear power.
I do indeed see what the problem is. You don't know what you are talking about.
Unless I dig up every possible number you might ever ask for, you are not going to believe me (and even then you still might not).
That's really not my fault, it's because you don't understand the nature of science. Also, you steadfastly refuse to accept the evidence I offer and simply pretend it doesn't exist. You can't say that you just don't believe it; you need to show some sort of evidence.
"If somehow you don't understand or you don't want to understand the importance of that information for the future of mankind, then maybe it is you who should take a hike. "
I have repeatedly shown you the information; you just cannot or will not understand it.
-
You are not going to be able to prove that my theory is wrong. Because you do not know the sum total of all energies that have gone up in the earth and sky by human activities. (think of all the rockets that have gone up in the sky, how much energy was that?)
But I think you guys keep coming at this from the wrong angle. If the CO2 has increased by 25% over the past 50 years, (adding only 70 ppms of CO2 to the atmosphere), then the first obvious question that comes to my mind is: how much does that difference make on the greenhouse effect that you say must exist? So, is there no one who looked into that question? You mean to tell me that none of the big fuel companies thought that this would become an important question related to their products?
-
" (think of all the rockets that have gone up in the sky, how much energy was that?)".
The biggest of them IIRC had roughly a thrid of the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.
So again, they are not relevane.
The other question has been asked; and answered.
If you were less lazy you could look that up too.
-
I did not see the answer to my question as to how much the influence is on the greehouse effect of the various amounts of CO2....I missed it?
Perhaps we must pose this question to the fuel companies.
-
I think that this is another thread that isn't going to lead to anything useful. If one side of an argument resolutely refuses to listen to evidence, then it is neither scientific nor useful. Also "You are not going to be able to prove that my theory is wrong" implies that the hypothesis (not theory) is not falsifiable, and therefore falls outside of the scientific realm.
-
Anyone who can think knows that if you put the kettle on, the water will get warmer. I just don't know yet how much energy caused by human activity contributes to global warming. Maybe it is not a lot. But it must be something. How can you say that this line of thinking is not scientific? Who knows, maybe one day we will find out that Henry's theory may have more bearing on global warming then we think. But we first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention.Did you find anything?
-
"But we first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention"
But YOU first need to find the data from the tests on heat retention.
"Did you find anything?"
Personally, no. Because I'm not looking for it. It's your pet. You look after it.
-
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments.
Please note that when I look at a problem I always keep my mind open as to what the final solution will be to that problem. Conventional wisdom is often suspect. Sometimes the solution comes from a corner where you had never expected to find it. How is this for a theory: maybe in the time when they still thought that it was "safe" to detonate atomic bombs, as long as it was deep down below, they triggered some major upheaval in the earth's crust. This caused earth quakes (Tsunami) and now heat from the core is leaking into the oceans. What do you think of that theory?
Anyway, just speculating.
What we have to do is quite simple. We have to go to all the fuel companies. We have to say to them: look , this is your product. It has caused an increase of 70 ppm during in CO2 in the atmosphere during the past 50 years. This is our earth. Have you done any studies that relate to heat retention caused by varying amounts of CO2 in the air at differing atmospheric conditions. Perhaps they have done something on this.I doubt it. Eitherway, it is not too late. It should not be too difficult to try and devise some specific tests and experiments that give repeatable results on heat retention of various heat sources and various air compositions..
I leave it all up to you.
-
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments.
Pity, you're too lazy to look for the data that we have all pointed you towards...
Why do you continue to lie about the lack of data, rather than just put a small amount of effort in to find it?
-
If you consider it to be so important, and are aware that no-one here considers your hypothesis to be worthwhile, why don't you do it? If you are right, then so much the better for you.
Since you know that we're not going to help beyond that already given, I don't believe that you consider it to be at all important or even worthwhile either. You wouldn't leave it all up to us otherwise, would you?
*End of interest*
-
Ben,I am old man. I don't know how to find my way around the ent like you do and and do not have so many bytes. I did not find the data that I am after - we have to find out how much that 25% did toward heat retention, other then looking at the sky and the tempeartures and saying: that must be it. I am signing off now, seeing that you wanted me to resign anyway.
I hope what I wrote helped someone else to pick up the thread..
-
"Please note that when I look at a problem I always keep my mind open as to what the final solution will be to that problem."
"I have to go with the theory that I can believe in. "
Which did you mean?
Anyway, as someone already pointed out the work has been done, many years ago.
They even gave the name and that points you here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
That, in turn points you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
which leads you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
So, from the name you were given to the paper that describes the origianl experimental work took three clicks of a mouse.
How much work were you prepared to put in?
-
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments.
You want an experiment to test this theory that CO2 is a GHG?
Here I'll give you one.
Take two clear tubes (glass or plastic)
Insert a thermometer into each (the alcohol kind that does not need batteries.
