Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?

  • 101 Replies
  • 59304 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #50 on: 30/04/2009 13:56:00 »
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments. 

Pity, you're too lazy to look for the data that we have all pointed you towards...

Why do you continue to lie about the lack of data, rather than just put a small amount of effort in to find it?

*

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #51 on: 30/04/2009 13:56:36 »
If you consider it to be so important, and are aware that no-one here considers your hypothesis to be worthwhile, why don't you do it? If you are right, then so much the better for you.

Since you know that we're not going to help beyond that already given, I don't believe that you consider it to be at all important or even worthwhile either. You wouldn't leave it all up to us otherwise, would you?

*End of interest*

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #52 on: 30/04/2009 14:35:58 »
Ben,I am old man. I don't know how to find my way around the ent like you do and and do not have so many bytes. I did not find the data that I am after - we have to find out how much that 25% did toward heat retention, other then looking at the sky and the tempeartures and saying: that must be it. I am signing off now, seeing that you wanted me to resign anyway.
I hope what I wrote helped someone else to pick up the thread..   

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #53 on: 30/04/2009 19:53:08 »
"Please note that when I look at a problem I always keep my mind open as to what the final solution will be to that problem."

"I have to go with the theory that I can believe in. "

Which did you mean?
Anyway, as someone already pointed out the work has been done, many years ago.
They even gave the name and that points you here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
That, in turn points you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf
which leads you here.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

So, from the name you were given to the paper that describes the origianl experimental work took three clicks of a mouse.

How much work were you prepared to put in?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline techmatt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 28
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #54 on: 30/04/2009 20:28:46 »
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments. 

You want an experiment to test this theory that CO2 is a GHG?
Here I'll give you one.

Take two clear tubes (glass or plastic)
Insert a thermometer into each (the alcohol kind that does not need batteries.
Fill one with only CO2 and leave the other just atmosphere (plain air). This is your control.
Seal both tubes up and place them in the sun for however long you want to and take a temperature reading every 20 minutes or so.

The according to your hypothesis the CO2 tube will be the same temperature as the other tube. I bet it will be warmer.

Caution: When the gasses expand the tube could explode from a pressure build up. Please take proper safety precautions.
The world would be a better place if all information was free.

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #55 on: 30/04/2009 21:19:36 »
I tried something rather simple. I went to Google and typed in "CO2 Absorb Infrared". I found an interesting article in the image search (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html). This guy shows experimentally that CO2 absorbs infrared.

Absorption is the OPPOSITE of reflection, just to clarify. At this point I really don't know what the issue is. And in this case I prefer to err on the safe side anyways.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #56 on: 30/04/2009 22:45:03 »
Ben,I am old man. ..   
I am an old man too. Frankly you are the kind of old man who gives old people a bad name. Your willfull ignorance and blatant refusal to accept simple facts placed in front of you are a distasteful embarassment. You would do yourself a favour by reading just a few of the many references you have been provided with, then returning with some intelligent questions rather than your foolish observations.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #57 on: 01/05/2009 10:55:11 »
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum. In defence I just wanted to say that I realize now (from a glimpse of one of the links) that I did not catch the hints you guys were giving because I cannot open the links(files) you are giving. They are too big. This is Africa here.My computer is too slow to download this and I don't have that many megs. So the truth is, I still don't know the nature of that relationship between elevated Co2 and  heat retention. There was a formula for this?

*

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #58 on: 01/05/2009 21:05:13 »
This is the text in the link I provided:

"
The Climate Wars
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Note: these articles have been published in InfoChem, the supliment to Education in Chemistry produced by The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Many are based on the two BBC OU TV series - Hollywood Science

In The Climate Wars [1] (BBC1) the presenter, Iain Stewart, demonstrated that CO2 absorbs Infrared (IR) energy and so showed how it can trap heat in the Earths atmosphere contributing to the so called 'green house effect' [2]. The apparatus was simple enough; there was a 1m long, 20cm diameter tube which was filled with CO2 from a cylinder. A lighted candle was held at one end of the tube while a thermal imaging IR camera viewed it from the other end. The bright false colour image of the hot candle on the camera screen slowly disappears as CO2 was introduced into the tube showing that the gas absorbs in the IR. I built the apparatus for the program so let me share what I learnt about this experiment.

Due to the vibrations of the atoms in the molecule CO2 has a number of absorption's in the IR, the main bands being at 4.3 m (2350 cm-1), 7.5 m (1388 cm-1) and 15 m (667 cm-1) [3]. The latter band lies very close to the maximum of the Earth's IR black body emission making CO2 a very important greenhouse gas.

The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 m, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image.

In order to be able to seal and look through the tube the ends were covered in plastic cling film. Now plastics absorb strongly in the IR so it's hardly as transparent as it looks to the eye but the film was so thin these simple 'windows' actually worked quite well in practice. The CO2 was flowed in to one end of the tube and vented out the other so that it was well flushed with gas at about atmospheric pressure. In the process the thin film windows bulged a little.

