CO2 sensitivity

[Big Fitz]

Lot of B.S., but nobody touched Old Rock's science.

It's so sensitive Oprah booked it twice before she retires and Dr. Phil tried to console it once.

 

[westwall]

Lot of B.S., but nobody touched Old Rock's science.

Praytell what science are you speaking of? I saw no evidence of science. I read the report and they were specifically speaking of computer models (and as we have seen ALL of the computer models being used by the AGW groups are incredibly poorly done.) and there was in fact NO HARD SCIENCE AT ALL. IT WAS ALL NUMBER CRUNCHING. A favored quote of mine is this...

"I have never denied that statistics hava a value, the fool pays homage to them while the wise man twists them to his own desire."

A more accurate description of AGW "science" I have yet to hear.

 

[Old Rocks]

As ussual, naught but yap-yap, not single point of real science to back up their willfully ignorant positions.

 

[gslack]

ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2009) — In the long term, the Earth's temperature may be 30-50% more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than has previously been estimated, reports a new study published in Nature Geoscience.

This would agree with what we are currently seeing. The climate response, particularly in the Arctic and Antarctic has been much more than predicted.

Earth More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than Previously Thought - Global Warming and Nature - AOL Message Boards

The results show that components of the Earth's climate system that vary over long timescales -- such as land-ice and vegetation -- have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but these factors are often neglected in current climate models.

Dan Lunt, from the University of Bristol, and colleagues compared results from a global climate model to temperature reconstructions of the Earth's environment three million years ago when global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively high. The temperature reconstructions were derived using data from three million-year-old sediments on the ocean floor.

Lunt said, "We found that, given the concentrations of carbon dioxide prevailing three million years ago, the model originally predicted a significantly smaller temperature increase than that indicated by the reconstructions. This led us to review what was missing from the model."

Aol message boards? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!

And when we see the actual data they are referencing we may give a second look... AOL message boards.. WHat a idiot...

 

[konradv]

Lot of B.S., but nobody touched Old Rock's science.

Praytell what science are you speaking of? I saw no evidence of science. I read the report and they were specifically speaking of computer models (and as we have seen ALL of the computer models being used by the AGW groups are incredibly poorly done.) and there was in fact NO HARD SCIENCE AT ALL. IT WAS ALL NUMBER CRUNCHING. A favored quote of mine is this...

"I have never denied that statistics hava a value, the fool pays homage to them while the wise man twists them to his own desire."

A more accurate description of AGW "science" I have yet to hear.

Sure you weren't re-reading one of your own posts? You seem to have trouble understanding them as well. Here's a clue. People who differ on the possible severity of AGW aren't AGW deniers. Everytime you post one of those stories, you confirm that that AGW IS the scientific consensus.

 

[gslack]

Lot of B.S., but nobody touched Old Rock's science.

Praytell what science are you speaking of? I saw no evidence of science. I read the report and they were specifically speaking of computer models (and as we have seen ALL of the computer models being used by the AGW groups are incredibly poorly done.) and there was in fact NO HARD SCIENCE AT ALL. IT WAS ALL NUMBER CRUNCHING. A favored quote of mine is this...

"I have never denied that statistics hava a value, the fool pays homage to them while the wise man twists them to his own desire."

A more accurate description of AGW "science" I have yet to hear.

Sure you weren't re-reading one of your own posts? You seem to have trouble understanding them as well. Here's a clue. People who differ on the possible severity of AGW aren't AGW deniers. Everytime you post one of those stories, you confirm that that AGW IS the scientific consensus.

And EVERY TIME YOU POST, you prove you are the forum idiot....

 

[konradv]

And EVERY TIME YOU POST, you prove you are the forum idiot

Talking to yourself is a sign of more than idiocy.

 

[Big Fitz]

Now ya done it Gslack. Ya hurt CO2's feelings and it's needing to see it's counselor.

 

[daveman]

Now ya done it Gslack. Ya hurt CO2's feelings and it's needing to see it's counselor.

Obviously, the only thing that will cheer up this depressed CO2 is world socialism.


Please...won't someone think of the CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Dave, you idiocy is in like company here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, Dave, you idiocy is in like company here.

Funny, Comrade, funny.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm....... A communist pedophile, is that you sig, Frank?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hmmm....... A communist pedophile, is that you sig, Frank?

What's your favorite vodka?

 

[Big Fitz]

Now ya done it Gslack. Ya hurt CO2's feelings and it's needing to see it's counselor.

Obviously, the only thing that will cheer up this depressed CO2 is world socialism.


Please...won't someone think of the CO2?

Thaaaaank you Mrs. Rev. Lovejoy.

 

[JBeukema]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Because the greenhouse effect and its players vary with altitude and latitude there is often confusion over differing statements regarding the greenhouse potential of constituent gases. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest -- it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The net total atmosphere greenhouse effect then is about 90% water (as vapor and cloud droplets) and 10% carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

 

[Old Rocks]

JB, total misinformation consisting of enough half truths to form a complete lie. The residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2, a couple of centuries.

If you removed all the water in the atmosphere, in a very short time you would have the water back in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth being 3/4 ocean. However, were you to remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, is a few years you would have glaciers at the equator.

If you double the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, in a few short, very rainy days, you would be back where you started. If you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, discounting the feedbacks that would make the period far longer, the least time it would be before you had the original amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is two hundred years.

Water vapor is a feedback.

 

[JBeukema]

If you double the CO2 in the atmosphere

If I double the volume of your blood, you die from massive hemorrhaging. This proves blood is evil

Oh, wait, there's no evidence I'm doubling the volume of your blood

show that we're doubling the amount of C02 in the atmosphere

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JB, total misinformation consisting of enough half truths to form a complete lie. The residence time for H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2, a couple of centuries.

If you removed all the water in the atmosphere, in a very short time you would have the water back in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth being 3/4 ocean. However, were you to remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, is a few years you would have glaciers at the equator.

If you double the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, in a few short, very rainy days, you would be back where you started. If you double the CO2 in the atmosphere, discounting the feedbacks that would make the period far longer, the least time it would be before you had the original amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is two hundred years.

Water vapor is a feedback.

So show us in a lab how a doubling of CO2 does all the things you say is does.

Do you understand your hypothesis?

 

[JBeukema]

Surely, OR can show us laboratory tests which show that doubling CO2 in an environment, without changing any other variables) can lead to such results.

An I want tests, not models that assume Earth should be a given temperature and are then tweaked after a few runs to give the desired result.

 

[JBeukema]

However, were you to remove all the CO2 in the atmosphere, is a few years you would have glaciers at the equator..

source?

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]We'll offer three of the more commonly used and/or discussed estimates for the amount of cooling Earth would experience for a hypothetical zero-CO2, cloud-free atmosphere [/FONT]

1. [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
   [*]Lindzen (5.3 °C clear sky, 3.53 °C with 40% cloud),
   [*]Charnock & Shine (12 °C clear sky), C&S are the big number guys in the estimation game (both these from Physics Today, 1995),
   [*]Kondratjew & Moskalenko (7.2 °C, commonly cited but we are not sure why, perhaps because Houghton used their estimate in his book, 'The Global Climate', 1984).[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts