Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Petrochemicals on 24/07/2022 23:56:59
-
Now we are all aware that the earth is getting warmer, recently there has been a huge spike in temperature. There is a massive drought in the western USA that is considered to be exceptional, according to Lake sediment studies happening only every 1000ish years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/15/us-west-megadrought-worst-1200-years-study
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
As you can see over the last 1000 years the temperature has fluctuated, but there is a massive spike starting in about 1990 which coinsides with the megadrought in california. Has this sort of spike in heat conditions happened before similarly to the drought, could the recent warming be an anomoly.
-
Hi.
Is global-warming man-made?
Yes, if you want a simple answer.
Usually, I'd like to talk for a while about the evidence and the possibilities that it might be something else. However, that will only confuse and detract from the main message. So let's just go with clear "yes, it is man-made".
Best Wishes.
-
Yes.
-
Don't we already have a thread (and maybe more than one) basically asking this same question? Either way, the experts who study the climate overwhelmingly agree that it's man-made.
-
Hi.
Is global-warming man-made?
Yes, if you want a simple answer.
Usually, I'd like to talk for a while about the evidence and the possibilities that it might be something else. However, that will only confuse and detract from the main message. So let's just go with clear "yes, it is man-made".
Best Wishes.
Thank you mien fuhrer for the reasoned point and the freedom of ideas. Your bearing is an example to us all.
Don't we already have a thread (and maybe more than one) basically asking this same question? Either way, the experts who study the climate overwhelmingly agree that it's man-made.
I think I missed the mega drought threads, sorry, maybe we can merge them.
Yes.
That was what I wanted, a good clear position on this temperature spike being just a blip.
-
Hi.
Is global-warming man-made?
Yes, if you want a simple answer.
Usually, I'd like to talk for a while about the evidence and the possibilities that it might be something else. However, that will only confuse and detract from the main message. So let's just go with clear "yes, it is man-made".
Best Wishes.
Thank you mien fuhrer for the reasoned point and the freedom of ideas. Your bearing is an example to us all.
Don't we already have a thread (and maybe more than one) basically asking this same question? Either way, the experts who study the climate overwhelmingly agree that it's man-made.
I think I missed the mega drought threads, sorry, maybe we can merge them.
Yes.
That was what I wanted, a good clear position on this temperature spike being just a blib.
The answer is still yes.
-
I never understand if yes or no.
First time (around 30 years ago) i heard about the possibility human could have change climate (instead of volcanoes or sun) some climatologist explained that within the solar system, the temperature of every planet changed (this was NASA facts)
Obvious explaination was : The sun changed the temperature.
Now we have around 40000 wise peoples (named climatologists) explaining that only man change "the mean" temperature of the earth (temperature is not extensive but who cares).
The one who dont agree with that can not be a climatologist.
Therefore we are sure of that, human changed the climat because of CO2 or other gazes like methane (and this is why humanity is safe...all is under control).
-
Now we have around 40000 wise peoples (named climatologists) explaining that only man change "the mean" temperature of the earth (temperature is not extensive but who cares).
I highly doubt ANY climatologist would claim such an outrageous thing.
-
Obvious explaination was : The sun changed the temperature.
For every simple question there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and wrong.
We have independently been monitoring the Sun.
It has stayed the same, but the Earth has got hotter.
-
First time (around 30 years ago) i heard about the possibility human could have change climate (instead of volcanoes or sun) some climatologist explained that within the solar system, the temperature of every planet changed (this was NASA facts)
Obvious explaination was : The sun changed the temperature.
Do you have a source for this?
-
Since the sun is the major source of heat for at least the inner planets, its output must be the primary determinant of their temperatures. But none of the planets (except possibly Mercury) is a homogeneous lump of rock with a constant attitude to the sun: they have internal structures and turbulent gaseous atmospheres, and the surface of the most important planet is mostly covered with water or ice.
So a lot depends on what you mean by the temperature of Earth. Most people are interested in the mean temperature of the gaseous bit at sea level, and the geological record shows that it has regulary cycled over a range of 12 degrees at least 4 times in the last half-million years. We have no reason to believe the sun's output was quite that variable or predictably cyclic,and only human vanity and myopia would assert without a proper experimental test that the addition of homo sapiens to the surface has had a significant effect on a trend that clearly began 15,000 years ago and looks like all the previous ones.
So the physical evidence would not support the assertion under rigorous cross examination in a court, and the prosecution would likely say "what experiments have you done to test your hypothesis?" to which the answer is clearly "none". However good the intentions of various expensive conferences, "We just kept shovelling more coal on the fire, m'lud."
Scottish law allows the jury to return "not proven", and I think that should be the stance of anyone with scientific pretensions,
-
man only changed "the mean" temperature of the earth
With the Earth's current spin, we can expect a certain day/night temperature excursion; with its current axial tilt and orbital eccentricity we can expect a certain seasonal temperature variation around the mean.
So if you increase the mean temperature, you also increase the peak temperatures, so you break record high temperatures more often (and record low temperatures less often). With higher mean temperatures comes hotter summers, dryer forests, and more severe wildfires (under the right conditions).
Some effects are rather non-linear; for example, the chance of hurricanes increases significantly when the sea surface temperature exceeds 26C. So if you increase the mean temperature, you can expect far more hurricanes. But even without hurricanes, higher sea temperatures means more evaporation, and (under the right conditions), heavier rainfall and more flooding.
With habitat fragmentation, species can't migrate poleward, and we can expect to see accelerating species extinctions.
the sun is the major source of heat for at least the inner planets, its output must be the primary determinant of their temperatures
Yes, but not in the way you mean.
- Over a timescale of billions of years, the Sun will get hotter, as it burns more of its fuel.
- But that's not the timescale here. We are looking at changes over a period of hundreds of years, since humans used the power of coal to mine more coal (and a similar effect with petroleum production), in a positive feedback cycle.
without a proper experimental test
We do have a proper test - it's called a Climate Attribution test.
- It uses supercomputers to model the Earth's atmosphere, with and without the CO2 humans have added since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
- What this shows is things like "Extreme climate event X will occur Y% more often due to human-added greenhouse gases."
- So this is evidence that humans have increased both the mean and extreme temperatures (and their impact on society)
Some people may claim that this is just statistics - but saying that "smoking increases your chance of lung cancer" is just statistical - but that doesn't invalidate smoking as a major cause of lung cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
-
I never understand if yes or no.
First time (around 30 years ago) i heard about the possibility human could have change climate (instead of volcanoes or sun) some climatologist explained .
Since the sun is the major source of heat for at least the inner planets, its output must be the primary determinant of their temperatures. But none of the planets (except possibly Mercury) is a homogeneous lump of rock with a constant attitude to the sun: they have internal structures and turbulent gaseous atmospheres, and the surface of the most important planet is mostly covered with water or ice.
man only changed "the mean" temperature of the earth
With the Earth's current spin, we can expect a certain day/night temperature excursion; with its current axial tilt and orbital eccentricity we can expect a certain seasonal temperature variation around the mean.
So if you increase the mean temperature, you also increase the peak temperatures, so you break record high temperatures more often (and record low temperatures less often). With higher mean temperatures comes hotter summers, dryer forests, and more severe wildfires (under the right conditions).
Whilst these posts are very informative how do they relate to THE megadrought connection of the opening post?
-
If the average temperature of a chaotic system like the Earth's atmosphere increases, you can expect the distribution of stuff in it to alter. Whilst the temperature is increasing, you'd expect there to be more water going up than coming down, and whilst there will be more water in the sky, less of it will fall and possibly not in the places or at the times it used to.