You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would 'disappear' due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn't work, the candle doesn't disappear!

The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a 'CO2 filter' on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 m, close to one of the CO2 absorption's (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect.

In the Thomas Crown Affair we talked about how IR cameras usually have an Automatic Gain control (AGC) to make the camera responce as versatile as possible. In this case the AGC will stop the candle from disaperaing as it will re-adjust the gain to try and make it farly constant as the signal drops. So to get this demonstration to work the Camera AGC needs to be turned off.

We used a large diameter tube so that we had the option of seeing the presentors face through the apparatus (see last paragraph below). In the end we used it to observe a candle so we could have had a smaller diameter tube. The 1m path length seemed to work well when the tube was filled with CO2 at atmospheric pressure. If you just wanted to measure an IR absorption and were not worried about getting a recognisable image (of say a candle) then a much smaller length tube could be used if multiple passes were arranged using mirrors.

In the Earths atmosphere the CO2 also absorbs in bands but of course there is a much greater amount of gas and also other greenhouse gases present. We also think that global feedback systems in the ocean for example, increase the amount of CO2 available as things heat up multiplying the amount of warming greenhouse gases still further.

An alternative USA series on climate change [4] recently did the same experiment using a military state-of-the-art IR camera and CO2 filter (unfortunately not available for us to use in the UK). It was so sensitive that they used the heat from the presenters face rather than a candle to demonstrate the effect.

References:
[1] The Climate Wars, BBC1 Sept. 2008, see: web site
[2] A real glass greenhouse actually works by preventing convection not by IR absorption! See the Wikipedia section on 'Greenhouse' effect :
greenhouse effect on Wikipedia
[3] Greenhouse Gas Absorption spectrum in the Earths atmosphere
[4] Global Warming: what's up with the weather, Nova, DVD. ISBN 978 1 59375 729 8
....................... "

I am surprised that you can get to the NakedScientist site but not to those that were provided.
I got annoyed with looking
at my own signature

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #59 on: 01/05/2009 22:55:56 »
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum.
I am sorry you have decided to retreat from an opportunity to learn something. You say you did not understand the hints that were being offered. Henry, these were much more than hints. Specific information was provided by several posters. You chose either to ignore this completely, or state that it was irrelevant, or declare it was wrong.
I regret that my comments may have offended you, but your responses were indefensible. I hope you will reconsider your departure, but then listen to the sound information that is being presented to you by other posters, rather than promoting your own viewpoint, which is currently based on ignorance.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #60 on: 02/05/2009 03:28:33 »
Is it possible that Henry is just mistaken, and that he is thinking of Co2 causing Stratospheric cooling?

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #61 on: 02/05/2009 09:36:37 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #62 on: 02/05/2009 10:19:21 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield.
And that is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. If we did not have the body of observation and experiment that we do, then it could be a valid hypothesis. However, the point that invalidates it is that the incoming radiation is different in wavelength/frequency from the outgoing radiation. CO2 is largely transparent to the incoming wavelengths, but opaque to outgoing wavelengths. That is the central point I have tried to communicate in my posts and it has been made by several others.

Rgds,
ET
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

paul.fr

  • Guest
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #63 on: 02/05/2009 19:49:44 »
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.

Henry, you are more than welcome to participate in your own topic, I think you just have to be more willing to explore what others are saying and the information they give. And, perhaps, try and make you point clearer.

It took me a while to figure out what you were getting at, but hey, we all struggle at times to get people to understand what and where we are coming from. Anyway, here are a few links about the cooling effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere:

Global Warming causes Stratospheric cooling
Stratospheric cooling

Cooling of the stratosphere isn't just the result of ozone destruction but is also caused by the release of carbon dioxide in the troposphere.  Therefore, global warming in the troposphere and stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss are parallel effects.  As cooling increases, development of the ozone layer can be affected because a cold stratosphere is necessary for ozone depletion.

So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole.  The system is pretty complicated and so we try to give just an overview of it here.

Is the stratosphere cooling?
It's, of course, harder to measure the temperature in the stratosphere than in the troposphere where we have a network of measurement stations.  Stratospheric temperature measurements do exist.  They have been made using weather balloons, microwave sounding units, rocketsondes, LIDAR and satellites.  Most of these readings only go back two or three decades at most and there are large uncertainities associated with the data.

The lower stratosphere appears to be cooling by about 0.5C per decade.  This cooling trend is interrupted by large volcanic eruptions which lead to a temporary warming of the stratosphere and last for one to two years.   Calculations from many research institutes generally estimate the cooling trend for the last two decades (1979-2000) to be greater than for the previous period (1958-1978).

Why does the stratosphere cool?
There are several reasons why the stratosphere is cooling. The two best understood are:

1) depletion of stratospheric ozone
2) increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Cooling due to ozone depletion

The first effect is easy to understand. Less ozone leads to less absorption of ultra-violet radiation from the Sun. As a result, solar radiation is not converted into heat radiation in the stratosphere.  So cooling due to ozone depletion is simply reduced heating as a consequence of reduced absorption of ultra-violet radiation.  Ozone also acts as a greenhouse gas in the lower stratosphere.  Less ozone means less absorption of infra-red heat radiation and therefore less heat trapping.