Fill one with only CO2 and leave the other just atmosphere (plain air). This is your control.
Seal both tubes up and place them in the sun for however long you want to and take a temperature reading every 20 minutes or so.
The according to your hypothesis the CO2 tube will be the same temperature as the other tube. I bet it will be warmer.
Caution: When the gasses expand the tube could explode from a pressure build up. Please take proper safety precautions.
-
I tried something rather simple. I went to Google and typed in "CO2 Absorb Infrared". I found an interesting article in the image search (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html). This guy shows experimentally that CO2 absorbs infrared.
Absorption is the OPPOSITE of reflection, just to clarify. At this point I really don't know what the issue is. And in this case I prefer to err on the safe side anyways.
-
Ben,I am old man. ..
I am an old man too. Frankly you are the kind of old man who gives old people a bad name. Your willfull ignorance and blatant refusal to accept simple facts placed in front of you are a distasteful embarassment. You would do yourself a favour by reading just a few of the many references you have been provided with, then returning with some intelligent questions rather than your foolish observations.
-
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum. In defence I just wanted to say that I realize now (from a glimpse of one of the links) that I did not catch the hints you guys were giving because I cannot open the links(files) you are giving. They are too big. This is Africa here.My computer is too slow to download this and I don't have that many megs. So the truth is, I still don't know the nature of that relationship between elevated Co2 and heat retention. There was a formula for this?
-
This is the text in the link I provided:
"
The Climate Wars
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Note: these articles have been published in InfoChem, the supliment to Education in Chemistry produced by The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Many are based on the two BBC OU TV series - Hollywood Science
In The Climate Wars [1] (BBC1) the presenter, Iain Stewart, demonstrated that CO2 absorbs Infrared (IR) energy and so showed how it can trap heat in the Earths atmosphere contributing to the so called 'green house effect' [2]. The apparatus was simple enough; there was a 1m long, 20cm diameter tube which was filled with CO2 from a cylinder. A lighted candle was held at one end of the tube while a thermal imaging IR camera viewed it from the other end. The bright false colour image of the hot candle on the camera screen slowly disappears as CO2 was introduced into the tube showing that the gas absorbs in the IR. I built the apparatus for the program so let me share what I learnt about this experiment.
Due to the vibrations of the atoms in the molecule CO2 has a number of absorption's in the IR, the main bands being at 4.3 µm (2350 cm-1), 7.5 µm (1388 cm-1) and 15 µm (667 cm-1) [3]. The latter band lies very close to the maximum of the Earth's IR black body emission making CO2 a very important greenhouse gas.
The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 µm, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image.
In order to be able to seal and look through the tube the ends were covered in plastic cling film. Now plastics absorb strongly in the IR so it's hardly as transparent as it looks to the eye but the film was so thin these simple 'windows' actually worked quite well in practice. The CO2 was flowed in to one end of the tube and vented out the other so that it was well flushed with gas at about atmospheric pressure. In the process the thin film windows bulged a little.
You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would 'disappear' due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn't work, the candle doesn't disappear!
The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a 'CO2 filter' on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption's (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect.
In the Thomas Crown Affair we talked about how IR cameras usually have an Automatic Gain control (AGC) to make the camera responce as versatile as possible. In this case the AGC will stop the candle from disaperaing as it will re-adjust the gain to try and make it farly constant as the signal drops. So to get this demonstration to work the Camera AGC needs to be turned off.
We used a large diameter tube so that we had the option of seeing the presentors face through the apparatus (see last paragraph below). In the end we used it to observe a candle so we could have had a smaller diameter tube. The 1m path length seemed to work well when the tube was filled with CO2 at atmospheric pressure. If you just wanted to measure an IR absorption and were not worried about getting a recognisable image (of say a candle) then a much smaller length tube could be used if multiple passes were arranged using mirrors.
In the Earths atmosphere the CO2 also absorbs in bands but of course there is a much greater amount of gas and also other greenhouse gases present. We also think that global feedback systems in the ocean for example, increase the amount of CO2 available as things heat up multiplying the amount of warming greenhouse gases still further.
An alternative USA series on climate change [4] recently did the same experiment using a military state-of-the-art IR camera and CO2 filter (unfortunately not available for us to use in the UK). It was so sensitive that they used the heat from the presenters face rather than a candle to demonstrate the effect.
References:
[1] The Climate Wars, BBC1 Sept. 2008, see: web site
[2] A real glass greenhouse actually works by preventing convection not by IR absorption! See the Wikipedia section on 'Greenhouse' effect :
greenhouse effect on Wikipedia
[3] Greenhouse Gas Absorption spectrum in the Earths atmosphere
[4] Global Warming: what's up with the weather, Nova, DVD. ISBN 978 1 59375 729 8
....................... "
I am surprised that you can get to the NakedScientist site but not to those that were provided.
-
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum.