75% of the planet's surface is ocean, and California is a very tiny bit of the remaining 25%. It used to be very attractive to human settlement but atmospheric physics is indifferent to the aspirations of one species.
-
So the physical evidence would not support the assertion under rigorous cross examination in a court, and the prosecution would likely say "what experiments have you done to test your hypothesis?" to which the answer is clearly "none". However good the intentions of various expensive conferences, "We just kept shovelling more coal on the fire, m'lud."
Someone might pose a question on this forum along the lines of "what would happen to the members of the forum if they each ate an ounce of arsenic oxide?"
Most of us would be prepared to use past data, models and analogies.
Alan would insist on an experiment.
-
Whilst these posts are very informative how do they relate to THE megadrought connection of the opening post?
The title of the thread is "Is global warming man-made?" I think most people were answering that question, That is what I was answering.
On the "mega" drought,As you can see over the last 1000 years the temperature has fluctuated, but there is a massive spike starting in about 1990 which coinsides with the megadrought in california. Has this sort of spike in heat conditions happened before similarly to the drought,
Not recently, according to the graph you provided. Do high temperatures make droughts worse? The answer is yes.
could the recent warming be an anomoly.
Yes, it is seems to be a rather large anomaly caused by green house gases put into the atmosphere by human activity
-
Whilst these posts are very informative how do they relate to THE megadrought connection of the opening post?
The title of the thread is "Is global warming man-made?" I think most people were answering that question, That is what I was answering.
it is sometimes difficult to fit all you wish to say in the title, forum etiquette usually transpires to the opening post or the OP as it is known. On the "mega" drought,
please read the OPAs you can see over the last 1000 years the temperature has fluctuated, but there is a massive spike starting in about 1990 which coinsides with the megadrought in california. Has this sort of spike in heat conditions happened before similarly to the drought,
Not recently, according to the graph you provided. Do high temperatures make droughts worse? The answer is yes.
I would disagreecould the recent warming be an anomoly.
Yes, it is seems to be a rather large anomaly caused by green house gases put into the atmosphere by human activity
good, temperatures will normalise themselves then.
-
If the average temperature of a chaotic system like the Earth's atmosphere increases, you can expect the distribution of stuff in it to alter. Whilst the temperature is increasing, you'd expect there to be more water going up than coming down, and whilst there will be more water in the sky, less of it will fall and possibly not in the places or at the times it used to.
75% of the planet's surface is ocean, and California is a very tiny bit of the remaining 25%. It used to be very attractive to human settlement but atmospheric physics is indifferent to the aspirations of one species.
Mega drought not first.
-
Alan would insist on an experiment.
Only if it hadn't been done before.
So far, we have a one-way correlation between a temperature trend that looks like several previous ones and began at least 15,000 years ago, and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the last 150 years. A gap of 14,850 years between the onset of effect and the presence of supposed cause would worry anyone working in a different field of science and suggest that maybe we need to investigate a little deeper before asserting causality. Particularly as all the previous evidence shows that the huge variations of non-anthropogenic CO2 followed, rather than led, the temperature fluctuations.
The obvious experiment to test the hypothesis is to reduce anthropogenic CO2 and see what happens.
That hasn't been done before, and sadly won't be done in our lifetimes.
-
I would disagree
You disagree that high temperatures make a drought worse? Higher temperatures increase moisture loss from the soil which makes a drought worse, in that more plants will die from the drought.
good, temperatures will normalise themselves then
What do you think that means? Normalize to what and why?
-
Only if it hadn't been done before.
When did you do it?
-
The literate among us will have read the rest of my reply in which I explained what needed to be done to test the hypothesis,and implied (OK, it was a subtle implication, but one that most scientists could spot) that the test obviously has not been done.Then I stated that it probably won't be done in the lifetime of anyone reading this.
-
temperatures will normalise themselves then
There is no normal. Never has been.
In almost every populated country (i.e everywhere but Antarctica) there was a period in recent history when the climate suited human occupation at a sustainable density. Right now it seems that the most-populous regions are moving into a period where that is not the case, and are doing nothing about it except demanding that everyone else should solve the problem by making a sacrifice that may turn out to be futile anyway.
-
If we assume humanity change climate due to C02 emmission.
Lets try some calculation.
Presence of CO2
CO2 ppm in atmosphere (measured at 4000m) :
1960 : 318 ppm
2020 : 410 ppm
Difference : 410-318 = 92 ppm
1 ppm is equivalent to 7.81 BT (Billion Tons) of CO2
92 ppm is equivalent of around 720 BT of CO2.
Emmission of CO2
1960 : 9.39 BT
1970 : 14.9 BT
1980 : 19.49 BT
1990 : 22.75 BT
2000 : 25.23 BT
2010 : 33.34 BT
2020 : 34.81 BT
Total : 159.91 BT
Multiply by 10 (because the amount above are the one the year showed every 10 years)
Total (around) : 1600 BT emmited from 1960 to 2020
How do this emmission land on atmosphere ?
Only 43 % of the emmission finish in atmosphere (the rest land elsewhere)
So 1600 BT *43% = 688 BT of CO2
Result
It is amazing to observe that we have almost perfect match between the global CO2 emission and the atmospheric CO2 raise (688 against 720)
Critisism
When the data match so well is it too good to be true ?
Lets try to verify roughly the CO2 emission data.
Coal : 6 BT used every year worldwide.
Oil : 4 BT used every year woldwide.
Total 10 BT used every year.
Question
How can we have 35 BT emission in 2020 when we use 10 BT Coal and Oil ?
Is mankind responsible of only 30 or 50% of the CO2 increase in atmosphere ?
-
Slight problem with your calculations. Coal is virtually pure carbon so each gram of coal burned produces 3.6 gram of CO2. Slightly less for oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen.
However there are some very significant anomalies.If you look at the data from Mauna Loa, for instance, you can see that the CO2 level rises in late spring and early summer, every year. But this is the time when human consumption of fuels is decreasing. My suggestion is that it is due to cold-blooded animals, particularly insects, waking up and turning plant material into carbon dioxide (i.e. living).
You also need to consider that the human population has increased since 1960, and humans exhale 10% of all the CO2 they produce. And the farm animal population has also increased enormously, which currently contributes 25% of anthropogenic CO2.
Full marks for trying, but I think you need to review your data. And where did you get that 43% figure?
-
I would disagree
You disagree that high temperatures make a drought worse? Higher temperatures increase moisture loss from the soil which makes a drought worse, in that more plants will die from the drought.
good, temperatures will normalise themselves then
What do you think that means? Normalize to what and why?
That temperatures have fluctuated.
Normalise - to return to the normal or usual situation
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/normalize
Because you said it was an anomoly.
-
temperatures will normalise themselves then
There is no normal. Never has been.
In almost every populated country (i.e everywhere but Antarctica) there was a period in recent history when the climate suited human occupation at a sustainable density. Right now it seems that the most-populous regions are moving into a period where that is not the case, and are doing nothing about it except demanding that everyone else should solve the problem by making a sacrifice that may turn out to be futile anyway.
Well Alan, the op had this image.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
As you can see there is a spike in temperatures above the past 1000 year fluctuations. I think it could be entirely possible that such spikes have happened before yet the evidence currently supplied does not support this. Although the grey area at the rear of the like is possibly the margin of error.
-
Slight problem with your calculations. Coal is virtually pure carbon so each gram of coal burned produces 3.6 gram of CO2. Slightly less for oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen.