At an altitude of about 20 km, the effects of ultra-violet and infra-red radiation are about the same.  Ozone levels decrease the higher we go in the atmosphere but there are other greenhouse gases present in the air which we have to consider.

 
 

Cooling due to the greenhouse effect

The second effect is more complicated. Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere.  If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infra-red radiation close to the Earth's surface.  This means that only a small amount of outgoing infra-red radiation reaches carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere.  On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation, which is lost from the stratosphere into space.  In the stratosphere, this emission of heat becomes larger than the energy  received from below by absorption and, as a result, there is a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a resulting cooling.  Other greenhouse gases, such as ozone and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), have a weaker impact because their concentrations in the troposphere are smaller. They do not entirely block the whole radiation in their wavelength regime so some reaches the stratosphere where it can be absorbed and, as a consequence, heat this region of the atmosphere.

 
Where does cooling take place?
The impact of decreasing ozone concentrations is largest in the lower stratosphere, at an altitude of around 20 km, whereas increases in carbon dioxide lead to highest cooling at altitudes between 40 and 50 km (Figure 3).  All these different effects mean that some parts of the stratosphere are cooling more than others.

Other influences
It is possible that greenhouse warming could disturb the heating of the Arctic stratosphere by changing planetary waves.  These waves are triggered by the surface structure in the Northern Hemisphere (mountain ranges like the Himalayas, or the alternation of land and sea).  Recent studies show that increases in the stratospheric water vapour concentration could also have a strong cooling effect, comparable to the effect of ozone loss.

Conclusions
We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes.  At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done.  We do, however, already know that observed and predicted cooling in the stratosphere makes the formation of an Arctic ozone hole more likely. 

The second link from Espere is rather good, in fact, somewhere on their site you can dowload a climatology PDF. It's a large file and goes in to all aspects of climate and meteorology, I can look around for the link if you want?

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #64 on: 03/05/2009 10:47:10 »
Thanks Paul, but yes, I already was worried that it would me more complicated up there then I thought it would be. It goes a little bit above my head. Anyway, I said I just wanted to observe and learn, rather then participate. Let me phrase a new question, post this, and then let me just observe what you people can come up with. 

*

Offline 112inky

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #65 on: 06/05/2009 16:08:27 »
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2). 

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #66 on: 06/05/2009 20:05:30 »
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2). 
Principally because the heating effect exists, but the cooling effect doesn't.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline shockwavemikey65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #67 on: 14/07/2009 02:02:22 »
You're welcome.


And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes?

I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.



Well if this is such a problem is there any method to break up the atoms of CO2 IE(an alternative propellant used to propel a canister into the atmosphere where it will release a non hazardous agent which will disassociate the molecules of CO2 into two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom? JW!

*

Offline sgweightloss

  • First timers
  • *
  • 3
    • View Profile
    • natural diet pill
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #68 on: 14/07/2009 15:47:28 »
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
newbielink:http://www.spam.com [nonactive]

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #69 on: 14/07/2009 17:10:12 »
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
In that case, I don't think you've read any of this thread!

*

Offline Henry Pool

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 88
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #70 on: 10/10/2009 06:15:13 »
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?

*

Offline carbon_action

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #71 on: 18/10/2009 21:17:25 »
If we keep an open mind and try to look at the evidence that there is - we must (I think) feel in our gut that global temperature increases in the geological record correspond eerily closely with increases in atmospheric CO2 and CH4. 

Of course some global climate change is due to natural cycles such as Earth's orbit around the Sun.  Sunspot activity and the angle of tilt of Earth relative to the Sun.  But if you look at all these cycles and atmospheric gas concentrations it does look at this stage as if we have pumped out too much gas into the atmosphere and it is now about to lead to civilisation changing impacts.  Even the Dutch East India Company wrote about climate damage from emissions way back in 1840/1850s so its not a new concern. 


*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #72 on: 01/11/2009 00:01:41 »
CO2,

This trace gas has been as high as 3000 parts per million during the Jurasic era to level that now is less the 300 parts per million.  Carbon dioxide increases have not been associated with the end of the last ice age, or with the midieval warming period.

Further, recent increases in CO2 seem entirely independent of the warming after the 'little ice' age that ended in the 1850's, and the current cooling trend. IMHO, simple minded individuals with superiority complexes just make this crap up out of thin air.

First, what sane person wants a colder planet anyway. Jeezzuz Friggn Christ. Crop failure, pestulence and plaque, vast population migrations, pilage plunder and mass carnage and exterminaion. [The victors seem routinely to genetically remove the male populations and happily breed with the surviving femails.]

