[Tim the Plumber]

I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.

The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.

Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

I would appreaciate a number which is more precise that the IPCC's range of a factor of 5 or so.

[Tim the Plumber]

Here, on the other hand, is a recent finding that may explain a lot:



shows that melting of Antarctic ice releases huge quantities of CO2. There's no reason why this shouldn't also apply to seasonal melting of Arctic ice, so once again we would expect to find a positive correlation between temperature and CO2, but with temperature being the driver.

This is fortunate as it brings chemistry, geology and climatology into line with the known physics of water and carbon dioxide.

The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The Antarctic is increasing in ice mass.

Is that what's turning your letters blue?

You clearly don't want to listen to sense and have a strong tendency toward confirmation biases, but let me explain this for you anyway. The Antarctic is MELTING. Guess what? Water doesn't take salt with it when it evaporates. That snow and ice on Antartica is FRESH water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, and freezes faster. So, you get seasonal, temporary ice shelf when melted fresh water freezes for a while just off the Antarctic coast. This new ice will eventually melt and mix with the ocean. It is NOT permanent ice pack. It is a fleeting skin of frozen fresh water, not proof Antarctica is growing in ice mass.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Given your huge level of arrogance you can then tell us lower life forms what exactly the world's climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

It's not arrogance. It's indignation, because arrogant people like you think they know more than scientists. After 25+ years of arguing with people like you, I've had it up to here. I've got news for you, pal. When they say 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real, that's not just liberal scientists. That is the INTERNATIONAL panel on climate change. That means scientists in countries like China and Russia are included, not just socialist European countries and liberal Democracies. Scientists and all over the world agree.

This isn't about politics. It's about reality. When you apply combustion to 100 million years worth of fossil fuels, you are going to get some extra heat and carbon dioxide from it. In the simplest terms possible, burning stuff produces heat and smoke, burning a trillion tons of stuff produces a LOT of heat and smoke, end of story. Now, if you're not smart or educated enough to understand that simple fact, then you're never going to be able to politically un-brainwash yourself, so I suggest you leave this science forum immediately and go unclog some toilets.

[Craig W. Thomson]

There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?

To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.

[Craig W. Thomson]

They also show a direct correlation between temperature rises and sun spot activity.

So, if that's true, we know what sunspot activity has been like for the last 800,000 years.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

Just trace either one of those two graphs, and you have a plot of sunspot activity all the way back to Neanderthals.

By the way, I'm totally being sarcastic right now. Just thought I should qualify my statement, based on previous experience.

[alancalverd]

Farmers aren't looking to maximize total accumulated biomass, they are looking to maximize edibility of their crop. Therefore, I think farmers harvest whenever the fruits (or veggies) are ready. Peaches in the summertime, apples in the fall... For annuals like corn, it makes sense to me that the best yield would be found at the time of year when growth is fastest--why sit around waiting for every last drop of sunshine when the bugs won't?

On my planet, or at least the northern hemisphere of it, most crop is harvested in the third quarter of the solar year. Some soft fruit ripens earlier and it's a good idea to eat it before the birds do, but apples, wheat, barley, corn, rice, potatoes, grapes, olives, and indeed pretty much everything we eat, is harvested from mid-August to mid-October, by which time the plants have slowed or stopped growing. And Seville oranges are harvested from December, when the trees are completely dormant.

[alancalverd]

To the best of my knowledge, they picked Mauna Loa specifically because it was way out in the middle of the ocean, far away from things like large deciduous forests and dense urban metropolises, and I also notice that it's not that far from the "intertropical convergence zone." As such, it's one of the best locations on the globe to get a sense of an "average" reading of CO2 content of the atmosphere, as air arriving in Hawaii has been thoroughly mixed by air currents by the time it gets there.

Absolutely. So it's a good measure of the average concentration of everything, except that there's very little exchange of gases across the equator and at 19.5 deg north their measuirements are dominated by the northern hemisphere climate.