However there are some very significant anomalies.If you look at the data from Mauna Loa, for instance, you can see that the CO2 level rises in late spring and early summer, every year. But this is the time when human consumption of fuels is decreasing. My suggestion is that it is due to cold-blooded animals, particularly insects, waking up and turning plant material into carbon dioxide (i.e. living).
You also need to consider that the human population has increased since 1960, and humans exhale 10% of all the CO2 they produce. And the farm animal population has also increased enormously, which currently contributes 25% of anthropogenic CO2.
Full marks for trying, but I think you need to review your data. And where did you get that 43% figure?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
-
Only 43 % of the emmission finish in atmosphere (the rest land elsewhere)
Much of the rests lands on the 70% of not-land = 70% ocean & seas.
- It is making the oceans more acidic, which means that marine animals have to expend more energy maintaining bones and shells
A small amount actually lands on the 30% of land, and is slowly absorbed by rocks (eg basalt, like much of Mauna Loa).
- A larger amount is actively absorbed by trees on land, plants in peat bogs and algae in the oceans. How long it stays out of atmospheric circulation depends on whether the forest burns, the peat bog dries out, and whether the algae sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
- It is thought that the average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about a century.
Is global warming man-made?
I would say that women played a large part in it, too...
-
That temperatures have fluctuated.
Normalise - to return to the normal or usual situation
So your belief is that the current temperature rise will reverse and the earth will cool back down with no change in man's activity concerning greenhouse gasses. Is that a correct description of your position?
Because you said it was an anomoly.
Yes, it is an anomaly caused by human activity. This temperature anomaly will continue to increase as long as our current activity of pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere continues. If we were to suddenly stop dumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere the global temperatures would begin to decrease after some time.
-
So your belief is that the current temperature rise will reverse and the earth will cool back down with no change in man's activity concerning greenhouse gasses.
It's a reasonable assumption based on previous history. Isn't that how science works?
Yes, it is an anomaly caused by human activity.
It may be, but the only actual evidence is that there is a recent unidirectional correlation. Proof of causation requires a bit more rigor.
-
Is global warming man-made?
I would say that women played a large part in it, too...
That statement is dangerously ambiguous Evan.
-
That temperatures have fluctuated.
Normalise - to return to the normal or usual situation
So your belief is that the current temperature rise will reverse and the earth will cool back down with no change in man's activity concerning greenhouse gasses. Is that a correct description of your position?
Oh gosh no. It is my belief that when man stops using fossil fuels we will cause a catastrophic cooling event and the water cycle will freeze us, the earth is running on the midnight oil we will have no wiggle room. I predict famine war and pestilence as the earth freezes, the future will look like zombies with snow on. Let's face it global warming just means siberia and Canada will develop a pleasant climate.
But it is an interesting point that the margin of error in Earth's temperature is greater than the "increace" we are told about, the fact that a "megadrought" branded as global warming has happened before to a greater extent, that shock temperature increaces across the earth are off the back of a mini ice age. Are historical scientific measurements of Earth's conditions precise enough to measure a short 30 year spike in temperatures?
Essentially origin I am playing devil's advocate with the evidence of sediment cores from lake beds in North America. Can you prove that this sort of heat increace has not happened before in the last 10,000 years beyond 99% assurity, because these lake core sediments do cast doubt onto the 100 percent claim that global warming is a recent modern phenomenon. Because you said it was an anomoly.
Yes, it is an anomaly caused by human activity. This temperature anomaly will continue to increase as long as our current activity of pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere continues. If we were to suddenly stop dumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere the global temperatures would begin to decrease after some time.
Oh.
-
Slight problem with your calculations. Coal is virtually pure carbon so each gram of coal burned produces 3.6 gram of CO2. Slightly less for oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen.
Yes you are right.
I forgot to multiply according to stoichiometry...
If i try to give the right answer the problem is not obvious, because of the different quality of coal.
So (without warranty) i will use some rough estimation depending on the use of thise coals: I multiply coal by 2.7.
For oil, i suppose less, so 2.5.
Doing so we have 6*2.7 + 4*2.5 = 16.2 + 10 = 16.2
Let say 20 BT
So same result : Some global emission is missing.
However there are some very significant anomalies.If you look at the data from Mauna Loa, for instance, you can see that the CO2 level rises in late spring and early summer, every year. But this is the time when human consumption of fuels is decreasing. My suggestion is that it is due to cold-blooded animals, particularly insects, waking up and turning plant material into carbon dioxide (i.e. living).
Yes, there is also localy short variation of CO2 ppm but in my opinion this consideration only provide confusion.
When we try to understand the CO2 flow within one year it is very complicated.
CO2 need time to homogenize (if ever..) in the atmosphere, at the scale of the planet,
I found a nice video (NASA modeling using computers) showing this :
You also need to consider that the human population has increased since 1960, and humans exhale 10% of all the CO2 they produce. And the farm animal population has also increased enormously, which currently contributes 25% of anthropogenic CO2.
Yes but i dont think you have to take this in account.
Because here "we" (also the cow) are part of a cycle (so net result is around 0).
It is not like the fossil fuel (coal and oil) that was inside earth and now in the atmosphere (there is a cycle for this CO2 too of course but surely million of years long, so at our time scale we can speak of a linear emission)..
Full marks for trying, but I think you need to review your data. And where did you get that 43% figure?
I found this on some blog where someone was doing some calculation like i did.
You can take 50% perhaps, i dont think we can give a % very accurate because of the intermediate time flow of CO2 (like in the ocean).
Here it is (it is in french) : https://gblanc.fr/spip.php?article731
Now perhaps there are other CO2 sources, that is not directly due to mankind.
Per example, deforestation and fires (due to mankind but not directly) is taken in account for 8% of CO2 emission (regeneration is long and actually for some equatorial forests very long (they never regenerate actually))..
Volcanoes part is around 0.3 BT
Etc.
-
Oh gosh no. It is my belief that when man stops using fossil fuels we will cause a catastrophic cooling event and the water cycle will freeze us, the earth is running on the midnight oil we will have no wiggle room. I predict famine war and pestilence as the earth freezes, the future will look like zombies with snow on.
that seems a bit far fetched.
Let's face it global warming just means siberia and Canada will develop a pleasant climate.
I live pretty far north so yeah it is kind of nice to have warmer weather. It is rather unfair for the billions that will have their homes under water though, if nothing is done.
-
It's a reasonable assumption based on previous history. Isn't that how science works?
There is no previous history of man made global warming. It is also true that global temperatures vary over the course of geologic history. They will vary in the future. That is not what is being discussed here.
There has been a very rapid increase in global temperatures, experts in the field of climatology have looked at the data and have put forth a very convincing hypothesis for this unusually rapid rise in global warming. This hypothesis indicates that if there is no change in the amount of greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere then the temperature will continue to rise.
That is how science works.
-
The present temperature is almost exactly what you would expect it to be if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence. There has also been a rapid increase in human population and activity, but it is still a one-way correlation.
The most important greenhouse gas is water. As the temperature rises, so does the water content, so the rise accelerates. There is no other explanation for previous peaks. Problem is that it is out of our control.
-
First time (around 30 years ago) i heard about the possibility human could have change climate (instead of volcanoes or sun) some climatologist explained that within the solar system, the temperature of every planet changed (this was NASA facts)
Obvious explaination was : The sun changed the temperature.
Do you have a source for this?
