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

[IanC]

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:

FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).

SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.

THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.

QED.

Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[eots]

klingon news

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - one day there won't be no air to breathe an' den we all gonna die...

Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark
10 May 2013 - Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark.

Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time. The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958. The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed. Scientists say the climate back then was also considerably warmer than it is today.

Key measurements are made on top of the Mauna Loa volcano

Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades. Human sources come principally from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The usual trend seen at the volcano is for the CO2 concentration to rise in winter months and then to fall back as the northern hemisphere growing season kicks in. Forests and other vegetation pull some of the gas out of the atmosphere. This means the number can be expected to decline by a few ppm below 400 in the coming weeks. But the long-term trend is upwards.

Carbon by proxy

James Butler is responsible for the Earth System Research Laboratory, a facility on Mauna Loa belonging to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). Its daily average CO2 concentration figure on Thursday was 400.03. Dr Butler told BBC News: "Carbon dioxide has some variability on an hourly, daily and weekly basis, so we are not comfortable calling a single number - the lowest we will go is on a daily average, which has happened in this case. "Mauna Loa and the South Pole observatory are iconic sites as they have been taking CO2 measurements in real time since 1958. Last year, for the first time, all Arctic sites reached 400ppm. "This is the first time the daily average has passed 400ppm at Mauna Loa." The long-term measurements at Mauna Loa were started by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist called Charles Keeling. In 1958, he found the concentration at the top of the volcano to be around 315ppm (that is 315 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Every year since then, the "Keeling Curve", as it has become known, has squiggled resolutely higher.

Scripps still operates equipment alongside Noaa on the mountain peak. Its readings have been pushing 400ppm in recent days, and on Thursday recorded a daily average of 399.73. But Noaa senior scientist Pieter Tans said: "Our measurements (Noaa) are in Coordinated Universal Time, while the Keeling measurements are in local Hawaii time. If you shift the Keeling definition of a day to the same as ours then we do agree almost completely on the measurements." By this definition, the Keeling team's Thursday number would be 400.08ppm. And Dr Butler added: "Probably next year, or the year after that, the average yearly reading will pass 400pm. "A couple of years after that, the South Pole will have readings of 400ppm, and in eight to nine years we will probably have seen the last CO2 reading under 400ppm."

To determine CO2 levels before the introduction of modern stations, scientists must use so-called proxy measurements. These include studying the bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice. One of these can be used to describe CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years. It suggests that CO2 held steady over this longer period at between 200ppm and 300ppm. British atmospheric physicist Prof Joanna Haigh commented: "In itself, the value 400ppm of CO2 has no particular significance for the physics of the climate system: concentration levels have been in the 300s for so long and now we've passed the 400 mark. However, this does give us the chance to mark the ongoing increase in CO2 concentration and talk about why it's a problem for the climate."

BBC News - Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark

 

[skookerasbil]

The whole CO2 thing is a complete goof.............


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jon_berzerk]

The whole CO2 thing is a complete goof.............


CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube

good youtube

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

 

[gslack]

The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.

This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:

FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).

SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.

THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.

QED.

Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.

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.

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.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

your ratio is all f'ed up

put a drop of India ink in an Olympic size swimming pool

and the water does not change color

 

[Saigon]

Jon -

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon -

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?

co2 is not botulism

get real

 

[Saigon]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

your comparison is still stupid

co2 is not a poison

 

[Saigon]

Jon -

Is water a poison?

Is it possible for a human to die by ingesting water?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon -

Is water a poison?

Is it possible for a human to die by ingesting water?

water in itself is not a poison

and neither it the trace amount of co2

in the atmosphere

 

[Saigon]

Jon -

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?

 

[gslack]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

The best scientists in the world have REAL things to research. They do not seek degrees in climate science, or resource management, or any other such Fads.

Do you know who Raymond Laflamme is? No? How about Stephen Hawking? Of course you do he is the rockstar of the cosmology and theoretical physics world. Well Raymond happened to be one of Hawkings doctoral students who helped Dr.Hawking understand times arrow and corrected him. Hawking thanked him in his book, "A Brief History of Time".

He's not famous, in fact outside of Quantum Computing Academic circles few know who he is.. But he was brilliant enough to correct Hawking as a Doctoral student.

The point is, the greatest scientific minds are not necessarily in any one field. And certainly not exclusively in climate science. Stop making bold and immature claims already...

First the ACTUAL GLOBAL CO2 PPM IS 395 PPM. The 399 measurement was exclusive tothe Mauna Loa observatory, when they take it into the global mean it is 395. That was a misrepresentation by HUFFPO oldsocks put up..

And who is to say it's a dangerous level? It's not getting hotter yet so stop the panic attack.

Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Jon -

Ok, we are making progress!

We know that tiny amounts of botulism and radioactive caesium can destroy a large area or ecosystem.

If water is NOT a poison, but can still be fatal in excessive quantites, why do you not think CO2 could also be harmful to the environment in excessive quantities?

you are full of nonsense

--LOL