The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?  (Read 66329 times)

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #150 on: 01/07/2013 18:40:57 »
Nothing to do with me, JP, but when someone publishes an untitled graph which contains counterintuitive data, I'd like to know what it represents and why it behaves that way. Is that nitpicking or just asking the sort of question that we professional scientists are paid to ask?
Yes, but a proper scientist would probably find out what an unlabeled plot represents before saying that it casts doubt on many temperature records.

Quote
A model based on the nonlinear greenhouse effect of water goes a long way to explaining the Vostok ice core data over periods of thousands of years, and recent Mauna Loa data clearly shows the consistent lag of CO2 behind temperature, but the inherently chaotic nature of the planetary atmosphere makes short-term prediction a very risky business.
Great!  I've seen many claims like this, so show us a model that's been peer-reviewed and has a proper confidence interval analysis so that we can judge if it's consistent with the data! 

Quote
My preference is always for clean, raw data. Hence Mauna Loa, which represents a "good site" with no obvious CO2 anomalies or heat island effects, and Vostok, which has used the same data collection process for millions of years, are more likely to yield understanding of the process of climate change than any attempt at meta-analysis of incoherent data and proxies.
In any single experiment, I agree--all scientists would prefer clean data.  But your argument doesn't hold up, since averaging many lower-quality measurements together can actually produce cleaner statistics (smaller uncertainties) than using a small number of high-quality measurements, especially when we're trying to get a handle on a global mean, rather than local means.  Since climate science is observational, we have to live with what data we have, so it quite probably turns out that large-scale averages produce better estimates than using the cleanest datasets.

Quote
History has shown that we should be wary of "scientific consensus". Phlogiston, the geocentric universe, the aether, the flat earth, aristotelian gravitation....all held sway as consensus at some time. Early on in our careers, we learn that data is more important. To paraphrase Einstein, when confronted by a debunking consensus paper signed by 100 Nazi professors: "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient." So let's look at the data, please. 
You're shooting yourself in the foot here: yes, data is more important than consensus, but data without analysis is meaningless.  I recall doing an experiment in undergraduate lab where my data, taken at face value, would prove Newton's second law wrong.  Sadly, I didn't win the Nobel Prize for proving Newton wrong, of course, because there were huge uncertainties and errors in my measurement process.  And that's precisely my point--whether you cherry pick data and fit a curve through it or claim that "clean" data is better than the data that is currently being used, you have to back that up with an analysis that favors your version over the consensus version.  Scientific consensus is reached because many scientists have done a intense work analyzing data or models.  Those claiming to prove climate science is wrong on forum threads like this tend to ignore that work and point out that they can draw a better curve through the data or they don't like some feature of a data set or trend-line without actually providing any analysis. 
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #151 on: 01/07/2013 18:44:33 »
jp says
...to promote your own model based on cherry-picked data and a best fit curve.
henry says
I told you from the beginning that my sample of 47 stations was random,
except for the fact of the choice of stations with complete or nearly complete records...
even choosing more stations won't change the result
if you get a correlation coefficient of 0.997 on the binomial for the drop of maximum temps.....
Yes, and you picked a small subset of the climate record that happens to have a straight line through it.  So what?  I can pick dozens.  Your method is unscientific because all you've done is make a model.  Now you have to extrapolate it and show that it fits more data.  It's fine if you don't understand the scientific method well enough to do that.  We all have to start somewhere, but at least stop telling other users on a science forum that you've done a proper scientific analysis that proves that climate scientists are wrong. 

Quote
Either way, even if you believe I am trolling, the question to you was about the error bars,
on the gistemp data set,
which you state were there
but they were not...