-
The present temperature is almost exactly what you would expect it to be if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence. There has also been a rapid increase in human population and activity, but it is still a one-way correlation.
The most important greenhouse gas is water. As the temperature rises, so does the water content, so the rise accelerates. There is no other explanation for previous peaks. Problem is that it is out of our control.
Well, I agree with the experts.[shrug]
-
First time (around 30 years ago) i heard about the possibility human could have change climate (instead of volcanoes or sun) some climatologist explained that within the solar system, the temperature of every planet changed (this was NASA facts)
Obvious explaination was : The sun changed the temperature.
Do you have a source for this?
Sorry but the source has since disappeared.
-
,,, if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence.
Those ice cores record CO2 concentrations and here's what they say.
"The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "
From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
So, in fact, it is unprecedented.
It doesn't help things when you say "it's happened before" when it hasn't.
-
The most important greenhouse gas is water.
Yes.
But it can not be responsible for a change in the greenhouse effect because the water concentration is pretty much fixed.
If you try to put more water vapour into the air, you just get rain.
So, yes, water is part of the reason why the Erath's surface is relatively warm.
But it can not be an explanation for a change
-
Sorry but the source has since disappeared.
If there was only one source for that, then it sounds more like the opinion of an individual rather than "NASA facts".
-
.
Let's face it global warming just means siberia and Canada will develop a pleasant climate.
I live pretty far north so yeah it is kind of nice to have warmer weather. It is rather unfair for the billions that will have their homes under water though, if nothing is done.
Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.
-
The present temperature is almost exactly what you would expect it to be if you had no other information than the Vostok ice cores. Yes, there has been a rapid increase in recent history but nothing unprecedented in the geological record or out of the geological time sequence. There has also been a rapid increase in human population and activity, but it is still a one-way correlation.
What is the margin for error in the ice cores? It is very simple to give ice core data without accounting for any alterations over time whilst they where compressed. On the one hand vostok ice cores support the CO2 hypothesis, yet sediment cores and tree rings do seem to alude to periods of drought in very recent history, you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).
-
Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.
Seriously?? Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?
-
you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).
That is quite simply false. Droughts are due to low rainfall.
-
Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.
Seriously?? Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?
It is the strategy that every plant and animal has used since time began. Unfortunately humans nowadays are too stupid and too numerous to do it.
-
Sea level rise due to heating will be outpaced by the rate of house construction. Houses are built with a 60 year time frame in mind.
Seriously?? Your answer to global warming is don't sweat it, just move inland?
The landmass es to the north are huge and sparsely populated, the only thing that keeps them sparsely populated is the weather. California isn't popular because of its witty banter.
Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.
-
you cannot have drought in these places without an increace in temperature (very simple physics).
That is quite simply false. Droughts are due to low rainfall.
Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher, dry air is easier to heat. That is simple physics. Moisture in the soil cools the air, the latent heat is the device. Rain always cools things down, evaporative cooling has been used for millennium. Over a space like california, the irrigation of dry land and desert is enough to seriously alter weather patterns.
-
The water question is extremely complicated and is actually not very well known.
Water can have various implications.
Per example the hight and the form of the cloud can warm or cool the soil depending of its transformation (rain or not etc).
When clouds are high and there is space between clouds, they can produce rain , the rain will produce clouds because the sun can shine on the humid soil (due to the rain just before) IF there is space between clouds.
BUT IF there is no space between the clouds, there will be no evaporation, so no lowering of temperature (evaporation produce cooling)).
So same quantity of clouds do not produce the same result. It depend on the form or the clouds (and this is very complicated to take in account).
But there is at least on thing we know.
When temperature if higher, then there is more evaporation of the sea (around 70% of earth).
There is also more water in the air (air can sustain more water if it is warm).
Therefore, warmer temperature imply more water in the air and the possibility to produce more rain (i say "the possibility"... some areas will be droought while some other will be flooded depending on the possibility to do condensation).
-
It is the strategy that every plant and animal has used since time began. Unfortunately humans nowadays are too stupid and too numerous to do it.
I would say that humans could also do the migration (like every animal), but unfortunatly they can not because of their sociological system : The majority of the soil is already own by someone.
You can not just migrate somewhere where you are not "the owner" (second problem we can not move with our home like the hermit crab, you have to buy a new one).
-
Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.
Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages. It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing. Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?
-
Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher
No, this is not that difficult. Lack of moisture means lack of moisture. High temperature makes droughts worse, but high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.
-
Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages. It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing. Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?
Because the effect, if it is real, is added to the ongoing current increase in global temperature that began 15,000 years ago. It is by no means established that what we have seen in the last 100 years is outside the noise amplitude of a natural process. There is indeed a correlation with anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but in serious science correlation does not equate to causation.
-
Saying we have absolute correlation between CO2 ppm and mean temperature is the worst scientifical proof since ... cave man.
CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.
But it is so simple for the everybody man to understand the (false) correlation.
-
CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.
Who ever said that it was?
-
Furthermore there is not a thing man can do about the ice age cycles anyhoo so catagoricaly sometime in the future makind will have to migrate, catagoricaly.
Man-made global warming is not about the fluctuations in climate associated with the ice ages. It is about the short term human induced climate effects that we are currently seeing. Why is this distinction so difficult for you to understand?
Mankind will be forced to relocate between ice ages, global warming is not at the speed of a tsunami or even costal erosion, it is very slow in mankind's time frame. Relocation is relocation, it is not difficult to understand. As you know I believe fossil fuels will end with a cold contraction that will happen almost immediately, unlike ice ages that happen slowly. We have 50 years worth of fossil fuels left, once expended there is no going back.
-
Lack of moisture means temperatures are higher
No, this is not that difficult. Lack of moisture means lack of moisture. High temperature makes droughts worse, but high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.
Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.
-
Saying we have absolute correlation between CO2 ppm and mean temperature is the worst scientifical proof since ... cave man.
I don't know of anyone saying that. I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.
So what.
But it is so simple for the everybody man to understand the (false) correlation.
Do you have evidence that there is no correlation?
-
Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.
Do you think that has something to do with this discussion?
-
CO2 ppm is not linear to greenhouse effect.
Who ever said that it was?
GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.
Here the calculation (every cave man can understand this sophisticated formula) :
ΔC=ΔT×20=ΔS
where ∆C is the +/− change in CO2 in ppm, with a corresponding ∆T in degrees Celsius, and ∆S being sea level in meters. This becomes very analytical with the (before 1950) historically stable, assumed “zero values” of So = 0 m, Co of 290 ppm, and To = 15˚C from Hansen’s Figure 10, we find that putting those ∆ values
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=107789
It is very usefull when you need to show to everyone in some graph (without strange scale) that CO2 follow temperature (i know you have already seen many of them).
-
Please evail yourself with evaporative cooling.
Do you think that has something to do with this discussion?
You seem to be avoiding the point.
I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.
You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.
I am unsure what you are trying to say but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable. There is even disagreement on how to phrase it.
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/rain-will-cool-the-temperature-down.1862414/
-
GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.
Here the calculation (every cave man can understand this sophisticated formula) :
You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.
-
It is by no means established that what we have seen in the last 100 years is outside the noise amplitude of a natural process.
Please evince that.
What part of the historical record shows a roughly 1/3 increasing in CO2 over a few decades?
-
My thesis is that the increase in CO2 is, historically, an effect, not a cause. The evidence is that the CO2 curve historically has followed rather than led the temperature curve, and there has been no evidence of a geological rather than biological mechanism that could account for the recorded increases of 100 ppm in 1000 years, nor the sharp spikes and dips in that process.
The obvious extrapolation from the evidence is that
(1) changes in CO2 level above about 200 ppm were not responsible for temperature change and
(2) upward changes in global temperature invoke a powerful positive feedback mechanism and
(3) the cycle is in some way self-limiting with a temperature range of about 12 degrees
That said, it would be worthwhile investigating (1) by rapidly and substantially reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, as I have been proposing for the last 17 years. That is science. Stating, in the face of the evidence, that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature, is not science.
Moving on from science to engineering, i.e. how do we do it, what happens if we don't, and what happens if my hypothesis is correct, it is clear that an increasing human population with increasing aspirations to eat meat and enjoy the benefits of environmental temperature control, personal transport,sewage, medicine, etc. means that we will need to make substantial changes to social norms and aspirations, and/or be prepared to tolerate mass human starvation or migration.
Sadly, I see little enthusiasm for the experiment, and a growing acceptance of the inevitability of disaster. Which rather suggests that the majority agree with my hypothesis and our descendants are doomed.
-
You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.
I dont understand what you say.
ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.
But it is not very important.
-
You seem to have mistaken a coefficient for linearity.
I dont understand what you say.
ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.
But it is not very important.
Here's a curve
[ Invalid Attachment ]
It always has a gradient; you can calculate the rate of change of y with a change in x for any value of x.
But it isn't linear.
-
My thesis is that the increase in CO2 is, historically, an effect, not a cause
I agree that this hypothesis could be actualy PARTIALY accepted.
Surely the CO2 humankind is releasing in the atmosphere has some effect, but the % of this cause is unsure relativ to other causes we also well know (per example the sun activity or sun irradiance due to some trajectory variation).
The recent measurement of ppm CO2 tend to say that humankind is whole responsible, according to GIEC experts.
Now, what do they really measure ?
If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.
Also, some other measurement of the "mean" global temperature states that it is increasing at a steady rate too (due to some "cause").
Could there be some link between temperature and CO2 quantity within some volume of air ?
Yes of course:
If temperature increase, more water is in the air.
And when they do some measurement at Mauna Loa observatory.... they take this into account (should they ??!!)
Believe or not, but the measurment protocol (due to his inventor Mr Kelling) states that we have to standardize the raw measurement of the air (the reality) to reflect the "normal" state of the earth (because every observatory will give you an other result due to many cause).
So what they do ?
Try not to laught....They dry the air before measuring it !!!
So if there is more water in the air (real air reflecting real state), they dry it and the water is replaced by ... CO2 of course (that is my opinion, but you can verify it by yourself)
So yes, if temperature increase, the measure will give you an increase of CO2 even if there is no increase of CO2 in the real world.
I dont understand what they also do with the temperature and pressure so as to standardise it, or not (as if CO2 at sea level would be representative of the earth, not to say of of temperature normalizing, so i hope they dont...)
You have the protocol here if you want to verify yourself :
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
-
It always has a gradient; you can calculate the rate of change of y with a change in x for any value of x.
But it isn't linear.
Of course it is not linear, because the slope is not CONSTANT
I still dont understand why you dont accept that some "ax + by +c = 0" formula is linear.
-
I still dont understand why you dont accept
Obviously, I do accept that.
But what is obviously wrong is that the change in temperature will be a linear function of CO2 concentration.
I think the biggest source of non-linearity is the "saturation" of absorption.
If you have enough CO2 to absorb practically all the radiation at some wavelength then doubling CO2 will not double the amount of radiation absorbed at that wavelength.
The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range, but that is not the same as saying it is actually linear.
-
You seem to be avoiding the point.
I am not.
I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.
Yes, evaporative cooling is a real thing.
You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.
That is absolutely 100% true.
I am unsure what you are trying to say
Please refer to the answer directly above.
but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable.
I am not avoiding this obvious fact.
I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.
-
I still dont understand why you dont accept
Obviously, I do accept that.
But what is obviously wrong is that the change in temperature will be a linear function of CO2 concentration.
I think the biggest source of non-linearity is the "saturation" of absorption.
If you have enough CO2 to absorb practically all the radiation at some wavelength then doubling CO2 will not double the amount of radiation absorbed at that wavelength.
The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range, but that is not the same as saying it is actually linear.
This is exactly what i say.
I even heard that when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.
But why do the graphics published by the experts dont take this in account ?
-
But why do the graphics published by the experts dont take this in account ?
The change will be approximately linear over a sufficiently small range
If you think that "when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz." then you don't think the effect is linear.
Why were you saying it was?
-
You seem to be avoiding the point.
I am not.
I said less water will mean temperatures are higher. This is because of evaporation cooling . I also said this can be seen as an example when it rains the environment cools down.
Yes, evaporative cooling is a real thing.
You said this is not that difficult. high temperatures are not a requirement for a drought.
That is absolutely 100% true.
I am unsure what you are trying to say
Please refer to the answer directly above.
but you seem to be avoiding the fact that evaporation cools the environment. Rain cools things down, undeniable.
I am not avoiding this obvious fact.
I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.
Would someone tell petrochem that the Antarctic is largely a desert.
-
I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.
I agree.
What matters is the possibility to condensate.
So the possibility depend on the flow of air around the earth and how it collapse with cooler places.
At some places, like at the tropics, it is sufficient to have some temerature decrease due to the arrival of night (helped (condensation need "help", scientifically speaking we talk about "nucleus"...or it will never occur) by the fragments of insects and the pollens of plants).
-
Would someone tell petrochem that the Antarctic is largely a desert.
I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It is a desert because of the lack of soil, and because the temperature (decreased by the wind) dont allow primitiv life living outside the sea (so no plants etc)
-
If you think that "when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz." then you don't think the effect is linear.
Why were you saying it was?
I do noy say it is.
I pointed that the "wise men" form the GIEC consortium are saying it is (or many graphs they have published would be senseless). Do you think the link i gave you was of my own ??
What is the difference between a wise man and a scientist ?
A scientist is seeking the truth never knowing if he reached the final answer..
On the opposite, the wise man already know the truth (or at least he believe that it is the truth...).
-
I even heard that when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.
The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.
That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
-
I do noy say it is.
And here is where you said it is linear.
ΔC=ΔT×20 mean ΔC/ΔT=20 so the slope is 20 (constant) and ΔC is linked linearly with ΔT (every time T increase by 1 unit (or decrease) then C increase (or decrease) linearly by 20 units.
And here is where you said that all the realists say it's true.
GIEC say that,.and every climato-realist.
are you saying you are not a climate realist?
-
If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.
Except that it doesn't. The seasonal variation is contrary to the rate of anthropogenic generation. This suggests that there is s a significant* non-human cause that produces more CO2 when the temperature rises.
*"significant" to the extent that the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
-
The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.
The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO2, about 10000 times the molecular density on earth, and it's so damn cold that the polar CO2 freezes!
-
The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.
That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
And there are some other differences but this is not the point.
I said some think that because of the nonelinearity of the greenhouse effect (i suppose it is true) they even think that at some ppm value there could be some antigreenhouse effect occuring belong this value.
This doesent mean that if ppm value increase at a more higher value the greenhouse effect would not start again.
You could have, while ppm increase, some increase (in effect), then stable horizontal "plateau", then some increase again.
If we want to know the reality, we should do some real simulation with real CO2 and real energy (no computer simulation).
This kind of experimentation (this is how we call a real simulation) is in my opinion the only way to really understand whats going on (of course you have to add some water in the experiment and a gradient due to gravity).