And in the last twenty years I can not recall any of these Carbonistas even consider solar output.  As of now, the sunspot cycle is about two years late.  It seems stuck in a solar minimum, which means 1% less solar output.  And this has happened before. GOOGLE The Maunder Minimum. http://science.jrank.org/pages/4184/Maunder-Minimum.html

The Carbonistas are dangerous cultists, and need to be watched very closely.  Of course they will seldom be found anywhere near a cold climate.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #73 on: 01/11/2009 00:29:44 »
Climate Change, constant change:

Causes are beyond comprehension. They include precesion of the equinoxes, the orbital changes of the earth itself. The earths relative position in the various galactic spirals. Solar output varies.  And believe it or not, the amount of cosmic rays can significanly affect cloud formation and thermal transfer.

Then there is continental drift and disruption of thermic oceanic conveyor belts. Add in one or two Super Volcanos, or an astroid impact or two, and we as a species seem an oddity. In fact, some geneticists claim the human race, in the last ice age era, was reduced to fewer then a couple of thousand individual.

Chuckle: apparently there is more genetic diversity among a single troup of Chimps then between the entire human population. In other words, in Las Vegas terms. We are a Royal Flush.

And now we have chumps [not chimps] telling us the planet is getting too warm. Fat Ruck. How many of these thermocline extreem bacterial throw backs do you see setting up survival camps in Northern Alaska to avoid the inevitable catastrophy of Global Warming.

Believe me, superstition is alive and well in all the usual suspect places. The entertainement industry, the Official Doctrine Of Academic Purity. And of course all the suplicant and suckup undergraduates of any instutuion that provides some sort of poster as its accademic degree.


*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #74 on: 01/11/2009 01:02:39 »
Henry:

CO2 has varied from 3000 parts per million during Dinosaur era to the lower levels we now observe.  CO2 is a very minor trace gas in the atmosphere that, climatically speaking, approaches insignificance. For instance, the midieval era (renaisance) experienced a warming spell well in excess of anything we see today. Then it got cool for a century or more in the 1600s and beyond.  The only observable connection was a reduction in Sun Spots in the 1600's, and a warming trend from the mid 1800's to the late 20th century that is simply one of thousand unexplained shifts over the billions of world history years..

So, even though CO2 concentrations are higher now then 150 years ago, and about a hundred times less then the dynosaur era, the climate is once again cooling. The sunspot cycle is at least two years late. If we have a solar minimum sunspots for nearly a century, as was the case in the 1600's, I recommend buying Polar Bear Pelt Futures.


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #75 on: 01/11/2009 13:44:45 »
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
Well, we have tried to explain it to you. If you refuse to listen that's your problem.
Incidentally the reason that most people concerned with climate change ignore the sunspot cyly is that it's rather too short- term to have a significant effect.
It's like saying that CO2 can't matter because it only affects temperature by a few degrees whereas going from noon to midnight will generally reduce the temperature by 10 degrees.
The point is that the sun comes up in the morning, the sunspots come and go but, on a human timescale, we are stuck with the CO2
Frankly, anyone who didn't realise that hasn't thought the question through.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #76 on: 01/11/2009 18:07:42 »
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?

No, skeptical thinking requires rational thinking supported by facts. You're a cynic, not a skeptic.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #77 on: 04/11/2009 20:05:12 »
dentstudent - You wrote: "...CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes? ...
By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7C"

First, the climate has been cooling for about a decade and with the sunspot cycle gone missing I am looking for bargains in sweater sales.  Further, I have seen estimates the Roman era was warmer then now (The Romans cultivated grapes in Britain and exported wine.)  And finally, the midieval warming was substantially greater then now.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
"A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1 C (1.8 F) cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period



,

 By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.

   

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #78 on: 04/11/2009 20:32:05 »
Hey Bored

Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad, and right now it looks possible we might need baby harp seal sweaters shortly. The weather is like the stock market. It varies. Right now it is getting cooler.

But in general it just varies. It varies big (ice ages), it varies small, (el Ninno and the Pacific occilation). And sometimes it just varies. In historical times we have significant warming and cooling above and below current temperatures without any C02 changes at all.

I think all this hysteria is simply caused by the end of the most recent little ice age that ended in the mid 1800, coincident to the industrial revolution. If you are comming out of an ice age you might suspect the temperature is getting warmer because you are getting out of an ice age. 

The worst possible thing that can happen now is another Little Ice Age. That is because agriculturally productive land will decrease significantly in the higher lattitudes. Think Canada and Asia. What sort of fool wishes to cool the planet out of what is historical one of the best climate optimums we have seen, in all of recorded history.

Just ask the people 1,000 years ago who went from a climate warmer then now to one that became cooler then now. Jeeze, the entire Viking colonialization of Greenland starved to death, and I seem to remember famines and plagues that subsequently killed off maybe half the population of Europe. I suppose it could devastate the several hundred pupfish in death valley, but who knows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

 

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12342
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #79 on: 05/11/2009 02:40:17 »
Bored chemist is one of the more knowledgeable guys on this site. If you had made the effort to check on his posts you would have realized that.