They're the green vertical bars on the data plot.  The web page also cites a peer-reviewed article about the methods used to calculate error bars.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2013 18:47:12 by JP »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #152 on: 01/07/2013 18:52:37 »
JP says
Yes, and you picked a small subset of the climate record that happens to have a straight line through it.  So what?  I can pick dozens.
Henry asks
A binomial fit is a straight line?
Sorry, must I explain the difference to you between linear (straight) fits and polynomial fits?
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #153 on: 01/07/2013 19:07:25 »

JP says
They're the green vertical bars on the data plot.  The web page also cites a peer-reviewed article about the methods used to calculate error bars.
henry says
Sorry I missed that, but it seems to me the difference between red (ave of 4 major data sets, including gistemp)  and green (gistemp) on the graph I presented to you, WHICH IS the reality of WHAT WE HAVE, seems a lot more than the average [0.2] error indicated?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #154 on: 01/07/2013 19:10:28 »
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten you'd used a polynomial fit.  Even better!  I can find a well-fit polynomial to even more cherry picked chunks of climate data than a linear model since I have more degrees of freedom!  It just makes your argument that much weaker.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #155 on: 01/07/2013 19:14:09 »

The "fourth blanket" is an interesting analogy.
As you add more blankets, so the incremental effect of each becomes smaller.

Indeed,
Can you explain why you think it's negative (or, at least, not positive)?
BTW, I think I may have mentioned spectroscopic saturation earlier in the thread
(it's not really the same thing as the usual "diminishing returns" due to a reduced temperature difference)


Henry, perhaps it would help clarify matters if you were to tell us explicitly what your model is in the form
Temperature = (some mathematical function of) year.
Thanks

« Last Edit: 01/07/2013 19:17:43 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #156 on: 01/07/2013 19:49:06 »
henry@bc&jp

I did in fact not use the binomial fit with r2=0.997  because I saw it would cause an ice age...soon.
I applied a sine wave!
do you BC, mean, that you want to know the exact mathematical formula for the sine wave
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
that I did propose for the drop in global maxima for my data, evident from the results on the bottom of the first table
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #157 on: 01/07/2013 20:46:16 »
Probably just me being gormless but I'd find it much simpler if you gave the amplitude, frequency (or period) and an indication of the phase.
I think the period is 88 years,
The phase is defined by crossing zero at 17 years,
and the amplitude is 0.037
Am I reading it correctly?
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #158 on: 01/07/2013 21:06:41 »
Henry@bc
you got it figured right
1995 was zero as far as maxima was concerned.
Remember my data only goes up to 2012.
2012-17 equals 1995
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #159 on: 01/07/2013 22:44:07 »
From AlanCalverD (reply #140)
Quote
It's quite clear where the "skeptical" graph came from, but I'm interested to know what its authors actually plotted. Data that suggests that some winters are warmer than their adjacent summers deserves serious investigation.

The caption of the graph reveals all: what is actually being plotted is a "twelve month running average temperature". This is a convenient (and familiar to meteorologists) way of factoring out seasonal effects. What is plotted for each month is an average over the previous 12 months. Since this will always contain one of each month, it shows no seasonal variation, but is capable of resolving longer term variation (whether random or forced) to a monthly level.
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #160 on: 02/07/2013 08:15:47 »
henry@bc
I went back to my notes on this
to see that the formula was:

y=K sin (2pi (x-phi)/ῳ)

K Constant   0.037
Wavelength (Years)   87.4
Phase (Years)   18
K= difference max degreeC /annum         
x= time (years)         
ῳ = wavelength (years)   
phi = phase shift to allow zero point at set time (years)         


henry@all
The idea with the blankets does not really work, because CO2 also cools the atmosphere,
during daytime, by deflecting some light due to re-radiation. People remove the blankets during the day, to let the sunshine in, in nature it does not work like that.

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. (There is of course also big re-radiation of CO2 at around 4 um, but this could not be measured with the specific equipment used in the above experiments)

 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #161 on: 02/07/2013 10:26:32 »
From AlanCalverD (reply #140)
Quote
It's quite clear where the "skeptical" graph came from, but I'm interested to know what its authors actually plotted. Data that suggests that some winters are warmer than their adjacent summers deserves serious investigation.

The caption of the graph reveals all: what is actually being plotted is a "twelve month running average temperature".

But average of what? Not the entire planet, clearly, because we don't have any reliable data of the polar regions before 1900, or of the wet bits of the Pacific Ocean before 1970. But it can't be from a single point either, because of the ridiculously anomalous winter temperatures.

Somebody, somewhere, must surely know what this graph actually represents??


 JP:   
Quote
Quote

Quote from: alancalverd on 01/07/2013 14:48:33

    Nothing to do with me, JP, but when someone publishes an untitled graph which contains counterintuitive data, I'd like to know what it represents and why it behaves that way. Is that nitpicking or just asking the sort of question that we professional scientists are paid to ask?