I am sorry you have decided to retreat from an opportunity to learn something. You say you did not understand the hints that were being offered. Henry, these were much more than hints. Specific information was provided by several posters. You chose either to ignore this completely, or state that it was irrelevant, or declare it was wrong.
I regret that my comments may have offended you, but your responses were indefensible. I hope you will reconsider your departure, but then listen to the sound information that is being presented to you by other posters, rather than promoting your own viewpoint, which is currently based on ignorance.
-
Is it possible that Henry is just mistaken, and that he is thinking of Co2 causing Stratospheric cooling?
-
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.
-
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield.
And that is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. If we did not have the body of observation and experiment that we do, then it could be a valid hypothesis. However, the point that invalidates it is that the incoming radiation is different in wavelength/frequency from the outgoing radiation. CO2 is largely transparent to the incoming wavelengths, but opaque to outgoing wavelengths. That is the central point I have tried to communicate in my posts and it has been made by several others.
Rgds,
ET
-
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.
Henry, you are more than welcome to participate in your own topic, I think you just have to be more willing to explore what others are saying and the information they give. And, perhaps, try and make you point clearer.
It took me a while to figure out what you were getting at, but hey, we all struggle at times to get people to understand what and where we are coming from. Anyway, here are a few links about the cooling effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere:
Global Warming causes Stratospheric cooling (http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp)
Stratospheric cooling (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html)
Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects. As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.
So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here.
Is the stratosphere cooling?
It's, of course, harder to measure the temperature in the stratosphere than in the troposphere where we have a network of measurement stations. Stratospheric temperature measurements do exist. They have been made using weather balloons, microwave sounding units, rocketsondes, LIDAR and satellites. Most of these readings only go back two or three decades at most and there are large uncertainities associated with the data.
The lower stratosphere appears to be cooling by about 0.5°C per decade. This cooling trend is interrupted by large volcanic eruptions which lead to a temporary warming of the stratosphere and last for one to two years. Calculations from many research institutes generally estimate the cooling trend for the last two decades (1979-2000) to be greater than for the previous period (1958-1978).
Why does the stratosphere cool?
There are several reasons why the stratosphere is cooling. The two best understood are:
1) depletion of stratospheric ozone
2) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Cooling due to ozone depletion
The first effect is easy to understand. Less ozone leads to less absorption of ultra-violet radiation from the Sun. As a result, solar radiation is not converted into heat radiation in the stratosphere. So cooling due to ozone depletion is simply reduced heating as a consequence of reduced absorption of ultra-violet radiation. Ozone also acts as a greenhouse gas in the lower stratosphere. Less ozone means less absorption of infra-red heat radiation and therefore less heat trapping.
At an altitude of about 20 km, the effects of ultra-violet and infra-red radiation are about the same. Ozone levels decrease the higher we go in the atmosphere but there are other greenhouse gases present in the air which we have to consider.
Cooling due to the greenhouse effect
The second effect is more complicated. Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere. If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infra-red radiation close to the Earth's surface. This means that only a small amount of outgoing infra-red radiation reaches carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation, which is lost from the stratosphere into space. In the stratosphere, this emission of heat becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption and, as a result, there is a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a resulting cooling. Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), have a weaker impact because their concentrations in the troposphere are smaller. They do not entirely block the whole radiation in their wavelength regime so some reaches the stratosphere where it can be absorbed and, as a consequence, heat this region of the atmosphere.
Where does cooling take place?
The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 km (Figure 3). All these different effects mean that some parts of the stratosphere are cooling more than others.
Other influences
It is possible that greenhouse warming could disturb the heating of the Arctic stratosphere by changing planetary waves. These waves are triggered by the surface structure in the Northern Hemisphere (mountain ranges like the Himalayas, or the alternation of land and sea). Recent studies show that increases in the stratospheric water vapour concentration could also have a strong cooling effect, comparable to the effect of ozone loss.
Conclusions
We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done. We do, however, already know that observed and predicted cooling in the stratosphere makes the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely.
The second link from Espere is rather good, in fact, somewhere on their site you can dowload a climatology PDF. It's a large file and goes in to all aspects of climate and meteorology, I can look around for the link if you want?
-
Thanks Paul, but yes, I already was worried that it would me more complicated up there then I thought it would be. It goes a little bit above my head. Anyway, I said I just wanted to observe and learn, rather then participate. Let me phrase a new question, post this, and then let me just observe what you people can come up with.
-
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
-
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
Principally because the heating effect exists, but the cooling effect doesn't.
-
You're welcome.
And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes?
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.
Well if this is such a problem is there any method to break up the atoms of CO2 IE(an alternative propellant used to propel a canister into the atmosphere where it will release a non hazardous agent which will disassociate the molecules of CO2 into two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom? JW!
-
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
-
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
In that case, I don't think you've read any of this thread!
-
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
-
If we keep an open mind and try to look at the evidence that there is - we must (I think) feel in our gut that global temperature increases in the geological record correspond eerily closely with increases in atmospheric CO2 and CH4.