As for the rest of the BS spread here take a look at this post of mine.
Read the reports, I assume you know how to read?

At least you seem to know how to spread dung.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24403.msg281967#msg281967
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #80 on: 05/11/2009 18:29:55 »
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad

I'm afraid it's not that simple. With a warmer climate, sure, some places will become more fertile. Other areas however, will become deserts.

Even if you are going to block your ears and hum loudly when people speak of how a raise in temperature will be bad, perhaps you might consider the chemical effects increased CO2 has on the ocean. There are many, many creatures (including some plankton, which is a very important part of the oceans ecosystem) that have a shell composed of calcium carbonate. These creatures need to combine carbonate ions from the water with calcium to build and maintain their exoskeleton. As CO2 increases, the acidity of the ocean increases. The more acidic the ocean, the less free carbonate particles there are for these creatures to build their skeleton.

This will have far-reaching consequences not just for ocean life but for human life too, as worldwide a billion people eat seafood as their main source of animal protein. It will also form a feedback loop, as currently plankton absorb most of the CO2 in the atmosphere, but if they are killed off or almost killed off CO2 levels will all of a sudden dramtically increase, and it won't just be warm, it'll be pretty damn hot.

May I ask where you happen to live?
« Last Edit: 05/11/2009 18:35:32 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #81 on: 05/11/2009 19:02:50 »
There's another aspect that people seem to ignore while saying "it will be better if things are warmer".
Change isn't good.
Farmers like to know what the weeather will be like and the currebnt state of affairs is that we are having weird weather.
There is no question that CO2 levels have risen.
Since most of the CO2 is made from "ancient" C sources it's fair to blame the use of fossil fuels. (You can, in effect, radiocarbon date the CO2).

There's no question that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
There's no way that you can avoid that leading to a greenhouse effect.
There is, thereefore, at least some anthropogenic global warming and the weather is going nuts.
If we want to eat we need stable weather.

Perhaps we should try cutting back onCO2.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #82 on: 06/11/2009 00:14:59 »
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad, and right now it looks possible we might need baby harp seal sweaters shortly. The weather is like the stock market. It varies. Right now it is getting cooler.

A decade of temperature stability (with a minute amount of cooling) does not make a trend.  The standard is 30 continuous years to even begin to establish a long term climatic trend.  And as far as blanket statements like "warm is good, cold is bad" - while there is a grain of truth to it - it is a gross oversimplification of a very complex climate system that is only very vaguely understood (despite what yor_on and others claim).

I'm afraid it's not that simple. With a warmer climate, sure, some places will become more fertile. Other areas however, will become deserts.

While superficially true, there is generally a larger portion gaining rainfall than becoming desert during a warming, and the opposite during a cooling (though there have been a few exceptions, as with anything).  A warmer climate means that the ITCZ cuts a larger swath both north and south of the equator and draws the monsoons to higher latitudes (expanding the tropics and subtropics) than during cooling events.

There's another aspect that people seem to ignore while saying "it will be better if things are warmer".
Change isn't good.
Farmers like to know what the weeather will be like and the currebnt state of affairs is that we are having weird weather.
There is no question that CO2 levels have risen.
Since most of the CO2 is made from "ancient" C sources it's fair to blame the use of fossil fuels. (You can, in effect, radiocarbon date the CO2).

The climate has changed throughout the entire existence of man (well...of life in general), and there have been MUCH more drastic changes than we are experiencing now...quite a few of them...Last Glacial Maximum, Younger Dryas, 8.2ka, 7.1ka, 4.5ka, 0.9ka, and the Little Ice Age...and this is just a few major events over the past 17ka.

There is no doubt, as you state that CO2 levels have risen, that it is mostly old carbon, and that it is mostly anthropogenic (though there is a natural rise in CO2 that is expected with natural temperature variability).

There's no question that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.
There's no way that you can avoid that leading to a greenhouse effect.
There is, thereefore, at least some anthropogenic global warming and the weather is going nuts.
If we want to eat we need stable weather.

Perhaps we should try cutting back onCO2.

Yep, CO2 absorbs longwave radiation and causes a greenhouse effect (my understanding is that it works logarithmically and reaches a saturation point much like water vapor, but you are the chemist and probably understand this process much better than I do), and yes, there is at least some anthropogenic induced warming, but the weather is not going nuts.  It is changing, but is not as variable as it has been for about the past 800 years (though this could change within the span of a decade...or even shorter in extreme cases).

Though the Thames River frost fairs (during the LIA) would have been beautiful to see, I dont believe that I would want to endure winters cold enough that shopkeepers could establish booths in the middle of the rivers frozen surface for weeks out of the year.  Nor would I want to live in a time when the sun can take a dive into a 30 year minimum (Dalton Minimum), a volcano erupts (Pinatubo), and suddenly summer is entirely skipped with snow in July (the Year Without a Summer 1816)

As far as cutting back on CO2...Im absolutely all for renewable energy
« Last Edit: 06/11/2009 04:13:46 by frethack »
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #83 on: 06/11/2009 15:22:11 »
yor and bored - regarding sunspots, I refer you to the Maunder Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

And if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where colapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2009 15:27:06 by litespeed »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #84 on: 06/11/2009 16:55:54 »
if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.