[wolfekeeper]

Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.

No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Your response made me think of something I think has been overlooked. When we harvest things like wheat and corn, we don't eat the whole plant. We take the edible grain and throw away the rest. Same with crops like tomatoes or green beans, we pick the edible fruit, the rest of the plant withers and decays. It's not the grain and fruit that contains the most greenhouse gases, but rather the green parts of the plant, like the grass that cows eat. I'm not a farmer or agriculturist, but it seems like "crop waste" of this sort could contribute a fairly large amount of CO2.

No.

That CO2 was sucked out of the atmosphere by the plant when it grew, and is released back there when the material breaks down, so (with some subtle caveats relating to boundary conditions) there's no net effect.

Correct, except I wasn't talking about a "net" effect. I was talking about the seasonal fluctuations mentioned by another poster. He suggested it's counterintuitive how CO2 goes up and down in relation to crop harvests, so I suggested this as an explanation. We grow crops, CO2 comes out of the atmosphere. We harvest the crops, CO2 goes back in. I never said anything about a net effect.

Edit: Here's the quote I was responding to from alancalverd:

"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?"

[JoeBrown]

Analysis of past co² release following a global thaw most likely is a consequence of carbon fossils frozen, then decomposing after a severe freeze. Takes a while for carbon absorbing life forms to get a foot hold on carbon released from carbon trapped in long term permafrost.

But you have to understand way back then, there weren't ppl cutting down forests upon forests, which capture carbon, nor were there ppl burning billions of fossils every day either...

We don't know the "exact" balance necessary to maintain climate we prefer, ocean temperatures (IMO) are the leading indicator of change that will affect our ability to enjoy the climate we currently experience. 

The faster water evaporates from those bodies of water, the more extreme it will rain back down.  Rising oceans also means there is more surface area from which water will evaporate into the atmosphere.  In the near term the most pronounced effect of a changing climate is going to be in an increase of rainy weather.

Past analysis has some utility, but because human activity didn't exist in previous episodes of freezing and thawing of Earth, such comparison are like comparing apples to ozarks.

[puppypower]

I think the link between CO2 and temperature is 97% drivel.

3% true.

There seems to be some slight temperature increase due to increased CO2. Nothing at all to worry about though.

The only science plumbers have to know is that crap flows downhill. Politicians don't even have to know that much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Take a look at the periodic table of elements. Different atoms have different properties, lining them up in nice, neat columns. Put those atoms together into molecules, and those molecules have specific properties too. One of the things that makes a carbon dioxide molecule special is that it is particularly good at absorbing long-wave radiation, or heat energy, then re-releasing it. That has a tendency to keep heat from escaping into space, trapping enough to make the planet habitable. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the planet would be too cool for life. Too much carbon dioxide, and the planet gets too hot for life.

Shrugging that off as nothing to worry about is 100% drivel.

If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.

Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it  begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.

[JoeBrown]

If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

CO² in the atmosphere is in the form of gas.  Most of the radiation from the sun (is not IR) becomes heat energy at the surface. Mostly by oceans (Earth surface is 71% ocean).

Much of this heat radiates back into space, through the cycle of weather (our climate).  Energy traveling at the speed of light doesn't like to stop in gases of the atmosphere. Some is absorbed and reflected there, but only a small fraction.

Because the composition of the atmosphere changes, its insulating capacity also changes.

We must appreciate this cycle, because it provides a nice climate for life.  The balance has changed, it is changing and will probably always be in a state of flux.  Human activity is increasing CO² in the atmosphere.  I suppose you can deny that fact every time you start your car or flip a light switch or charge your phone...  The FACT of the matter is: The bulk of human activity produces more CO² than its reclaimed by natural (or engineered) forces. 

This effects the balance (of the climate) on the planet, we call home.