Of course some global climate change is due to natural cycles such as Earth's orbit around the Sun. Sunspot activity and the angle of tilt of Earth relative to the Sun. But if you look at all these cycles and atmospheric gas concentrations it does look at this stage as if we have pumped out too much gas into the atmosphere and it is now about to lead to civilisation changing impacts. Even the Dutch East India Company wrote about climate damage from emissions way back in 1840/1850s so its not a new concern.
-
CO2,
This trace gas has been as high as 3000 parts per million during the Jurasic era to level that now is less the 300 parts per million. Carbon dioxide increases have not been associated with the end of the last ice age, or with the midieval warming period.
Further, recent increases in CO2 seem entirely independent of the warming after the 'little ice' age that ended in the 1850's, and the current cooling trend. IMHO, simple minded individuals with superiority complexes just make this crap up out of thin air.
First, what sane person wants a colder planet anyway. Jeezzuz Friggn Christ. Crop failure, pestulence and plaque, vast population migrations, pilage plunder and mass carnage and exterminaion. [The victors seem routinely to genetically remove the male populations and happily breed with the surviving femails.]
And in the last twenty years I can not recall any of these Carbonistas even consider solar output. As of now, the sunspot cycle is about two years late. It seems stuck in a solar minimum, which means 1% less solar output. And this has happened before. GOOGLE The Maunder Minimum. http://science.jrank.org/pages/4184/Maunder-Minimum.html
The Carbonistas are dangerous cultists, and need to be watched very closely. Of course they will seldom be found anywhere near a cold climate.
-
Climate Change, constant change:
Causes are beyond comprehension. They include precesion of the equinoxes, the orbital changes of the earth itself. The earths relative position in the various galactic spirals. Solar output varies. And believe it or not, the amount of cosmic rays can significanly affect cloud formation and thermal transfer.
Then there is continental drift and disruption of thermic oceanic conveyor belts. Add in one or two Super Volcanos, or an astroid impact or two, and we as a species seem an oddity. In fact, some geneticists claim the human race, in the last ice age era, was reduced to fewer then a couple of thousand individual.
Chuckle: apparently there is more genetic diversity among a single troup of Chimps then between the entire human population. In other words, in Las Vegas terms. We are a Royal Flush.
And now we have chumps [not chimps] telling us the planet is getting too warm. Fat Ruck. How many of these thermocline extreem bacterial throw backs do you see setting up survival camps in Northern Alaska to avoid the inevitable catastrophy of Global Warming.
Believe me, superstition is alive and well in all the usual suspect places. The entertainement industry, the Official Doctrine Of Academic Purity. And of course all the suplicant and suckup undergraduates of any instutuion that provides some sort of poster as its accademic degree.
-
Henry:
CO2 has varied from 3000 parts per million during Dinosaur era to the lower levels we now observe. CO2 is a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere that, climatically speaking, approaches insignificance. For instance, the midieval era (renaisance) experienced a warming spell well in excess of anything we see today. Then it got cool for a century or more in the 1600s and beyond. The only observable connection was a reduction in Sun Spots in the 1600's, and a warming trend from the mid 1800's to the late 20th century that is simply one of thousand unexplained shifts over the billions of world history years..
So, even though CO2 concentrations are higher now then 150 years ago, and about a hundred times less then the dynosaur era, the climate is once again cooling. The sunspot cycle is at least two years late. If we have a solar minimum sunspots for nearly a century, as was the case in the 1600's, I recommend buying Polar Bear Pelt Futures.
-
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
Well, we have tried to explain it to you. If you refuse to listen that's your problem.
Incidentally the reason that most people concerned with climate change ignore the sunspot cyly is that it's rather too short- term to have a significant effect.
It's like saying that CO2 can't matter because it only affects temperature by a few degrees whereas going from noon to midnight will generally reduce the temperature by 10 degrees.
The point is that the sun comes up in the morning, the sunspots come and go but, on a human timescale, we are stuck with the CO2
Frankly, anyone who didn't realise that hasn't thought the question through.
-
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
No, skeptical thinking requires rational thinking supported by facts. You're a cynic, not a skeptic.
-
dentstudent - You wrote: "...CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes? ...
By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C"
First, the climate has been cooling for about a decade and with the sunspot cycle gone missing I am looking for bargains in sweater sales. Further, I have seen estimates the Roman era was warmer then now (The Romans cultivated grapes in Britain and exported wine.) And finally, the midieval warming was substantially greater then now.
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
"A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
,
By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.
-
Hey Bored
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad, and right now it looks possible we might need baby harp seal sweaters shortly. The weather is like the stock market. It varies. Right now it is getting cooler.
But in general it just varies. It varies big (ice ages), it varies small, (el Ninno and the Pacific occilation). And sometimes it just varies. In historical times we have significant warming and cooling above and below current temperatures without any C02 changes at all.