LS, why can't you get it through your head that any accelerated change in global mean temperatures is bad!  That's bad for humans and worst for ecosystems in general.  A very few species might win, but the majority will be hard pressed to adapt in time.

See Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization as an example:
"evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.

Have you got it now?

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #85 on: 06/11/2009 19:53:33 »
See Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization as an example:
"evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.

Have you got it now?

Peppercorn, you have posted possibly the most excellent popular science article that I have read in a very long time.  Your analysis that the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period is absolutely incorrect, though.  The period from about 700 to 950 AD is known as the Dark Age Cold Period, and is noted for having a much decreased global temperature (though the tropics were not effected much...temperature wise anyway...as far as rainfall they were greatly effected) and greatly decreased rainfall in many areas...including Central America.  Nowhere in the article that I could find does it state that this is a warming period (and it would be blatantly incorrect if it did), and only refers to "climate change".  Oddly enough, during this exact time period in China there is what is called the "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" period, where there was a marked decline in rainfall and winter temperature that created so much turmoil that they went through multiple kingdoms and dynasties inside of 100 years.  This is also related to migration of the ITCZ just as the article attributes its migration to the Maya.

The other cultures that they mention:
The Anasazi disappeared from the American Southwest around 12750-1300 AD which is the very beginning of the Little Ice Age, and during the depths of the Wolf solar Grand Minimum (the first of the LIA).  This was a drastic cooling period.

The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 4200 years before present was the during a drastic decline in temperatures and tumultuous climate that occurred just after the Holocene Climate Optimum.  This was a drastic cooling period, though much wetter than any other cooling during the Holocene.

And the Mochica Culture in Peru disappeared about 500ybp, which was in the depths of the Sporer solar Grand Minimum during the worst of the LIA.  This is also a period of intense cooling.

Note, all of these droughts occurred during *decreased* global temperature.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #86 on: 06/11/2009 23:22:27 »
Your analysis that the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period is absolutely incorrect, though.

D'ya know what? I let myself down by one comment:
Quote
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.

It's a shame I included the word 'global'.
In fact if I'd said "the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period" that would have been perfectly fine.  I'm fairly certain that the Mayans would have experienced the bad results of their local region heating up.  The point is climate getting hotter quickly is 'bad' just as getting cooler quickly is 'bad'.  Doesn't matter if it's a local effect or global.

I'm sure their must have been a previous period when the whole of humankind suffered as a result of an elevated global temperature.  If there isn't such an event in recorded history that has survived to our present age, if we don't get our collective heads out of the sand we soon will know how nasty global 'warming' can be.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #87 on: 07/11/2009 13:04:07 »
I note that you completely ignored my last post litespeed. However, regarding;

yor and bored - regarding sunspots, I refer you to the Maunder Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

And if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where colapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.

However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).

In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that's not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.

quoted from http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

And concerning the advantages and disadvantages of global warming (from http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm )

Advantages:

Agriculture
    * Bumper crops in high latitude countries like Greenland, Canada
    * Higher rice yields in Northern China
Health
    * Fewer deaths from cold exposure
    * Record profits for pharmaceutical companies
Arctic Melt
    * Shippers get an Arctic shortcut between Atlantic and Pacific
    * Access to North Pole oil (hmm, good or bad?)
    * Thriving mammoth trade
Environment
    * Greener rainforests due to higher sunlight levels due to fewer rain clouds
    * Animals in Greenland can graze longer
    * Save grey nurse sharks from extinction
Glacier Melt
    * Access to more mining areas as Greenland's glaciers recede
    * New extreme sport of glacier surfing (riding waves when chunks of glaciers fall into the sea)
    * Longer grazing for sheep in Greenland
Economical
    * Increased summer movie box office
    * Lots of work and money for lawyers (not sure which column to put this one in)

Disadvantages:

Agriculture

    * China's grain harvest will be cut by 5 to 10% by 2030
    * Africa's food production will be halved by 2020.
    * Decelerating tropical forest growth
    * Increased conflict over resources
    * Dislocate millions (with subsequent economical and military ramifications) - an estimated 50 million by 2010
    * Coral reefs are dissolving due to CO2 turning seawater acidic and bleaching due to warmer waters
    * Increase of wildfire activity
    * Water shortages in the Mediterranean, flash floods along the Rhine and summers so hot that nuclear power stations can't cool down, more than half of Europe's plant species could risk extinction by 2080 according to EU paper
    * Increased range and severity of crop disease
    * Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing
    * Diminishing fresh water supplies for coastal communities
    * Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
    * Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)
    * Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)

