OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[SSDD]

You are conflating the direction of radiation with the escape of radiation. They are not the same thing.

Of course they are the same thing...since energy always moves from warm to cool.

 

[SSDD]

OK I get what you guys are saying now. LIA little ice age. I think AGW is still winning, but like I said don't mind me.

You might start separating the wheat from the chaff by actively looking for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I have been looking for close to 3 decades and have yet to find even a single scrap of real evidence that supports AGW over natural variability.

There is absolutely nothing happening within our climate now that is even beginning to approach the boundaries of natural variability. Manmade climate change is supposed to look, and act different from natural climate change...and there is nothing unusual or different happening now...so if manmade climate change is indistinguishable from natural climate change, exactly what is the hoo haa all about other than money and political power?

 

[catatomic]

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.

 

[IanC]

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.

Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.

In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Henry's law.

But don't expect Al Gore to mention Henry's law when he's on a scissor lift brainwashing and scaring the shit out of auditorium full of naive & impressionable schoolchildren.



The only thing scary about it is that those brainwashed kids are old enough to vote now.

 

[Muhammed]

I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.

Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?

 

[IanC]

On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.

On a sunny afternoon I would put it up for the opposite reason. It reduces the net radiation gain from the solar insolation.

Anytime you put a third object in between the original two objects, the radiation transfer rate will be reduced, as long as the third object can interact with at least some portion of the radiation.

People find it much easier to visualize why the umbrella reduces warming in daytime and have a harder time grasping the concept of how it reduces cooling at night.

 

[IanC]

I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.

Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?

At a stable concentration of Atmospheric CO2, the amount that dissolves into the ocean is controlled by temperature and how fast other reactions remove it by turning it into inert substances. A naturally caused 1C temperature increase would expel some CO2 and that extra CO2 would cause a triffling amount of extra warming.

Burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 by an unnatural mechanism, and that has caused a small amount of warming. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.

In the first case, natural stasis. In the second case, a change of conditions ends up with an opposite result. More CO2 going into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb.

We cannot compare our unnaturally caused CO2 level with similar historical levels because they were caused by natural factors.

The causation/correlation relationship does not work if you unnaturally change one side of the equation.

 

[SSDD]

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.

Good luck getting a refutation here...I have been asking since I got here (2012) and a couple of people attempted the challenge, but all they managed to do was show what a low threshold they had for calling something "data"...I don't believe any of it was actually observed, or measured...it was, as I remember the output of failing computer models.

 

[SSDD]

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.

Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.

In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.

Why not simply say that you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability? Does it sting that badly to simply admit the truth?..if so, ask yourself why it should.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.

Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?

I second that...Ian claims to be a luke warmer but he is sitting on the front row at the church of AGW every saturday afternoon.

 

[SSDD]

On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.

No ian...the umbrella blocks conduction on to the cooler regions of the atmosphere, which increases the air temperature...and according to the SB law, if you increase the temperature of a radiator's surroundings, the amount of energy it radiates decreases...the umbrella is not back radiating the energy your body lost to you..you believe in fairy dust and unicorn perspiration...and who knows what other magic...

 

[SSDD]

I didn't read all of this...but it all has to do with the ocean's ability to absorb it. And temperature affects it's ability to do that.
Hopefully that was more clear than 18 paragraphs.

Sure, there is some connections between temperature and the ocean's ability to absorb CO2 and convert it into different forms. But the anthropogenic addition is swamping that effect.

Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?

At a stable concentration of Atmospheric CO2, the amount that dissolves into the ocean is controlled by temperature and how fast other reactions remove it by turning it into inert substances. A naturally caused 1C temperature increase would expel some CO2 and that extra CO2 would cause a triffling amount of extra warming.

Burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 by an unnatural mechanism, and that has caused a small amount of warming. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.

In the first case, natural stasis. In the second case, a change of conditions ends up with an opposite result. More CO2 going into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb.

We cannot compare our unnaturally caused CO2 level with similar historical levels because they were caused by natural factors.

The causation/correlation relationship does not work if you unnaturally change one side of the equation.

In which chapter of your climate change grimoire do you find that nonsense? Tell me ian, do you believe other molecules, or substances are magical as well, or in your reality does CO2 hold all of the magic in the universe?