I think all this hysteria is simply caused by the end of the most recent little ice age that ended in the mid 1800, coincident to the industrial revolution. If you are comming out of an ice age you might suspect the temperature is getting warmer because you are getting out of an ice age.
The worst possible thing that can happen now is another Little Ice Age. That is because agriculturally productive land will decrease significantly in the higher lattitudes. Think Canada and Asia. What sort of fool wishes to cool the planet out of what is historical one of the best climate optimums we have seen, in all of recorded history.
Just ask the people 1,000 years ago who went from a climate warmer then now to one that became cooler then now. Jeeze, the entire Viking colonialization of Greenland starved to death, and I seem to remember famines and plagues that subsequently killed off maybe half the population of Europe. I suppose it could devastate the several hundred pupfish in death valley, but who knows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
-
Bored chemist is one of the more knowledgeable guys on this site. If you had made the effort to check on his posts you would have realized that.
As for the rest of the BS spread here take a look at this post of mine.
Read the reports, I assume you know how to read?
At least you seem to know how to spread dung.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24403.msg281967#msg281967
-
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad
I'm afraid it's not that simple. With a warmer climate, sure, some places will become more fertile. Other areas however, will become deserts.
Even if you are going to block your ears and hum loudly when people speak of how a raise in temperature will be bad, perhaps you might consider the chemical effects increased CO2 has on the ocean. There are many, many creatures (including some plankton, which is a very important part of the oceans ecosystem) that have a shell composed of calcium carbonate. These creatures need to combine carbonate ions from the water with calcium to build and maintain their exoskeleton. As CO2 increases, the acidity of the ocean increases. The more acidic the ocean, the less free carbonate particles there are for these creatures to build their skeleton.
This will have far-reaching consequences not just for ocean life but for human life too, as worldwide a billion people eat seafood as their main source of animal protein. It will also form a feedback loop, as currently plankton absorb most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, but if they are killed off or almost killed off CO2 levels will all of a sudden dramtically increase, and it won't just be warm, it'll be pretty damn hot.
May I ask where you happen to live?
-
There's another aspect that people seem to ignore while saying "it will be better if things are warmer".
Change isn't good.
Farmers like to know what the weeather will be like and the currebnt state of affairs is that we are having weird weather.
There is no question that CO2 levels have risen.
Since most of the CO2 is made from "ancient" C sources it's fair to blame the use of fossil fuels. (You can, in effect, radiocarbon date the CO2).
There's no question that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
There's no way that you can avoid that leading to a greenhouse effect.
There is, thereefore, at least some anthropogenic global warming and the weather is going nuts.
If we want to eat we need stable weather.
Perhaps we should try cutting back onCO2.
-
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad, and right now it looks possible we might need baby harp seal sweaters shortly. The weather is like the stock market. It varies. Right now it is getting cooler.
A decade of temperature stability (with a minute amount of cooling) does not make a trend. The standard is 30 continuous years to even begin to establish a long term climatic trend. And as far as blanket statements like "warm is good, cold is bad" - while there is a grain of truth to it - it is a gross oversimplification of a very complex climate system that is only very vaguely understood (despite what yor_on and others claim).
I'm afraid it's not that simple. With a warmer climate, sure, some places will become more fertile. Other areas however, will become deserts.
While superficially true, there is generally a larger portion gaining rainfall than becoming desert during a warming, and the opposite during a cooling (though there have been a few exceptions, as with anything). A warmer climate means that the ITCZ cuts a larger swath both north and south of the equator and draws the monsoons to higher latitudes (expanding the tropics and subtropics) than during cooling events.
There's another aspect that people seem to ignore while saying "it will be better if things are warmer".
Change isn't good.
Farmers like to know what the weeather will be like and the currebnt state of affairs is that we are having weird weather.
There is no question that CO2 levels have risen.
Since most of the CO2 is made from "ancient" C sources it's fair to blame the use of fossil fuels. (You can, in effect, radiocarbon date the CO2).
The climate has changed throughout the entire existence of man (well...of life in general), and there have been MUCH more drastic changes than we are experiencing now...quite a few of them...Last Glacial Maximum, Younger Dryas, 8.2ka, 7.1ka, 4.5ka, 0.9ka, and the Little Ice Age...and this is just a few major events over the past 17ka.
There is no doubt, as you state that CO2 levels have risen, that it is mostly old carbon, and that it is mostly anthropogenic (though there is a natural rise in CO2 that is expected with natural temperature variability).
There's no question that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
There's no way that you can avoid that leading to a greenhouse effect.
There is, thereefore, at least some anthropogenic global warming and the weather is going nuts.
If we want to eat we need stable weather.
Perhaps we should try cutting back onCO2.