Health

    * Increased deaths to heatwaves (5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps)
    * Increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders, with implications for child growth and development.
    * Increased deaths, disease and injury due to heat waves, floods, storms, fires and droughts.
    * Spread of malaria into wider regions
    * Increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground level ozone related to climate change.
    * Spread of mosquito vectors and dengue fever in Singapore.
    * Spread of dengue fever throughout the Americas.
    * Increased pollen levels (due to more CO2) leading to increased allergies
    * Increased spread of flesh eating disease
    * More heart problems

Arctic Melt

    * Decrease in Arctic albedo, further accelerating warming
    * Loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years
    * Positive methane feedbacks from mammoth dung (you can't make this stuff up)
    * Melting of Arctic lakes leading to positive feedback from methane bubbling.
    * Icebergs risk to shipping
    * Rising sea levels due to melting land ice over Greenland and Canada

Environment

    * Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier (from the 'greener rainforests' study)
    * Encroaching deserts displacing tens of millions
    * Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem
    * Vanishing lakes
    * Tibetan plateau warming at twice the global average, so that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline
    * Skinny whales (I always thought they stood to lose some weight)
    * Acidification of the ocean that violate EPA standards for ocean quality, threatening ocean ecosystems (eg - harming coral and plankton)
    * Threatened extinction of British shellfish
    * Gradual extinction of leeches (someone's gotta love em)
    * Dwindling penguin numbers
    * Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu
    * Disruption to New Zealand aquatic species
    * Oxygen poor ocean zones are growing (Stramma 2008, Shaffer 2009)
    * Increased mortality rates of healthy trees in Western U.S. forest (more...)
    * More severe and extensive vegetation die-off due to warmer droughts (Breshears 2009)
Glacier Melt

    * Flooding of low lying Asian rice fields
    * Water supply cut off for China and South America
Economical

    * Billions of dollars of damage to public infrastructure
    * Reduced water supply in New Mexico


So either you really really like Grey Nurse sharks, or you haven't really weighed up the pros and cons.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2009 17:30:30 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #88 on: 08/11/2009 17:03:43 »
However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).

In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that's not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.

The estimates that you have given for W/m2 between Grand Minima and Grand Maxima are the generally accepted values (though this is being challenged by Steinhibler et al. 2009), but the sun very profoundly affects mechanisms within the climate system that give it far more weight than 0.2 W/m2 would account for.

After Wednesday I will have more time to answer (studying for two tests), but until then I will refer back to this link:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=24403.msg265139#msg265139

Certainly not comprehensive, but gives an overview.  There are other factors that the sun may effects as well...such as cloud nucleation and cosmic radiation which is modulated by solar activity (very controversial though...there is decent research on both sides of the argument).  Ive been waiting for an experiment scheduled for next year at CERN that should shed lots of light on this subject.

Anyway, Ill respond more properly after Wednesday :)
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #89 on: 11/11/2009 21:30:53 »
Madi - You wrote: "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence."

If so, you need to account for all the climate change that has taken place prior to industrialization. Specifically, atmospheric CO2 is at a near low in all of planetary history right now. Yet we are in something of a climate optimum. I notice you cite the IPCC.

This has about the same scientific content as your reference to Lord Attenbourogh and his breathless, yet supine, video clip cited earlier.  Cue dramatic music, cue single, unchallenged climatologist, cue clueless Shakspearean Actor.  Perhaps add forelorn Polar Bear on small iceberge.

Pathetic....

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #90 on: 12/11/2009 19:11:11 »
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Attenborough

If you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.

Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.
I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #91 on: 12/11/2009 21:11:28 »
Madi - You wrote: "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence."

If so, you need to account for all the climate change that has taken place prior to industrialization. Specifically, atmospheric CO2 is at a near low in all of planetary history right now. Yet we are in something of a climate optimum. I notice you cite the IPCC.

This has about the same scientific content as your reference to Lord Attenbourogh and his breathless, yet supine, video clip cited earlier.  Cue dramatic music, cue single, unchallenged climatologist, cue clueless Shakspearean Actor.  Perhaps add forelorn Polar Bear on small iceberge.

Pathetic....

Of course, it must be pathetic if it's in contradiction to your assertion that the planet is cooling. And it's obvious the IPCC must also be composed of liars. And WTF is your obsession with polar bears?

Anyway, the Maunder Minimum was only from roughly 1645 to 1715. When CO2 levels have been higher in the past (many millions of years ago) solar levels were also lower. No one is saying CO2 is the only thing that drives climate, but that the evidence suggests it is certainly the main factor in rising temperatures today.

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #92 on: 12/11/2009 23:07:17 »
madi - You wrote: "...solar levels were also lower..."

Please provide citation showing solar variance over time.  Please provide citation for rising temperatures in 2009.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2009 23:09:08 by litespeed »

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #93 on: 13/11/2009 12:24:40 »
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

Quote
The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of the CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542my). For periods with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below ~500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below ~1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.  Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html
Quote
Global Highlights August

    * The worldwide ocean surface temperature of 62.4 degrees F was the warmest on record for any August, and 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.4 degrees F.
    * Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record.
    * Large portions of the worlds land mass observed warmer-than-average temperatures in August. The warmest departures occurred across Australia, Europe, parts of the Middle East, northwestern Africa, and southern South America. Both Australia and New Zealand had their warmest August since their records began.
    * The Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined were the warmest on record for August.