Yes, but a proper scientist would probably find out what an unlabeled plot represents before saying that it casts doubt on many temperature records.

And being a proper scientist, not claiming to be psychic, I have asked the question several times. Regrettably,  nobody seems to know, or to want to tell me. Damocles states that it is the running average of something, which explains its smoothness but not its shape. I do not doubt the veracity of its source data, any more than I would doubt you if you told me how many whippets live in Yorkshire, but it would be unwise to suppose that it was representative of the global density of whippets, and unhelpful if the data was simply titled "something to do with dogs". And if you claimed to have consistent data before 1891, when the breed standard was defined, I might even doubt your data a bit.

Quote
Since climate science is observational, we have to live with what data we have, so it quite probably turns out that large-scale averages produce better estimates than using the cleanest datasets.

and there's the problem, restated. Better estimates of what? If you average over selected data, you will get the average of selected data. But the point of interest is the behaviour of the entire planet, not just the few bits where people live, which are by nature anomalous and subject to rapid change over a period of years. So I look at Mauna Loa, relatively sparsely inhabited and dominated by the Pacific climate, which shows an unequivocal recent warming and a consistent lag of CO2 behind the temperature graph. And I look at Vostok which shows a long-term bounded sawtooth of temperature and again a lag of CO2 behind temperature. All we need now is a plausible mechanism to explain these findings.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 11:57:57 by alancalverd »
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #162 on: 02/07/2013 12:55:06 »
Alan CalverD:

My whole aim in my last post was simply to point out why the winter temperatures are not "ridiculously anomalous". The point is that the "winter" points on the graph are not winter readings at all -- they are annual readings for a year from a winter month to a winter month. The adjacent "summer" points are annual readings for a year from a summer month to a summer month. There is absolutely no reason why the "summer" month graph points should be any higher than the "winter" month graph points. And this is clearly stated on the graph caption.

I will need to go back to the graph and read carefully to discover the geographical base. I suspect that it might be from a geographically unrepresentative selection of around 60 stations that have been collecting fairly reliable data throughout the period. But I also suspect that I will find that it is very clearly stated in there somewhere where the data have come from.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #163 on: 02/07/2013 13:24:02 »
So I look at Mauna Loa, relatively sparsely inhabited and dominated by the Pacific climate, which shows an unequivocal recent warming and a consistent lag of CO2 behind the temperature graph. And I look at Vostok which shows a long-term bounded sawtooth of temperature and again a lag of CO2 behind temperature. All we need now is a plausible mechanism to explain these findings.

Those are worth a look.  Could you post the data (or a link to it?)
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #164 on: 02/07/2013 13:53:02 »
I am sorry, AlanCalverD, but I cannot see how you can possibly say that CO2 is consistently lagging behind temperature at Mauna Loa, when the CO2 graph is showing a fairly consistent rise (modulated by seasonal factors) throughout the last few decades and the temperature has done likewise, but in much more modest and erratic fashion.
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #165 on: 02/07/2013 15:04:00 »
Look at the seasonal modulation of CO2. It's more consistent than the seasonal temperature, and peaks in May-June, at the time when anthropogenic CO2 is minimal. If you subtract the underlying recent trend, the peak shifts to July, as you would expect from the dependence of invertebrate activity on temperature.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 15:14:22 by alancalverd »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #166 on: 02/07/2013 15:26:36 »

 JP:   
Quote
Quote

Quote from: alancalverd on 01/07/2013 14:48:33

    Nothing to do with me, JP, but when someone publishes an untitled graph which contains counterintuitive data, I'd like to know what it represents and why it behaves that way. Is that nitpicking or just asking the sort of question that we professional scientists are paid to ask?

Yes, but a proper scientist would probably find out what an unlabeled plot represents before saying that it casts doubt on many temperature records.

And being a proper scientist, not claiming to be psychic, I have asked the question several times. Regrettably,  nobody seems to know, or to want to tell me. Damocles states that it is the running average of something, which explains its smoothness but not its shape. I do not doubt the veracity of its source data, any more than I would doubt you if you told me how many whippets live in Yorkshire, but it would be unwise to suppose that it was representative of the global density of whippets, and unhelpful if the data was simply titled "something to do with dogs". And if you claimed to have consistent data before 1891, when the breed standard was defined, I might even doubt your data a bit.