Yep, CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and causes a greenhouse effect (my understanding is that it works logarithmically and reaches a saturation point much like water vapor, but you are the chemist and probably understand this process much better than I do), and yes, there is at least some anthropogenic induced warming, but the weather is not going nuts. It is changing, but is not as variable as it has been for about the past 800 years (though this could change within the span of a decade...or even shorter in extreme cases).
Though the Thames River frost fairs (during the LIA) would have been beautiful to see, I dont believe that I would want to endure winters cold enough that shopkeepers could establish booths in the middle of the rivers frozen surface for weeks out of the year. Nor would I want to live in a time when the sun can take a dive into a 30 year minimum (Dalton Minimum), a volcano erupts (Pinatubo), and suddenly summer is entirely skipped with snow in July (the Year Without a Summer 1816)
As far as cutting back on CO2...Im absolutely all for renewable energy
-
yor and bored - regarding sunspots, I refer you to the Maunder Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
And if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where colapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
-
if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
LS, why can't you get it through your head that any accelerated change in global mean temperatures is bad! That's bad for humans and worst for ecosystems in general. A very few species might win, but the majority will be hard pressed to adapt in time.
See Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/climate-and-the-collapse-of-maya-civilization) as an example:
"evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.
Have you got it now?
-
See Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/climate-and-the-collapse-of-maya-civilization) as an example:
"evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.
Have you got it now?
Peppercorn, you have posted possibly the most excellent popular science article that I have read in a very long time. Your analysis that the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period is absolutely incorrect, though. The period from about 700 to 950 AD is known as the Dark Age Cold Period, and is noted for having a much decreased global temperature (though the tropics were not effected much...temperature wise anyway...as far as rainfall they were greatly effected) and greatly decreased rainfall in many areas...including Central America. Nowhere in the article that I could find does it state that this is a warming period (and it would be blatantly incorrect if it did), and only refers to "climate change". Oddly enough, during this exact time period in China there is what is called the "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" period, where there was a marked decline in rainfall and winter temperature that created so much turmoil that they went through multiple kingdoms and dynasties inside of 100 years. This is also related to migration of the ITCZ just as the article attributes its migration to the Maya.
The other cultures that they mention:
The Anasazi disappeared from the American Southwest around 12750-1300 AD which is the very beginning of the Little Ice Age, and during the depths of the Wolf solar Grand Minimum (the first of the LIA). This was a drastic cooling period.
The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 4200 years before present was the during a drastic decline in temperatures and tumultuous climate that occurred just after the Holocene Climate Optimum. This was a drastic cooling period, though much wetter than any other cooling during the Holocene.
And the Mochica Culture in Peru disappeared about 500ybp, which was in the depths of the Sporer solar Grand Minimum during the worst of the LIA. This is also a period of intense cooling.
Note, all of these droughts occurred during *decreased* global temperature.
-
Your analysis that the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period is absolutely incorrect, though.
D'ya know what? I let myself down by one comment:
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.
It's a shame I included the word 'global'.
In fact if I'd said "the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period" that would have been perfectly fine. I'm fairly certain that the Mayans would have experienced the bad results of their local region heating up. The point is climate getting hotter quickly is 'bad' just as getting cooler quickly is 'bad'. Doesn't matter if it's a local effect or global.
I'm sure their must have been a previous period when the whole of humankind suffered as a result of an elevated global temperature. If there isn't such an event in recorded history that has survived to our present age, if we don't get our collective heads out of the sand we soon will know how nasty global 'warming' can be.
-
I note that you completely ignored my last post litespeed. However, regarding;
yor and bored - regarding sunspots, I refer you to the Maunder Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
And if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where colapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).
In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that's not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.
quoted from http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm)
And concerning the advantages and disadvantages of global warming (from http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm) )
Advantages:
Agriculture
* Bumper crops in high latitude countries like Greenland, Canada
* Higher rice yields in Northern China
Health
* Fewer deaths from cold exposure
* Record profits for pharmaceutical companies
Arctic Melt
* Shippers get an Arctic shortcut between Atlantic and Pacific
* Access to North Pole oil (hmm, good or bad?)
* Thriving mammoth trade
Environment
* Greener rainforests due to higher sunlight levels due to fewer rain clouds
* Animals in Greenland can graze longer
* Save grey nurse sharks from extinction
Glacier Melt
* Access to more mining areas as Greenland's glaciers recede
* New extreme sport of glacier surfing (riding waves when chunks of glaciers fall into the sea)
* Longer grazing for sheep in Greenland
Economical
* Increased summer movie box office
* Lots of work and money for lawyers (not sure which column to put this one in)
Disadvantages:
Agriculture
* China's grain harvest will be cut by 5 to 10% by 2030
* Africa's food production will be halved by 2020.