-
I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It is a desert because of the lack of soil, and because the temperature (decreased by the wind) dont allow primitiv life living outside the sea (so no plants etc)
"Most experts agree that a desert is an area of land that receives no more than 25 centimeters (10 inches) of precipitation a year. The amount of evaporation in a desert often greatly exceeds the annual rainfall."
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/desert
-
If you take a look at Mauna Loa's observatory results since 1950, you need to agree that CO2 ppm in atmosphere increase at a steady rate.
Except that it doesn't. The seasonal variation is contrary to the rate of anthropogenic generation. This suggests that there is s a significant* non-human cause that produces more CO2 when the temperature rises.
*"significant" to the extent that the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
Of course the varation is not steady if you dont do the mean.
But i agree that these oscilations are somewhat strange.
I would expect more randomness for datas we have acquired during 60 years.
It is like if the oscilation at year 1960 would be the same as the oscilation at year 2020 : This is strange.
You got the same oscilations at other laboratories but with lower oscilation range.
I have not all the datas but i could suppose the high of the oscilation is correlated with the high of the laboratory.
At sea level oscilation is low, and in the mountains (Mauna loa is at 3400m) oscilation is high.
Therefore i suggest that this fine tuned oscilation is merely correlated with some other fine tuned phenomenon.
If you analyse the oscilation you see that it is a sinusoid : 3 crossing with some horizontal line and 2 peaks (1 high and 1 low) => so we have 2 crossing around 0 (2 and not 3 because 3 count for 2) and 2 peaks.
The best phenomenon i could find is the orbital rotation of the earth around the Sun.
Due to the inclination of earth this can explain that the peaks are opposite.
So, not sure how to correlate this with "the reality" of the CO2 real ppm value.
Perhaps it is again some artefact due to the Keeling protocol i have told before.
But we can also do some hypothesis : Go the atmosphere higher into space when temperature increase due to direct sun exposition ? Surely.
Will this expansion of the air around the earth have some effect on the ppm value measured at some high ? Surely too
-
.
I will repeat this one more time and then drop it since you seem completely unable to comprehend this simple fact; high temperatures are not required for a drought, all that is required is abnormally low precipitation.
Again you are diverting from the point I made initially, lack of moisture means temperatures are higher. Rainfall cools things down. Water evaporating cools things down. Please read things more carefully rather than reading what you want it to say. I am unwilling to ceede my point to a statement about something else.
Edit.
The summer of 2018 was the UK's second-warmest - shared with 1995 - since 1884. The hottest was in 1976.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61825371.amp
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/rain-will-cool-the-temperature-down.1862414/
In the Southern US: The rain will cool things down or The rain will cool things off. I always say the second one.
Must be the zebras
-
lack of moisture means temperatures are higher.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't matter how often you draw attention to your mistake, it's still not really true.
-
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It is a desert because it meets the definition of a desert- there's very little precipitation.
-
I even heard that when CO2 ppm reach some high value it will have the opposite effect of an greenhouse gaz.
The atmosphere of Venus is 95% CO2, and the surface temperature is a whopping 467 °C, or 872 °F.
That doesn't sound like the opposite of a greenhouse effect to me (even allowing for the fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Mars too has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 yet has a temperature of around 200K. Admittedly its atmospheres mass is only 0.5% of Earth's but its surface area is 1/4 that of Earth's.
-
I will not.
It is not a desert because of the lack of water.
It has the lowest precipitation of any continent (Australia included). The official definition of a desert is an area with less than 250 mm water precipitation per annum. Whether anything lives there is an entirely different matter: life abounds on many cold deserts and quite a few hot ones, but not on the surface of a snow desert.
-
The best phenomenon i could find is the orbital rotation of the earth around the Sun.
Due to the inclination of earth this can explain that the peaks are opposite.
You are getting there, but ignoring the simplest explanation. The mass of coldblooded animals on the planet exceeds that of warmblooded. The current estimate for insects alone is around 14,000,000,000 tonnes. When the temperature rises, the coldblooded beasts start eating plants and converting them to carbon dioxide.
Now consider this effect over a long period - say a thousand years or so. As global temperatures rise, so does the mass of insects, and hence, with some lag, the dynamic equilibrium between plants converting atmospheric CO2 to sugars, and animals converting the plants back into CO2, changes and the CO2 concentration increases. Which is what we observe in the geological record.
-
Now imagine that the initial rise isn't due to some oddity of the Earth's orbit but mankind adding massive amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
How do the cold blooded animals know that they should ignore it?
-
mankind adding massive amounts of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
Like they did 15,000 years ago. Or 450,000.
You are quite right, of course. We have been here many times before, and our technology has caused massive changes in global temperature. If you dig a hole in London you will find Victorian remains.Keep digging and you will find Saxon, Roman, and even Neolithic artefacts at increasing depths. If you dig down further, to say 250,000 years ago, you will find trains, corresponding with a previous rapid upswing in temperature. The correlation is obvious.
-
Seriously, though,
How do the cold blooded animals know that they should ignore it?
A 2020 meta-analysis by van Klink and others, published in the journal Science, found that globally terrestrial insects appear to be declining in abundance at a rate of about 9% per decade, while the abundance of freshwater insects appears to be increasing by 11% per decade. The study analysed 166 long-term studies, involving 1676 different sites across the world. It found considerable variations in insect decline depending on locality – the authors considered this a hopeful sign, as it suggests local factors, including conservation efforts, can make a big difference. The article stated that the increase in freshwater insects may in part be due to efforts to clean up lakes and rivers, and may also relate to global warming and enhanced primary productivity driven by increased nutrient inputs.
It's pretty clear that, at least in the human-inhabited areas, insect populations are subject to more, and less predictable, influences than mere temperature. An almond-growing acquaintance in California has vastly increased the amount of food available for pollinators by planting all sorts of nut trees, but has to import farmed bees to do the work as the native and migrant populations have declined.
Thus we might expect a slight decrease in the amplitude of the Mauna Loa seasonal variation. However all such surveys are limited to those areas important to "industrialised" humans. I very much doubt that the insect population of Canada, the west of Scotland, central Sweden, and all the swamp and tundra that accounts for the 75% of the land mass that is not settled and farmed, has seen a significant decline.
-
Like they did 15,000 years ago. Or 450,000.
No.
Try reading.
Here's what I said.
imagine that the initial rise isn't due to some oddity of the Earth's orbit
We have been here many times before
You keep saying that.
It keeps not being true.
"The fastest natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 15ppm (parts per million) over about 200 years. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 is now rising 15ppm every 6 years. "
From
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
-
I think you might be among the first to claim that atmospheric temperature depends on p[CO2], not ∂p[CO2]/∂t, but I won't put words in your mouth.
-
Climate change is ∂T/∂t,
-
So if T responds linearly to p[CO2] why does the historic record show temperature decreasing whilst [CO2] is increasing?
-
if T responds linearly to p[CO2]
It doesn't.
-
Then there's no reason to suspect that dT/dt is caused by d[CO2]/dt in the short term.
-
the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change
Sure, and the daily variation in temperature exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
- And if you measure the temperature across the arrival of a cold front, the hourly variation in temperature exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
There are conceivable (but not yet understood) slight links between temperature and phase of the sunspot cycle.
- So, in my book, any temperature measurement averaged over a period of < 10 years is talking about weather, not climate.
-
I'd go along with that, but the periodicity of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurement is undeniably annual and very consistent in amplitude, with a peak every early summer for as long as the data has been collected.
