OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by catatomic, Feb 28, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. catatomic
    Offline

    catatomic VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +56
    So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?

    I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.
     
  2. catatomic
    Offline

    catatomic VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +56
    I found this quote:

    "As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

    The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "
     
  3. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,672
    Thanks Received:
    1,150
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    Can you show me any actual measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere?

    Go to a couple of sites where pushing a climate agenda is not the mission and look at some actual science...go to, for example, a few technical sites where they are talking about how infrared heaters work...literally millions of hours of observation, measurement, and industrial application have shown that infrared radiation can not, and does not warm the air...and if IR does not warm the air, what does that do to the radiative greenhouse hypothesis being pushed by climate science?

    Infrared radiation warms objects...those objects can then warm the air via conduction...but infrared radiation?...no...it does not warm the air. There is no data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere because there is no coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.
     
    • Winner x 3
    • Thank You! x 1
    • Agree x 1
    • Funny x 1
    • Informative x 1
  4. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,252
    Thanks Received:
    2,590
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +11,580
    1. Earths tilt on its axis (eccentricity and solar angle of incidence ) is what causes ice ages. The amount of solar energy entering the earths atmosphere at a greater angle will lose energy hitting the surface. This is what causes earths oceans to warm and cool. Milankovitch cycles can fully cause glaciation despite the suns output or the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    2. The solubility of CO2 does indeed decrease as temperature rises in H2O. The effect of warming is not fully known nor is the process of water churn in the oceans.

    3. Their "analysis" that CO2 must be it, is so far off it isn't funny. Its so wrong that I cant describe just how wrong it is. It is based on pure conjecture and modeling that fails without exception.

    LWIR can not penetrate ocean water beyond its skin layer where it is immediately shed. In fact the water just below the skin is cooler than the water below it due to evaporation and the cooling it causes.

    The CAGW theory has so many holes in it the boat will sink and has every time the model is placed in water...
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. catatomic
    Offline

    catatomic VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    196
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +56
    Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.
     
  6. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    13,252
    Thanks Received:
    2,590
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +11,580
    The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..

    PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.jpg

    And when we get to a resolution where you can see them.....

    CO2 and Ice Ages.JPG

    This pattern is right in line with Milankovitch cycles and lays waste to any credible CO2 fantasy.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. polarbear
    Offline

    polarbear I eat morons

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,076
    Thanks Received:
    348
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +943
    Exactly ! That`s the whole point of using infrared heaters in large buildings and you don`t want to waste most of the power to heat the air
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,672
    Thanks Received:
    1,150
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    Ever stood on a ski slope on a sunny day...air temperatures close to or below freezing..surrounded by snow and ice and still comfortable in your shirt sleeves? Radiation warming your body but not the air...the whole belief that CO2 can somehow warm the atmosphere is pure magical thinking...millions of hours of observation, measurement, industrial and residential application prove that IR doesn't warm the air and yet they believe...not based on scientific evidence, but on political ideology.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  9. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    10,601
    Thanks Received:
    1,239
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,075
    Hahahaha. The shallowness of your thinking never ceases to amaze me!

    You take an out-of-context, or unrepresentative example, and generalize it across the board.

    Sure, someone might be comfortable at 0C on a calm and sunny day receiving direct and indirect sunshine. The same person would be pretty unhappy at 10C on a cloudy, windy day.

    Central heating became popular because of economy of scale and ease of use. Forced air is quick but inefficient because hot air leaks out. Hot water radiant is slower but more efficient. Both use a convection system to move heat from a central source to a distant location.

    There has lately been a movement away from Central heating because wall or ceiling mounted electrical radiant panels have become more efficient and effective than old style electric baseboards at floor level on outside walls. Presumably the gap between the price of fossil fuels and electricity is now low enough to make it economically viable. At least until 'free' renewable energy jacks up the price up here as it already has in other parts of the world.

    Yes, radiation is a poor and inefficient way of warming the air. It is also a very poor and inefficient way of cooling the air. The small amount of energy absorbed from the surface is still larger than the amount radiated to space from the cooler heights up in the atmosphere.

    The Earth only cools by radiation loss to space. Conduction and convection are mediated by mass. There is no mass in space therefore no heat loss by conduction or convection. It does not matter that conduction and convection are efficient at moving energy from one area of mass to another if it can't escape.

    Most of the radiation lost by the Earth system is by wavelengths that pass through the atmosphere as if it wasn't there, it is transmitted rather than absorbed or reflected. That happens from the surface, and secondarily at the cloudtops where condensation releases latent heat via liquid or solid water precipitation. The clouds radiate in all directions so only roughly half escapes to space.

    Anytime energy deviates from directly escaping from the surface to space there is less energy loss. The difference is stored in the atmosphere. That stored energy increases the temperature of the air, which then increases the temperature of the surface, which then increases the amount of directly escaping radiation until it matches the solar energy input.

    There is no way around it. Still don't believe it? Fine, then explain why there is missing radiation from the top of the atmosphere in exactly the same wavelengths that GHGs are known to absorb. Don't believe that the energy is being stored in the atmosphere and returned to the surface? Fine, then explain how the surface is radiating at a higher output than the solar input.

    I personally don't think CO2 is the control knob of the climate system but I certainly think it is one of the factors. Data proves it, science explains the mechanism. I disagree with the consensus climate science claims for the feedbacks because the data disagrees and the science doesn't come close to being able to explain the mechanics of the water cycle and clouds.
     
  10. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,672
    Thanks Received:
    1,150
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,306

    Radiation is a poor way to warm the air because it doesn't warm air...It is inefficient because if you want to use radiation to warm the air, you have to heat the objects in a room and wait for the energy absorbed by the objects in the room and the walls to conduct that energy to the air.

    Your belief that there is a radiative greenhouse effect is belief in magic ian...there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science..

    And what data proves it ian? Model data? magical model data? there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and there isn't the first piece of real data that suggests that CO2 has any effect on climate whatsoever. But if you believe there is, by all means lets see it...my bet is that if you post something it will be little more than additional evidence of how easily you are fooled by instrumentation.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

news