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #94 on: 13/11/2009 17:29:25 »
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Attenborough

If you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.

Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.
I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.

Quite a few people have complained (to the moderators) about litespeed from these threads, though I am not sure if one of them is you Bored chemist (You might even be a moderator for all I know).  I am in agreement that he uses misnomers and inaccurate facts quite often (which seems to be common among these threads...on both sides of the argument and including you), but completely disregarding someones opinion and belittling them because they made a mistake between David/Richard Attenborough (or even between 250 ml/mm for that matter) is the equivalent of deeming your posts invalid because you cant seem to spell the words deffinition (definition), thet (that), or anturalist (naturalist).  *Everyone* makes mistakes.

You are obviously a very intelligent person, and I would never disregard your postings for something as trivial as that (I understand that you know how to spell.  You are extremely articulate and well read...that much is evident), but your method of "scientific" debate leaves something to be desired.

Karsten, Madidus Scientia, Paul and some others seem to be able to hold a very intelligent and lively debate without needing to resort to ridicule or bullying.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 419
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #95 on: 14/11/2009 20:16:58 »
fret - You wrote: "Quite a few people have complained (to the moderators) about litespeed..."

If this is true, then I am a bit surprised at how thin skinned the locals are. I have posted on forums since the 1980's, and have actually been banned more times then I can count. However, [seriously] my post here have been entirely moderate in comparison to those. And even in those I was almost always reinstated since I never used profanity etc etc.

In these forums I have been especially dilligent in defining the terms of my debate. For instance, I have made a special effort to address climate change since Roman Times.  IMHO, my citations on Roman Era warming are without contest.

True, I have made fun of those who present short video clips as some sort of scientific evidence. Specifically Lord[?] Attenbouroughs supine and Shakespearian conversion to The Faith. I simply pointed out the theatrical nature of the presentation included not one ounce of scientific reference. Just one guy making some assertions based on nothing but his own expertise, and unchallenged by The Great Orator.

I became this little gadfly because The Climatistas assaulted the world with forlorn Polar Bears; Certain Death by oceanic inundation, unmitigated  hurricanes, and runaway GW such as the Planet Venus and so on. Of particular irritation to me is the block headed refusal to see we are in a CLIMATE OPTIMUM!

But maybe its just me....




*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #96 on: 14/11/2009 22:08:00 »
completely disregarding someones opinion and belittling them because they made a mistake between David/Richard Attenborough (or even between 250 ml/mm for that matter) is the equivalent of deeming your posts invalid because you cant seem to spell the words deffinition (definition), thet (that), or anturalist (naturalist).  *Everyone* makes mistakes.

In Bored Chemist's defense it seemed to me any belitting/ridicule done was purely in retort:
Pathetic....
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.

In my opinion BC is always civil unless hostility is initiated by another party. I wouldn't take the mm/ml thing personally, he's just very pedantic when it comes to facts :p

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #97 on: 15/11/2009 10:41:28 »
How inapropriate for a science site- I prefer the facts to be correct.
I also think that there's a difference between a few typos which simply indicate that I was in a hurry, and rubishing a video on the basis that it was presented by an actor.

There are two points there and I accept I probably should have focussed on the other.
Litespeed did muddle the two Attenboroughs, but that's not the big issue.
The real problem is that he thinks it matters.
I don't care if the video was fronted by an naturalist, a "Shakspearean Actor" or a gorrilla in a tutu.
The facts remain facts.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline frethack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 394
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #98 on: 15/11/2009 16:36:00 »
How inapropriate for a science site- I prefer the facts to be correct.

I do very much owe you a public apology for singling you out for a problem that is systemic throughout these debates.  If I had been more rational than reactionary, I should have addressed my post in a general sense, but instead I chose to call out someone who is well respected (including by myself).  It was unbecoming, and for that Bored chemist I am most humbly apologetic.


To correct myself, this is what I should have said:
When words begin to fly like "carbonistas" or "denialists" the undertone of an agenda becomes evident, and a healthy public debate on a very young science turns into a dogpile.  Unfortunately, global climate is a hotbutton issue, and there is a lot of hostility associated with it.  I should probably just accept that.  My experience in the paleoclimate community has been very different though.  If you have a good argument, no matter if it is contrary, the facts and merits are debated without agenda.
frethack

"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
- Douglas Adams

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
Why do we blame carbon dioxide for global warming?
« Reply #99 on: 15/11/2009 20:27:07 »
Don't sweat it.
You are certainly right in saying this subject tends to turn into a mess. There are currently 3 or 4 threads all going over essentially the same subject.
Incidentally, I'm not a mod- just a bloke who wonders why he had to point out the 250mm/250ml problem twice.
Please disregard all previous signatures.