Good science depends on explaining the facts, not ignoring those that question the hypothesis.
-
the amplitude of the seasonal variation exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change
Sure, and the daily variation in temperature exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
- And if you measure the temperature across the arrival of a cold front, the hourly variation in temperature exceeds the year-on-year cumulative change.
There are conceivable (but not yet understood) slight links between temperature and phase of the sunspot cycle.
- So, in my book, any temperature measurement averaged over a period of < 10 years is talking about weather, not climate.
Interesting observations, however, it is caused by humanity, isn't it?
-
No. Humans generate more CO2 in winter, not summer. That's what makes the Mauna Loa data so interesting: it suggests that CO2 is a thermometer, not a thermostat,
-
No. Humans generate more CO2 in winter, not summer. That's what makes the Mauna Loa data so interesting: it suggests that CO2 is a thermometer, not a thermostat,
We have been here before.
The M-L data probably looked fairly similar before mankind evolved, a cyclic seasonal variation in CO2.
The difference we have made is that it's now superimposed on a slope that's going up faster than ever before.
CO2 isn't a thermostat; nobody said it was.
-
a slope that's going up faster than ever before.
...than ever before Mauna Loa began to collect data, true.
If you remember vinyl records, you might recall that the microscopic scratches in an inch of one groove didn't look much like Beethoven's Sixth. At the time of recording, they may have been very important to the trombonist playing at that moment, but they don't tell you where Beethoven fits in the grand scheme of music.
-
I hope as we humans continue to learn about the impact of climate change on our planet, we will also figure out new ways to counter its effects..
-
Most of us would be prepared to use past data, models and analogies.
Alan would insist on an experiment.
Or an honest look at past data.
-
I feel to most extent, yes.
https://doaj.org/article/001a0722364944189808a861792fe644
-
The article indicates that emerging economies are causing an increase in CO2 as they need to build more houses and factories and infrastructure for an expanding population.
Most advanced nations with high standards of living like Sweden have a declining population so only need maintain homes and infrastructure so are low CO2 emissions. Surely poor nations with low standard of living need only restrict their population growth to automatically raise their standard of living and help save the planet.
-
Surely poor nations with low standard of living need only restrict their population growth to automatically raise their standard of living and help save the planet.
Did you think that was a viable answer or are you joking?
-
It contains one element of the truth. Poverty arises from demand exceeding resources, and from mismanagement. You can tackle the first cause by making fewer babies. The second usually requires a revolution.
-
Perhaps all processes on earth are cyclical. Indeed, the world is warmer now. I remember when I was a child, every year in my city there was a lot of snow and it was quite cold. Now the winters are mostly warm, it rains. But I think this will change in a few decades.
-
Climate certainly is cyclic.
have a look at http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/, particularly fig 5
-
"EPICA Dome - Temperature and Milankovitch Cycles" Figure3 shows how the quantity of gases CO2 and Methane that are trapped in the ice can be measured and from these global temperature at that time can be calculated.
So if the scientists at the south pole compress a sample of snow into ice and test it what were the readings last year compared to the ones taken 100 years ago I am wondering???
-
The data is available but we also have direct measurements of local temperature and near-global CO2 certainlyh form 50 years ago and possibly 100 years ago, which may help to calibrate the ice cores.
There is a problem with sampling recent Antarctic snow: there has been a lot of human and mechanical activity on the continent in the last century, so even if you sample from a previously unvisited area the snow will contain a whole lot of contaminants that weren't present in the deeper ice cores.
-
Yes, I understand that there will be lots of contaminants but what is required is to confirm how many parts per million of CO2 are in the latest samples. Does it positively confirm the rise seen in the atmospheric gas in the northern hemisphere?
-
Given temperatures are rising, co2 has historically risen along side it. No one is sure of the cause, it could be as simple as higher temperatures mean higher decomposition, or it could be something more complex where increasing temperatures are merely a sign of more complex chemical interactions at work, such an increased geological co2 release because of a softer and more pliable earth crust. My compost bin is getting quite full, come the summer it will no doubt shrink once more.
Funnily enough the historic data is not precise enough to state factors are out of the ordinary, the margin of error is great. Personally I believe that the planet is warming in line with the historic trends.
-
8 billion humans 3 to 4 billion cars driven daily over a hundred thousand flights a day industry pumping it out.We also have overrun every habitat.I think we can say for sure we are responsible and blind to our imprint.We are going to hit peak population very soon things will only get worse the more humans there are.Its amazing how many people have blinders on 8 billion humans and growing some how have no effect on the environment.
-
Yes, I understand that there will be lots of contaminants but what is required is to confirm how many parts per million of CO2 are in the latest samples. Does it positively confirm the rise seen in the atmospheric gas in the northern hemisphere?
AFAIK there has been an overall increase in CO2 concentration wherever it is measured, and little need for recent ice core studies as pCO2 has been measured directly since the 1900s.
What we do know from satellite surveys is that the concentration is not evenly distributed, with odd pools of high density around the equator, for instance, where anthropogenic output is presumably less than over Europe and North America
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399073
-
8 billion humans 3 to 4 billion cars driven daily over a hundred thousand flights a day industry pumping it out.We also have overrun every habitat.I think we can say for sure we are responsible and blind to our imprint.We are going to hit peak population very soon things will only get worse the more humans there are.Its amazing how many people have blinders on 8 billion humans and growing some how have no effect on the environment.
Actually I would say that everything is under control, the earth could hold much higher capacity.
-
Actually I would say that everything is under control, the earth could hold much higher capacity.
Controlled by whom? How much higher? At what standard of living?
-
think we can say for sure
I am not asking if you think or say with confidence, much climate change argument is indifaticably slanted toward man made causation, but none of the reasoning used is proof of man-made creation. The opening post of the thread is about margins of error, historic similarities etc. I am wondering if there is absolute proof linking global warming to mankind.
-
There is absolute proof linking human population to global mean temperature, but not the other way around. As the ice retreated, so humans were able to occupy increasingly productive land. The world is now some 12 degrees hotter than its historic minimum.
There is also a proven one-way correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and population. The advent of "artificial" energy from the steam engine to nuclear power has allowed us to improve hygiene and crop yields to the extent that life expectancy in the developed world has increased by about 3 months per year since 1850, and the demand for farmed meat has added some 25% more CO2 to that generated by direct fossil fuel consumption.
-
There is absolute proof linking human population to global mean temperature, but not the other way around. As the ice retreated, so humans were able to occupy increasingly productive land. The world is now some 12 degrees hotter than its historic minimum.
There is also a proven one-way correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and population. The advent of "artificial" energy from the steam engine to nuclear power has allowed us to improve hygiene and crop yields to the extent that life expectancy in the developed world has increased by about 3 months per year since 1850, and the demand for farmed meat has added some 25% more CO2 to that generated by direct fossil fuel consumption.
Co2 is within the margin of error of historic co2 range. The upward curve of temperature is fitting with the temperature trend of the historic cycles, again within the margin of error.
-
Co2 is within the margin of error of historic co2 range.
Over the last 10 years, possibly, but a 100% rise since the ice age cannot be ascribed to measurement error. What is clear from the historic record is that the CO2 graph follows the temperature graph with about a 500 year lag, so it can't be the principal driver of climate.
-
What is clear from the historic record is that the CO2 graph follows the temperature graph with about a 500 year lag, so it can't be the principal driver of climate.
No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.
-
Every other species if possible will overrun their habitat hitting a die off.Humans are no different I thought we were smarter but obviously not we seem just as blind as every other species in the same position.