* Decelerating tropical forest growth
* Increased conflict over resources
* Dislocate millions (with subsequent economical and military ramifications) - an estimated 50 million by 2010
* Coral reefs are dissolving due to CO2 turning seawater acidic and bleaching due to warmer waters
* Increase of wildfire activity
* Water shortages in the Mediterranean, flash floods along the Rhine and summers so hot that nuclear power stations can't cool down, more than half of Europe's plant species could risk extinction by 2080 according to EU paper
* Increased range and severity of crop disease
* Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing
* Diminishing fresh water supplies for coastal communities
* Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
* Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
* Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
Health
* Increased deaths to heatwaves (5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps)
* Increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders, with implications for child growth and development.
* Increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts.
* Spread of malaria into wider regions
* Increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change.
* Spread of mosquito vectors and dengue fever in Singapore.
* Spread of dengue fever throughout the Americas.
* Increased pollen levels (due to more CO2) leading to increased allergies
* Increased spread of flesh eating disease
* More heart problems
Arctic Melt
* Decrease in Arctic albedo, further accelerating warming
* Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years
* Positive methane feedbacks from mammoth dung (you can't make this stuff up)
* Melting of Arctic lakes leading to positive feedback from methane bubbling.
* Icebergs risk to shipping
* Rising sea levels due to melting land ice over Greenland and Canada
Environment
* Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier (from the 'greener rainforests' study)
* Encroaching deserts displacing tens of millions
* Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem
* Vanishing lakes
* Tibetan plateau warming at twice the global average, so that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline
* Skinny whales (I always thought they stood to lose some weight)
* Acidification of the ocean that violate EPA standards for ocean quality, threatening ocean ecosystems (eg - harming coral and plankton)
* Threatened extinction of British shellfish
* Gradual extinction of leeches (someone's gotta love em)
* Dwindling penguin numbers
* Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu
* Disruption to New Zealand aquatic species
* Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing (Stramma 2008, Shaffer 2009)
* Increased mortality rates of healthy trees in Western U.S. forest (more...)
* More severe and extensive vegetation die-off due to warmer droughts (Breshears 2009)
Glacier Melt
* Flooding of low lying Asian rice fields
* Water supply cut off for China and South America
Economical
* Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure
* Reduced water supply in New Mexico
So either you really really like Grey Nurse sharks, or you haven't really weighed up the pros and cons.
-
However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).
In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that's not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.
The estimates that you have given for W/m2 between Grand Minima and Grand Maxima are the generally accepted values (though this is being challenged by Steinhibler et al. 2009), but the sun very profoundly affects mechanisms within the climate system that give it far more weight than 0.2 W/m2 would account for.
After Wednesday I will have more time to answer (studying for two tests), but until then I will refer back to this link:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24403.msg265139#msg265139
Certainly not comprehensive, but gives an overview. There are other factors that the sun may effects as well...such as cloud nucleation and cosmic radiation which is modulated by solar activity (very controversial though...there is decent research on both sides of the argument). Ive been waiting for an experiment scheduled for next year at CERN that should shed lots of light on this subject.
Anyway, Ill respond more properly after Wednesday :)
-
Madi - You wrote: "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence."
If so, you need to account for all the climate change that has taken place prior to industrialization. Specifically, atmospheric CO2 is at a near low in all of planetary history right now. Yet we are in something of a climate optimum. I notice you cite the IPCC.
This has about the same scientific content as your reference to Lord Attenbourogh and his breathless, yet supine, video clip cited earlier. Cue dramatic music, cue single, unchallenged climatologist, cue clueless Shakspearean Actor. Perhaps add forelorn Polar Bear on small iceberge.
Pathetic....
-
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Attenborough
If you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.
Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.
I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.
-
Madi - You wrote: "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence."
If so, you need to account for all the climate change that has taken place prior to industrialization. Specifically, atmospheric CO2 is at a near low in all of planetary history right now. Yet we are in something of a climate optimum. I notice you cite the IPCC.
This has about the same scientific content as your reference to Lord Attenbourogh and his breathless, yet supine, video clip cited earlier. Cue dramatic music, cue single, unchallenged climatologist, cue clueless Shakspearean Actor. Perhaps add forelorn Polar Bear on small iceberge.
Pathetic....
Of course, it must be pathetic if it's in contradiction to your assertion that the planet is cooling. And it's obvious the IPCC must also be composed of liars. And WTF is your obsession with polar bears?
Anyway, the Maunder Minimum was only from roughly 1645 to 1715. When CO2 levels have been higher in the past (many millions of years ago) solar levels were also lower. No one is saying CO2 is the only thing that drives climate, but that the evidence suggests it is certainly the main factor in rising temperatures today.
-
madi - You wrote: "...solar levels were also lower..."
Please provide citation showing solar variance over time. Please provide citation for rising temperatures in 2009.
-
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of the CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542my). For periods with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below ~500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below ~1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic. © Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html
Global Highlights – August
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature of 62.4 degrees F was the warmest on record for any August, and 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.4 degrees F.
* Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.
* Large portions of the world’s land mass observed warmer-than-average temperatures in August. The warmest departures occurred across Australia, Europe, parts of the Middle East, northwestern Africa, and southern South America. Both Australia and New Zealand had their warmest August since their records began.
* The Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined were the warmest on record for August.
-
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Attenborough
If you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.
Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.
I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.
Quite a few people have complained (to the moderators) about litespeed from these threads, though I am not sure if one of them is you Bored chemist (You might even be a moderator for all I know). I am in agreement that he uses misnomers and inaccurate facts quite often (which seems to be common among these threads...on both sides of the argument and including you), but completely disregarding someones opinion and belittling them because they made a mistake between David/Richard Attenborough (or even between 250 ml/mm for that matter) is the equivalent of deeming your posts invalid because you cant seem to spell the words deffinition (definition), thet (that), or anturalist (naturalist). *Everyone* makes mistakes.
You are obviously a very intelligent person, and I would never disregard your postings for something as trivial as that (I understand that you know how to spell. You are extremely articulate and well read...that much is evident), but your method of "scientific" debate leaves something to be desired.
Karsten, Madidus Scientia, Paul and some others seem to be able to hold a very intelligent and lively debate without needing to resort to ridicule or bullying.
-
fret - You wrote: "Quite a few people have complained (to the moderators) about litespeed..."
If this is true, then I am a bit surprised at how thin skinned the locals are. I have posted on forums since the 1980's, and have actually been banned more times then I can count. However, [seriously] my post here have been entirely moderate in comparison to those. And even in those I was almost always reinstated since I never used profanity etc etc.
In these forums I have been especially dilligent in defining the terms of my debate. For instance, I have made a special effort to address climate change since Roman Times. IMHO, my citations on Roman Era warming are without contest.
True, I have made fun of those who present short video clips as some sort of scientific evidence. Specifically Lord[?] Attenbouroughs supine and Shakespearian conversion to The Faith. I simply pointed out the theatrical nature of the presentation included not one ounce of scientific reference. Just one guy making some assertions based on nothing but his own expertise, and unchallenged by The Great Orator.
I became this little gadfly because The Climatistas assaulted the world with forlorn Polar Bears; Certain Death by oceanic inundation, unmitigated hurricanes, and runaway GW such as the Planet Venus and so on. Of particular irritation to me is the block headed refusal to see we are in a CLIMATE OPTIMUM!
But maybe its just me....
-
completely disregarding someones opinion and belittling them because they made a mistake between David/Richard Attenborough (or even between 250 ml/mm for that matter) is the equivalent of deeming your posts invalid because you cant seem to spell the words deffinition (definition), thet (that), or anturalist (naturalist). *Everyone* makes mistakes.
In Bored Chemist's defense it seemed to me any belitting/ridicule done was purely in retort:
Pathetic....
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
In my opinion BC is always civil unless hostility is initiated by another party. I wouldn't take the mm/ml thing personally, he's just very pedantic when it comes to facts :p
-
How inapropriate for a science site- I prefer the facts to be correct.
I also think that there's a difference between a few typos which simply indicate that I was in a hurry, and rubishing a video on the basis that it was presented by an actor.
There are two points there and I accept I probably should have focussed on the other.
Litespeed did muddle the two Attenboroughs, but that's not the big issue.
The real problem is that he thinks it matters.
I don't care if the video was fronted by an naturalist, a "Shakspearean Actor" or a gorrilla in a tutu.
The facts remain facts.
-
How inapropriate for a science site- I prefer the facts to be correct.
I do very much owe you a public apology for singling you out for a problem that is systemic throughout these debates. If I had been more rational than reactionary, I should have addressed my post in a general sense, but instead I chose to call out someone who is well respected (including by myself). It was unbecoming, and for that Bored chemist I am most humbly apologetic.
To correct myself, this is what I should have said:
When words begin to fly like "carbonistas" or "denialists" the undertone of an agenda becomes evident, and a healthy public debate on a very young science turns into a dogpile. Unfortunately, global climate is a hotbutton issue, and there is a lot of hostility associated with it. I should probably just accept that. My experience in the paleoclimate community has been very different though. If you have a good argument, no matter if it is contrary, the facts and merits are debated without agenda.
-
Don't sweat it.
You are certainly right in saying this subject tends to turn into a mess. There are currently 3 or 4 threads all going over essentially the same subject.
Incidentally, I'm not a mod- just a bloke who wonders why he had to point out the 250mm/250ml problem twice.
-
Don't sweat it.
You are certainly right in saying this subject tends to turn into a mess. There are currently 3 or 4 threads all going over essentially the same subject.
Incidentally, I'm not a mod- just a bloke who wonders why he had to point out the 250mm/250ml problem twice.
Mistakes happen when typing/reading quickly, as you know first hand. Doesnt change the fact that control on desertification has little to do with temperature.
-
There are currently 3 or 4 threads all going over essentially the same subject.
It'd be good if we could agree to just run one thread & stop all this duplicity!