I agree that BC's posting of that plot raised a lot of questions.  It was out of context without indication of what the data represented.  What I find to be poor science is how you use the lack of context of that plot as justification to launch an attack on climate science:
Skeptic? Moi? No, just wondering how much "climate data" has been falsified, and why it was done in such a transparently amateurish manner..

If we're here to discuss science then we should stick to the facts and data and we can dismiss any plots that are posted without referencing where the data came from or how they were produced.
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #167 on: 02/07/2013 17:03:23 »
damocles says
I am sorry, AlanCalverD, but I cannot see how you can possibly say that CO2 is consistently lagging behind temperature at Mauna Loa, when the CO2 graph is showing a fairly consistent rise (modulated by seasonal factors) throughout the last few decades and the temperature has done likewise, but in much more modest and erratic fashion.

henry says
I am sorry for you, damocles,
I think everyone here sees now from the available data sets that it has been getting cooler for the past decade or so and that this process will continue, no matter who says what.... It will not even help to pump CO2 in the air to stop the cooling. This is what the data are telling us.
My data obtained is from www. tutiempo.net
Having to shove snow in late spring is going to cause a shift in perceptions and it is not going to help those who falsify the data anymore....
More CO2 in the atmosphere is simply a function of warming as any chemist knows.. not the other way around. If you boil water, the first that comes out is the CO2....

In fact, as I have been saying all along, by challenging all of you to come with a balance sheet, it is not really even sure anymore  if more CO2 does not cause cooling rather than warming...as CO2 is one of our first line defence against CME's
<mod edit>
Editorialising, non-peer reviewed links removed (yet again!)

The NASA story is  about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
<//end>

never mind what I said....
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 22:54:32 by peppercorn »
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #168 on: 02/07/2013 17:10:43 »
Quote
What I find to be poor science is how you use the lack of context of that plot as justification to launch an attack on climate science:

It's not just that plot that gets up my scientific nose. As a lifelong enthusiast of meteorology and with several years as an aviator, I'm deeply interested in what the atmosphere does and how it does it. I need credible data and an unbiased expert opinion before planning a flight, and I can see no reason to depart from those standards when planning an economy, levying a tax, or subsidising windmills.

I guess my skepticism of "climate science" began at a public lecture by the then co-chairman of IPCC who pointedly announced at the outset that he was a committed Christian. If he thought this was relevant, surely it meant that he considered superstition more important than facts? Fair enough, others have carved out careers in the god business, but I wouldn't put my passengers' lives or my livelihood in their hands. He then presented the first consensus report of the IPCC, in which the influence of water on the behaviour of the atmosphere was dismissed in a footnote because it was complex and unmeasurable. Yeah, well, if you fly into an active front, or even live on the ground in England, atmospheric water deserves more than a dismissive footnote in your met studies.

At a seminar about a year later I was shown the first Vostok data (somewhere along the line I'd been loosely associated with Earth Sciences). Everyone in the audience remarked that the CO2 graph showed a consistent lag behind the temperature graph, and I still haven't heard a "consensus" explanation of how this consists with CO2 being the driver of gobal temperature. One or two websites shrug it off as "only 500 years" but on my planet, all causes precede all effects, and the word "only" has no place in scientific discourse - the light comes on "only 10 milliseconds" after I press the button, therefore it is the light that makes me press the button, eh?

I got close to exploding on being shown an Approved School Textbook for A level physics. According to the Department of Education and Science, the water molecule is (or was, ten years ago) linear and rigid and has no influence on the solar infrared spectrum, unlike the nasty wobbly CO2 beast.

And so it goes on. People conflate incompatible data and fantasy to produce graphs that justify their grants, then issue "corrections" that somehow always reduce the impact. We fly to Mars  and don't ask why it is so much colder than it would be if the consensus CO2 forcing function were correct. Our gallant leaders sign away our right to manufacture anything, on the grounds that Chinese or Indian CO2 is not harmful, but Western emissions are. Obviously you must pay an additional climate levy tax if you fly, but it isn't related to the distance you fly or the amount of fuel consumed per passenger mile.

I'm not attacking climate science. My life depends on understanding it! But I'm very skeptical of "climate science" that mixes arbitrary proxies with spatially limited data to make global pronouncements. And there's an awful lot of it about.