[Craig W. Thomson]

If CO2 can absorb and release IR from the surface of the earth and act as an insulator, that means the CO2 should also be able to  do the same with the IR energy and heat coming from the sun. The CO2 should be able to absorb and reflect solar IR heat back into space. About 50% of the solar energy output is in the IR range.

The greenhouse analogy may not be an accurate visualization, since it implies transparent windows which trap the heat inside the greenhouse. This models CO2 as a one way IR valve. A better analogy may a greenhouse with windows that are covered in semi-opaque white plastic, which allows some light transmission but reflects heat in both directions. This type of greenhouse house never gets as hot as expected, since it traps less input heat than transparent windows. All the models predict 100-1200% more temperature rise than observed, which could be explained by the white plastic on the windows.

Water is the main thermal regulator of the earth. Below is the absorption spectrum of water: Water will absorb any X-rays from the sun. Water gets more transparent from UV into the visible spectrum, then it  begins to absorb heavily in the IR and microwave regions.

1) That's not how the so-called Greenhouse Effect works. A lot of the Sun's energy that would "bounce" off the Earth and back into space is what gets trapped.

2) Analogies are never perfect. That's what makes them analagies. You can't learn anything comparing a greenhouse to another greenhouse. They are both greenhouses, so of course they are the same. The atmosphere is "like" a greenhouse though it is not actually a greenhouse. It's still a useful comparison.

3) No, water is not the main thermal regulator of earth. Water is a wild card thermal regulator. Oceans absorb heat. However, frozen water, or ice, reflects the sun's light (albedo), causing a net cooling effect. Water molecules can act as a greenhouse gas, but on the other hand, clouds are white and produce shadows, so cloud cover can have a cooling effect. Melted fresh water running of Antarctica freezes faster than salt water, so temporary ice sheets form around Antarctica. The amount of water in the atmosphere can vary greatly; the other gases in the atmosphere regulate the climate, which would be unstable and irregular if water was the main thermal regulator.

[alancalverd]

Sorry, Craig, but not even the IPCC can repeal the laws of physics. Water is the only significant greenhouse gas in the gas phase (see puppypower's graph) as it has umpteen different IR absorption bands due to the bent shape of the molecule and its abilioty to form dimers, trimers and all sorts of short-range associations even in the gas phase. H2O gas can account for about 10% of the mass of air.

CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.

The problem with water is that its concentration is variable and it exists in all three states (solid, liquid and gas) in the atmosphere, with so much energy involved in the phase transitions that it causes thunderstorms, hurricanes, and pretty much every atmospheric phenomenon you can think of that involves the transfer of energy below the tropopause, including heating and cooling the surface of the planet. Plus, as you mention, vast and largely unpredictable changes in albedo at all levels - just compare a cloudy night with a cloudfree one to see how much influence it has on infrared emission. 

Now the nice thing about CO2 is that it can be measured and only exists in one phase, so it's fun for pseudoscientists to play with, whilst the entire herd of elephants called H2O tramples through the sky causing weather, climate, and everything in between.

The one honest statement made by the IPCC was a footnote in their first report, admitting that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of water, so they were going to ignore it.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer).  At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.

But annoyingly for governments (who profit from "green" nonscience) the Mauna Loa data does not lie.

[cheryl j]

I wont attempt to engage in an argument that I really don't understand anything about, but from a sort of Bayesian standpoint, why do you guys disagree with the world wide consensus on climate change - what is it that most climate scientists have gotten wrong and why? Or am I wrong in thinking there is a consensus that human activity and emissions is affecting climate?

[JoeBrown]

Cheryl, I think it has to do with human nature.  More specifically the addict's mentality.  A lot of ppl get stuck in the state of denial.  There's no reason to admit a problem, nor find a resolution if you don't have a problem.

Humans have become addicted to burning fuels, over the past few hundred years. Determining how long we can survive denial is a hot topic, even if the act of denial is ignored.

80 degrees Fahrenheit in Washington DC this early in March is going to give some "important" ppl pause.  Senator Jim Inhofe would probably eat his snowball, if it hadn't melted this early in the year.