-
No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.
Only if the laws of physics have changed. Now that would be interesting.
-
No, the physics haven't changed, the effect of CO2 on the Earths temperature is extremely large, small differences have large effects, and humans have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as they can.
-
Worth studying the physics a bit closer, particularly the actual absorption and emission spectrophotometry of the planet, and ask why the historic CO2 curve lags behind the temperature curve if CO2 is a significant driver of temperature. In my experience, causes always precede effects. Also worth asking why Mars is so cold.
-
No, it can't (at face value) have been the driver, but it may be today's driver.
Only if the laws of physics have changed. Now that would be interesting.
The laws of physics say that more CO2 will produce more heating.
They always did.
They always will.
What change did you imagine was required?
-
To put the cat amongst the pigeons, venus has an atmosphere 95% co2, A pressure of 95 atmospheres and is far closer to the sun. Yet it only achieves a temperature of around 500C degrees. Earth is 0.04% co2 increased from 0.03% co2, apparently responsible for a 2 degree rise in temperature. If venus is given a similar temperature expectation it should have a 'surface' temperature of 2 million degrees. That is without even integrating proximity to the sun and the high pressure.
-
To put the cat amongst the pigeons, venus has an atmosphere 95% co2, A pressure of 95 atmospheres and is far closer to the sun. Yet it only achieves a temperature of around 500C degrees. Earth is 0.04% co2 increased from 0.03% co2, apparently responsible for a 2 degree rise in temperature. If venus is given a similar temperature expectation it should have a 'surface' temperature of 2 million degrees. That is without even integrating proximity to the sun and the high pressure.
Nobody who understand the science would expect the temperature rise to be strictly linearly dependent on concentration or pressure.
-
Would you care to reconcile your responses #131 and 133 into a formula that explains the historic temperature and CO2 curves for the last 500,000 years?
-
Would you care to reconcile your responses #131 and 133 into a formula that explains the historic temperature and CO2 curves for the last 500,000 years?
That's like asking if I would like to reconcile the sales of the Beatles' records with the birth rate of dodos.
What question did you think you were asking?
Saying A is not proportional to B is not inconsistent with saying that A rises monotonically with B.
Did you really not grasp that?
-
All the historic evidence and recent Mauna Loa data says that pCO2 increases or decreases in response to temperature. Recent anthropogenic CO2 would therefore be as relevant to global temperature as the dodo to the Beatles.
However if you are asserting some random correlation that cannot be expressed mathematically, you may find yourself at odds with a very large consensus and more attuned to magic than science.
-
That makes sense, because, in your head, CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas, and doesn't cause production of water vapour, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas. Oh wait, that's just in your head.
No. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the anthropogenic increase in CO2 is causing global warming.
-
CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but has very narrow absorption bands which, according to real scientists (people who make measurements of fact, not models of wish fulfilment) are saturated in the relevant wavelength region at less than 300 ppm in the earth's atmosphere. Water is far more potent (according to measurements) and can explain the cyclic nature of the historic record.
One of the problems arising from the CO2-as-driver model is its historic range, varying fairly smoothly from 190 to 390 ppm over several 100,000 year cycles with no obvious reason - the cycles do not correspond with volcanic ash deposits.
-
according to real scientists (people who make measurements of fact, not models of wish fulfilment) are saturated in the relevant wavelength region at less than 300 ppm in the earth's atmosphere.
Since I am a real scientist who measured CO2 by spectroscopy, you might want to wind your neck in a bit on that.
-
But have you measured the transmission factor of the entire atmosphere in the 15 micron range? It has been less than 1% at least since 1950.
No need to use a balloon or satellite, of course - just measure the incoming spectrum on a cloudless day. I'll be delighted to see your results because nothing makes a scientist happier than having a hypothesis demolished, and it doesn't matter which!
-
I already demolished the idea that a transition is saturated.
Why are you still banging on about it?
-
Because the published evidence disagrees with your statement.
-
I was sure I had shown you with a diagram that the sides of the peaks in the spectra are not vertical.
-
Coming back to the venus anomoly, the law of cooling does state that a hotter body will loose heat more rapidly, but given that the temperature of venus' surface is 750k and earth is 300k from the temperature of the environment (space) such an increaced rate of cooling to still render co2 as the insulator is unbelievable. Even if we include all of earth's greenhouse gasses at a level of insulation of methane giving 3 percent atmospheric water vapor the same potential as methane, which is said to be 100 times a potent as co2 it does not measure up. Venus has an atmosphere mass about 100 times greater than earth which has a greenhouse gas percentage of 30 times as much. Again this is ignoring pressure of the gas and proximity to the sun.
Perhaps the atmospheric pressure affects co2 ability to absorb the radiation, maybe the temperature of venus has reached a point where the IR is at a wavelength outside of the co2 window, maybe the co2 is saturated.
-
I was sure I had shown you with a diagram that the sides of the peaks in the spectra are not vertical.
You had indeed, but you have not shown me anything that contradicts the published spectrophotometry at ground level.
-
Exxon scientists calculated the CO2 levels rise due to fossil fuel emissions and the resultant rise in global temperatures back in the 70s and 80s, and it's tracked very well what they expected:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
-
It's very easy to extrapolate a known curve. Much more difficult to explain it. The correlation of recent temperatures with the speed of broadband, the use of dishwashing detergents, or the sale of electric vehicles, is equally impressive.
-
Many people predicted co2 increases around that time. They also predicted nuclear fusion and many many more things.
https://geekdad.com/2013/12/10-things-didnt-happen-2013/
Other things some did predict were population increase, biodiversity collapse, pollution followed by famine war and collapse.
-
Much more difficult to explain it.
Yes, but we have got an explanation for the effect of CO2 on temperature.
-
It certainly supports a growing industry, but so do most religions.
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
Probably.
This is a science site.
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
Ebola would be more what you are after.
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
By nature or what? Evolution doesn't think, so it's not like COVID arose as nature's way of killing off humanity in response to the damage we have caused to it (which COVID isn't very good at anyway).
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
Probably.
This is a science site.
Ok, sorry if I posted something inappropriate.*
-
Am I the only one here who thinks Covid-19 is a "process" to "cleanse" the planet? :-X
By nature or what? Evolution doesn't think, so it's not like COVID arose as nature's way of killing off humanity in response to the damage we have caused to it (which COVID isn't very good at anyway).
It is a reasonable idea, maybe it is indeed a "revenge" of nature. And everything because of us.
-
It is a reasonable idea, maybe it is indeed a "revenge" of nature. And everything because of us.
How?
-
We are part of nature. All diseases and disasters were created by the wise and loving god, for his own perverse amusement.
-
If we had loved God, he would have avoided such disasters.
-
Similar disasters occurred to the dinosaurs, and whatever happens to us will also happen to most other mammals, not to mention trees, fish, insects.....does your god not care for all his creation? And are you blaming homo sapiens for what happened before we evolved? Many of my tribe, who dearly loved at least the Judaeo-Christian god, were killed for doing so. In short, what has your god done to deserve love?
-
If we had loved God, he would have avoided such disasters.
That idea would suggests that the congregations of at least some denominations of some churches should be exempt from disaster.
Can you point them out?
-
If we had loved God, he would have avoided such disasters.
That is precisely the Distinction between God & the Devil.
Commanding terms & conditions apply* & Demanding worship n praise are characteristic traits of a Tyrannical Dictatorship.
P.S. - GOD controls & enslaves, but the Devil sets you FREE!
😈