Reality: the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are outgassing.

Another reality: You get more ridiculous every day ian....

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. I can't figure out why you strawman my positions.

Is it an inability to comprehend? Are you really that stupid? I doubt it.

Or is it just some psychological need on your part to disagree with any and every thing I say?

I think it is probably the latter.

I said-

. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.

You said-

Reality: the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they are outgassing.

Yet, for some reason, you are reacting as if my statement is foolish fantasy and that yours is somehow different and the voice of reason.

 

[IanC]

Thinking about the things you've said, I am anti-man-made climate change.
Does anyone have a refutation to the post before this one?!

If not I have decided.

Hahahaha. You're a math major, you are expecting either a right or wrong answer.

In climate science all you can expect is a less incorrect answer. Or perhaps a less incomplete answer.

Why not simply say that you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability? Does it sting that badly to simply admit the truth?..if so, ask yourself why it should.

You are making another strawman position and attributing it to me.

I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.

And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.

 

[SSDD]

.

I said. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature. {/quote]

And you think a couple of parts per million is increasing the concentration enough to make that happen? Really?

The temperature of the oceans is far more important in whether CO2 is being outgassed than absorbed in that equation...now if you want to give CO2 responsibility for decreasing ocean temperatures, then maybe we have something to talk about...the climate sensitivity to CO2 being zero "OR LESS"..

 

[SSDD]

I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.

It is no factor...except for maybe some slight cooling...certainly not warming.

And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.

And there isn't the first bit of actual observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...we have already been through this and all you showed was how easily you were fooled by instrumentation....claiming that instruments were measuring back radiation when in fact, they were measuring nothing more than temperature changes within their own internal thermopiles...

 

[IanC]

I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.

It is no factor...except for maybe some slight cooling...certainly not warming.

And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.

And there isn't the first bit of actual observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...we have already been through this and all you showed was how easily you were fooled by instrumentation....claiming that instruments were measuring back radiation when in fact, they were measuring nothing more than temperature changes within their own internal thermopiles...

STOP THE PRESS! Just in. SSDD discovers all electronic measuring devices are useless. No word yet whether they read high or low, or whether it it the accuracy or precision that is in doubt.

News at eleven.


Hahahaha, what a dolt.

 

[IanC]

.

I said. The higher concentration is forcing more CO2 into the oceans despite the reduced ability to absorb it caused by a warmer temperature.

And you think a couple of parts per million is increasing the concentration enough to make that happen? Really?

The temperature of the oceans is far more important in whether CO2 is being outgassed than absorbed in that equation...now if you want to give CO2 responsibility for decreasing ocean temperatures, then maybe we have something to talk about...the climate sensitivity to CO2 being zero "OR LESS"..

Increasing the concentration on one side of the equation affects the concentration on the other side.

Changing the temperature of the reaction also affects the equilibrium concentrations.

For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

That CO2 is held as carbonic acid which partially dissociates, lowering the pH.

Didn't you take any chemistry classes? This is pretty elementary stuff.

 

[IanC]

On a clear summer evening when I am entertaining on the deck, I will put out the umbrella if it starts to turn chilly. This reduces the net radiation loss from your body because the umbrella is radiating more towards you than the clear sky.

No ian...the umbrella blocks conduction on to the cooler regions of the atmosphere, which increases the air temperature...and according to the SB law, if you increase the temperature of a radiator's surroundings, the amount of energy it radiates decreases...the umbrella is not back radiating the energy your body lost to you..you believe in fairy dust and unicorn perspiration...and who knows what other magic...

Now it is conduction that is the Boogeyman? Ay Carumba! Why don't you get your stories straight.

Stand next to a brick wall that stored heat during the daytime. At night both you and the wall will be radiating. The warmth you feel is radiation coming from the wall. Not convection which pushes warm air upwards (if anything you might be in the down draught of cooler air replacing the rising heated air). Not conduction which is slow in air, and easily overwhelmed by air flow.

It is radiation you feel. Both you and the wall will be radiating according to your temperature, whether you are close to the wall or not. However, if you are close to the wall, both you and the wall will be cooling off at a slower rate. Part of your exposure to the cooler environment is replaced with a warmer object and the net radiation loss is reduced.