how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Mar 15, 2012.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.

    ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.

    the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Positive feedbacks. Melting of ice, exposure of seawater that used to be covered by the ice, melting of the permafrost, increased water vapor in the air due to increased troposphere temperature. Just a few.

    Negative feedbacks? Maybe clouds, maybe not.

    The differance between 180 ppm and 280 ppm of CO2 is the differance of ice sheets reaching south of the Canadian border. Yet we are to suppose that the differance between 280 ppm and 390 ppm will be minimal? That the differance between 0.7 ppm of CH4 and 1.8 ppm will have no effect. Plus we have industrial GHGs that have no natural analog, and are thousands of times as effective as CO2.

    The effects that we are feeling today are from the GHG levels of at least 30 years ago. You are correct in that the ocean acts like a ballast, and absorbs most of the excess heat. But that creates a warmer ocean, that also adds to the heat down the road. So the effects of the GHGs that are in the atmosphere at present will not be felt fully until at least the early 2040's.

    So what will that be like? Well, we are already seeing the very rapid decline in the Arctic Sea Ice. By then, there will almost certainly be several summer months with little to no ice. And a good chance that the Arctic Clathrates will be outgassing in a major way. Certainly the permafrose will be. For the open ocean creates warmer conditons inland, and the already rapidly melting permafrost will be melting even more rapidly. Plus, the change from tundra to shrub lands will also tend to insulate the soil in the winter, and increase the absorption of heat in the summer.

    Not only will we be dealing with the amount of GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere, we will have major amounts being added by the increase in warmth. And a major portion of the GHGs will be in the form of CH4, up to 100 times as effective of a GHG as CO2 in the first decade after it is emitted.

    Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - ARCTIC WARMING

    Water flowing into the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean is about 2°C warmer today than it has been for at least 2,000 years, from Arctic warming amplification (so another feedback), according to a Science paper, Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water, by R. Spielhagen et al., January 2011.

    Another factor in Arctic amplification is a 2011 finding by C. Kinnard that "early 21st-century temperatures of Atlantic water entering the Arctic Ocean are unprecedented over the past 1450 years and are presumably linked to the Arctic amplification of global warming."

    Some global warming emissions (methane, tropospheric ozone, black carbon) concentrate over the Arctic and may be adding to Arctic amplification (Short-lived pollutants in the Arctic: Their climate impact, P. K. Quinn et al, 2008). Atmospheric methane is concentrated over the poles, especially the Arctic (hydroxyl is not efficient at removing methane over the cold regions). The Svalbard atmospheric monitoring site has been recording a recent increase in Arctic methane concentration.
     
  4. eots
    Offline

    eots no fly list

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Messages:
    28,995
    Thanks Received:
    2,034
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    klingon news

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2014
  5. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,823
    Thanks Received:
    1,789
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,871
    Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...
    :eek:
    Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark
    10 May 2013 - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark.

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,202
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,213
    The whole CO2 thing is a complete goof.............


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    23,100
    Thanks Received:
    5,778
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +12,471
  8. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,677
    Thanks Received:
    2,445
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,633
    Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.

    If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,313
    Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?
     
  10. gslack
    Offline

    gslack Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,527
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +346
    I hope you get a kickback from all the free advertising you give his website.. Seriously man, you must have a Spencer shrine in your basement, if the man farted you would try and bottle it..ROFL..

    It doesn't warm the surface, the surface is already warmer. It slows heat loss, it doesn't warm the surface. They already know that more energy in means more energy out at a higher rate. In other words, the more the sun warms the surface, the faster the heat will be dissipated away. It's entropy doing it's job.

    IF by some miracle the surface and the atmosphere were to reach a state of thermal equilibrium, the radiative transfer would neither add to or subtract from the system, hence blackbody radiation.

    The earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, nor is it anything like one. A closer analogy would be a fine mesh. EM radiation or light comes in well enough to give us light and warm the surface, and when that heat is released it is diffused by the atmosphere. It keeps a more closer to uniform global temperature and slows the heat loss, but DOES NOT heat the surface further.

    Spencer used the insulated house story again... Too funny.. The insulation does NOT make the house warmer, it slows the loss of heat. If you turn off the heater it will not stay the same temperature or get any warmer, it will cool down and do so at the rate the insulation levels will permit. Now turn the heater up to 90 F and what will happen? The house will warm until it reaches the 90F temperature and then the thermostat will shut it off. It will reach 90F faster the more insulation you add, but it will NOT warm the interior any more than the heater or heat source. The reason? The 1st and 2nd law negate perfect machines and lossless energy transfer, as well as energy flowing back to it's warmer source without work being done to make it happen.

    I think spencer has invested so much into this theory he just refuses to accept reality even when he himself says it...

    His own words from your link...

    "Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."-Roy Spencer

    Yes it does, and that IS NOT the same as warming the surface even more than it already is .. It can reach a state of equilibrium with the energy coming in quicker, but it cannot produce any extra energy or warming..

    Now I know you're going to go and pretend it makes no sense again and do your standard Ian dumb act. Please be my guest, and show me that you lack the mental capacity to think on the proper level to see things as they are and not as you wish them to be.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

cad design

,

explaination of weing displacement anfd religh jeans law by planck hypothesis