[puppypower]

"The question in my mind is why the concentration of CO2 rises during the period of most rapid growth of vegetation (Jan-June) when anthropogenic emission is decreasing, and declines throughout the fall/harvest/winter period with a minimum in October/November when deciduous trees are dormant and anthropogenic emission is increasing. Surely that is counterintuitive and suggests that there must be a third mechanism involved?"

The image below shows the absorption spectrum of liquid water. The two peaks shown are connected to high and low density water, which both exist in liquid water. These differ by the nature of the hydrogen bonding in water clusters. Low density water (LDW) tends to form a more expanded hydrogen bonding network, while high density water (HDW) tends to form a more contracted hydrogen bonding network. Both exist in liquid water with the LDW due to more partial covalent character in the hydrogen bonds, while the HDW due to a more polar character in the hydrogen bonds.



The organics of the living state can induce both high and low density water based on surfaces. 

When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms weak hydrogen bonds with water. This bonding should form easier in HDW since this water has higher activity due to polar hydrogen bonds. HDW defines higher enthalpy and entropy and is more consistent with the transient nature of CO2 hydrogen bonding to water.

The CO2 may form a hydration shell from a symmetrical dodecahedral arrangement of 18 water molecules where each CO2 oxygen atom is hydrogen bonded to three water molecules. Such hydrogen bonding is likely to be weak, transient and exchanging between a continuum of structures. This allows some cooperation between the hydrogen bonding at both ends of the CO2 molecule.

Trees tend to give a cool feel to the earth, instead of making the earth warmer. In the top graph, this suggests the surfaces of leaves tend to induce LDW which absorbs less in the IR. The LDW is also less conducive to CO2 forming hydrogen bonds in water. This destabilizing of CO2 hydration in water is useful because the CO2 is released from the water cage for easier photosynthesis and  entry into the air.

As the plants slow photosynthesis in the fall, plant surfaces change, which will change the LDW/HDW equilibrium at the surface more in line with the higher ratio of HDW in pure water. This allows CO2 to form hydration cages causing the water of life to pick uo more CO2; for next year.

[Craig W. Thomson]

CO2, being a rigid linear molecule of negligible concentration, is a trivial contributor to the greenhouse effect - as can be seen from the surface temperature of Mars.

Yes, there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but all the science shows that temperature is the cause (thermostat) and CO2 is the effect (thermometer).  At least that was he case until recently when, during a coincidental warming period, homo sapiens started adding a bit more CO2 to the atmosphere and thus distorted the data.

False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.

False. Humans haven't contributed "a bit more" CO2 to the atmosphere. In about 50 years, CO2 levels have risen a full 20%, to 20% higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years that we know of.

There's a huge hole in your "coincidental warming period" idea. The Earth has been covered with oceans for hundreds of millions of years. There have always been clouds and rain to dissipate unevenly distributed warming in that atmosphere. That NEVER caused CO2 levels to rise above 320 ppm. Current CO2 levels and temperature rises are anthropogenic in nature. It's related to the fact that we've applied combustion to about 100 million years worth of fossil fuels in only 150 years, not a coincidence.

[alancalverd]

False. Mars has less surface area than the Earth, plus, it's about 50% farther from the Sun than we are, plus it has a thinner atmosphere that holds less heat. That's why it's colder.

The partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is about 6 millibar. On Earth it is about 0.4 millibar. Correcting for the lower gravity of Mars means that the Martian atmosphere contains 37.5 times as much carbon dioxide per unit area as ours. Being twice as far from the sun means that it receives one quarter of the solar power input, so if CO2 is the principal determinant of surface termperature it should be hotter then Earth, not colder.

Anyway I've just found a really good reference http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/ which is either a pack of lies or clear evidence that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. And if you look back at the Vostok data  you will find a few places where the temperature was higher than the present day, but the CO2 level was lower.