Final shriek in this rant: a couple of weeks ago some guys announced that they had regrown some bryophytes that had been covered  by a glacier for about 500 years. Wow! Panic! We are going to drown! The glacier has retreated and it's all the fault of anthropogenic global warming! No, friends, it means that the world was warmer 500 years ago, when these little darlings were growing by a flowing stream. That's science.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 17:42:06 by alancalverd »
 

Post by MoreCarbonOK click to view.

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #169 on: 02/07/2013 17:29:03 »
Shrunk
AlanCalverd
who proudly announced at the outset that he was a committed Christian.

Henry says

we all make mistakes, and we must forgive those who trespass (against us),

so be careful how you tread there,
"what is truth?" is what Pilate asked (John 18:37 )
but the answer was given to him in the verse before
I am also one of those who stick to the truth (Truth )

as I see it

no matter what

 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #170 on: 02/07/2013 17:39:23 »
I'd love to wander off into the realms of philosophy with you, but this isn't the place to do so. Suffice it to say that the truth "as I see it" is not the truth as I define it: that which is invariant between observers. The truth "as I see it" includes the flat earth and heavy things falling faster than light ones, depending on who "I" is. And much as I appreciate your general support in this particular argument, "no matter what" may be ex officio or ex cathedra, but it definitely ain't in laboratorio where opinions change with every experiment (which is the entire point of doing experiments!) 

That said, there is a definite connexion between faith and the weather. For as long as I can recall, it has been possible to ski somewhere in Britain at Easter, regardless of the date of that festival. But I wouldn't use it as an excuse to raise taxes.   
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 17:46:30 by alancalverd »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #171 on: 02/07/2013 18:36:32 »

alan says
The truth "as I see it" includes the...

henry says
always remember that we can make mistakes,
I think it was Morse (the inventor of the Morse code) who defended slavery,
with quotes from the bible..
More often than not, the truth as two different people see it,
might lie exactly in the middle....
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #172 on: 02/07/2013 20:46:45 »
"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
"

That's like saying a coal fire cools the house, because you can see some heat is lost up the chimney.
Not all the heat absorbed is re-radiated.



"I am also one of those who stick to the truth (Truth)
as I see it
no matter what"
For example, no matter what the evidence shows, you will distort it (as above) to support the "Truth" as you see it.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2013 20:50:09 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #173 on: 03/07/2013 06:36:54 »
bc says
For example, no matter what the evidence shows, you will distort it.....
henry says
clearly you still don't understand how the GH effect works. I am not going to explain it again to you.
Suffice to say it has nothing to do with blankets.
In this case, where you say I distort the truth, we see from the evidence that light specific to the absorptive spectrum of the CO2 in the 0-5 um traveled to the moon and back to earth. That is radiation lost to space and is called cooling, as also the numerous  papers I googled for you will tell.
1)If there is more CO2 there will also will also be more cooling.
2)My data predicts further cooling in the future, and no warming.

I never said that 2) could be a result of 1) because I can see the warming and cooling of the past follows natural curves.
But that is what you are doing with the natural warming of earth (of the past). Blaming it on the poor CO2.
in the absorptive region, a gas can only re-radiate; there is little mass to "absorb" heat.
Those are the truths as I see it.
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #174 on: 03/07/2013 16:31:37 »
<mod edit>
Editorialising, non-peer reviewed links removed (yet again!)
The NASA story is  about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
<//end>
henry@moderator
believe it or not, that was in fact the paper I googled for...thanks!
It was just that there was so many "non-peer" reviewed stuff popping up....
I am sorry...

henry@bc & jp

now , to quote from the above paper,  "peer reviewed" & all

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy.  Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

 
Why, wow,

did you see that 95% of that 26 billion kWh went back into space? (cooling!!)

now, if you both continue to "believe" in man made global warming,
\

why don't you show me how the testing was done to prove that the net effect of an increase from  0.03% CO2 (300 ppm) to 0.04% (400 ppm) is that of warming, rather than cooling?

hint:Forget about the closed box experiments of those that died a hundred years or so ago. It only shows the warming part.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2013 16:36:48 by MoreCarbonOK »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #174 on: 03/07/2013 16:31:37 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums