Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

[orogenicman]

If you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then you have your answer. tada. As you were.

nope sorry. anyway, I know you have zero scientific facts so tada!!!!

I have at least one fact, one we both agree on - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Next.

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas until you don't? Hmm.

To answer your question (pay close attention because I am not going to repeat this):

Common Climate Misconceptions Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Yale Climate Connections

Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.

It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2 would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.

The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.

Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).

At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.

The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM

Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.

It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.

Image from the Global Carbon Project.

Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.

Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.

The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.

Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.

nice, applaud. Now, see, this is exactly my point. This is not proof of how CO2 behaves. It is someones conclusion built off of some physical study. Sorry, I need evidence, a test that actually proves all of this. I appreciate your time in pulling all of this. Curious, it didn't take you long, seems you had a template folder from which you drew from.

But alas, sorry, I don't buy it. And until someone of your type can, it isn't factually correct. See history tells us all that the atmosphere once held over 1000PPM of CO2 and was quite healthy. History fails your graphs and pictures. Also, why is there still Arctic ice and Antarctic ice. We were supposed to be ice free in the summers in the Arctic by the early 2000s. what happened? Mean old CO2 didn't comply with the predictions. And finally again, why is it money is the solution to your problem?

With this kind of baseless stubbornness, you no doubt failed every science class you ever took, assuming that you ever took one. You have your answer. I'm done here.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

I will go through this once again.

Skeptics believe that doubling CO2 increases surface temp by roughly 1C, if everything else remains unchanged. Simple calculation from known radiative properties.

Most consensus climate models of the last 30 years multiply that 1C times three. This is where skeptics veer away from consensus. We believe feedbacks are much less positive and may even ultimately be slightly negative, as most stable systems are.

In the 80's and 90's coincidental natural factors seemed to buttress consensus opinion and it became hardened into fact in many people's minds. Since then natural factors have not cooperated but CO2 theory continues unabated with more and more ad hoc excuses rather than rethinking the assumption and hypothesis and adjusting it to reality.

As far as experiments go, there should be no feedbacks but there are likely confounding physical processes that would attenuate the warming. The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control. You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.

I think for myself, and extraordinary claims must be backed up by evidence not appeals to authority.

 

[Wuwei]

because CO2 is but .04% of the make up of the atmosphere. It has increased in the atmosphere, no denial, but it has done zilch to temperatures. Water Vapor does more to temperatures. Can be proven at night. The fact is that CO2 is not a boogeyman. Hasn't been proved. No reason to have a discussion on a gas that has no influences, and yet here we are. You then ask me why not water vapor? good question. why not? Water vapor comes out of the ground and oceans.

The point I was making is that the physics behind the H2O and CO2 is identical. Namely backscatter from the vibration modes of the molecules. If one backscatters, so does the other.

 

[Wuwei]

you can prove that CO2 absorbs and emits? let's see the proof. that doesn't make your point s0n. Still waiting on the scientific facts that proves that CO2 influences temperatures.

BTW, greenhouse gases: The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. With which CO2 is the least amount, so tell me how dangerous it is?

You question CO2 absorbing and emitting and then refer to water vapor. You have to realize that water vapor is the primary GHG. Do you also question H2O absorbing and emitting radiation? If not, then what's your point. If so then why are the two GHGs different?

What was water vapors PPM last year, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 150 years ago?

Any data at all?

I have no idea.

 

[orogenicman]

Hahahaha. I guess your true colors are coming out now, eh?

I'm a big oil funded denier? Hahahaha.

You are reading way to much into what I said.

How typical of you bozos. It doesn't matter how often you are told what the skeptic's position is, you always fall back on straw man arguments and ad hominem.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Seems like you are creating the straw man and attacking me. Yes, I agree I sounded cynical, but I bet there is a lot of potential money available for a university student experiment. I can not see the government being interested in funding it because they already have the consensus they need. But I really can see some sort of denial institution wanting to prove that once and for all that an increased CO2 density will not increase GW. This is serious question that you should consider. Maybe a state grant would work. Why hasn't that been done?

I will go through this once again.

Skeptics believe that doubling CO2 increases surface temp by roughly 1C, if everything else remains unchanged. Simple calculation from known radiative properties.

Most consensus climate models of the last 30 years multiply that 1C times three. This is where skeptics veer away from consensus. We believe feedbacks are much less positive and may even ultimately be slightly negative, as most stable systems are.

I can't agree with you here. There is no reason to suppose that feedbacks will remain stable to slightly negative going forward, particularly given the fact that the Arctic, where there are plenty of ghgs stored in the permafrost, is warming at a much higher rate than anywhere else, and given the fact that the oceans are warming (and generating ever expanding dead zones). And I won't even go into the potential for biospheric disaster should the methane clathrates ever thaw in significant amounts (which is a distinct possibility). Moreover, since you agree that the Earth is warming, why would you conclude that it's climate systems are stable?

In the 80's and 90's coincidental natural factors seemed to buttress consensus opinion and it became hardened into fact in many people's minds. Since then natural factors have not cooperated but CO2 theory continues unabated with more and more ad hoc excuses rather than rethinking the assumption and hypothesis and adjusting it to reality.

The reality is that even if one admits to the so-called hiatus, the Earth has not cooled. It is still out of balance. And given the increasing concentrations of ghgs in the atmosphere, I see no reason to assume that it will become balanced any time soon. So what, exactly, do you believe needs adjusting?

As far as experiments go, there should be no feedbacks but there are likely confounding physical processes that would attenuate the warming.

Why should there be no feedback? The models show it to be so. And given, as I pointed out above, the current thawing of the Arctic that shows no sign of abating, there is no reason to assume that feedbacks aren't an issue. Yes, there are, and likely will be future confounding physical processes that could attenuate the warming. Volcanism is an obvious one. I for one am interested in learning how many tons of aerosols were emitted into the upper atmosphere from the recent Chilean eruption. No figures on that one yet. But how much any future attenuation there will be is, for now, only speculation, since it cannot be predicted in advance.

The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control. You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.

I have no comment on this since I haven't kept up with the experiment.

I think for myself, and extraordinary claims must be backed up by evidence not appeals to authority.

I agree. Having said that, science doesn't appeal to authority, because there are no authorities in science; only fallible experts. But hey, they are the best we've got.

 

[Wuwei]

The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control.

You can't compare .04% of CO2 in a 3 foot box with the same .04% of CO2 in several dozen miles of atmosphere. The effect would be too small to observe. The MythBusters experiment was not even attempting to illustrate what 120 ppm would do. That is your quest, not theirs. They just wanted to show a “blanketing” effect, which they did. However, if their goal was the same as yours, then yes they should have had at least one control box with the appropriate amount of CO2 about 120/400 less. But that would not tell you what you want to know. See below.

You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.

No, it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the radiation at the end of a column of an absorber. Centuries ago Herr WhatsHisName measured the logarithmic saturation of CO2 in a column although he didn't understand exactly what he was measuring.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the S-B law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered at
Simple Models of Climate
It is a long read, sometimes difficult, but it is essential to understand if you want to argue the science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I might guess that most scientists understand modeling enough that they are satisfied in their predictions. If AGW is such a controversial cause, why don't you deniers find funding from the oil companies to demonstrate that CO2 does not cause increased warming.

Yes, for you guys, it is also exactly the type of thing university science majors do in first year. Wouldn't you love it if a definitive experiment was published that showed AGW was all a farce? C'mon, do the experiment and post the experiment.

Too funny... Your models overestimate warming by 600%. Your modes do not match reality in any form. The models have all failed empirical review. Your so busy looking at your computer screen and models you forget to do real science and look out the dam window and OBSERVE..

Your models have all failed the last step in falsification of a hypothesis, PREDICTION.

 

[Billy_Bob]

huh? What do you mean? Ian posted what I'd like to see. Do you say that that request is outrageous based on the claims? Give me box like mythbusters had, take a reading. increase the CO2 by 20 PPM and take a reading, add another 20 PPM and another and another. Why is that sooooooo difficult to do? What is it one is afraid of that drives a reaction of insanity? Why do you need to be on a mountain or valley or on a boat at sea? why, seems very simple to me. Me, the fact there isn't one is my proof. I will stand by my proof. Which is the missing proof by those who claim that adding 120 PPM of CO2 causes a temperature increase.

In laboratory conditions, science already know how back scattering works. These types of absorption experiments were done long ago. Exponential attenuation of radiation is well known.

(Warning. Extreme hyperbole) Asking for a lab experiment of this sort is like piling a bunch of one inch cubes, and checking that the height of the pile is equal to the number of blocks times one inch. Legitimate scientists don't want to waste their time. As ionc said, why hasn't a university student done it, if you guys have such a stake in it.

What a bunch of bull shit..

The only hyperbole here is your AGW drivel that has bee shown fraud and deceit.. What is sad are the number of cult members who will say anything a lie to keep the lie alive..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Mythbuster's experiment should have shown something like 7C warming for 7 doublings compared to the control. It did not. I am sure a better designed experiment would increase the findings but I have my doubt's that any but the finest of designs would be able to detect an increase of 120 ppm from 280-400. You stated that even more CO2 should have been added to match the total CO2 in a column of air 3x3 ft. But you ignored the amount that would be necessary to make a realistic control.

You can't compare .04% of CO2 in a 3 foot box with the same .04% of CO2 in several dozen miles of atmosphere. The effect would be too small to observe. The MythBusters experiment was not even attempting to illustrate what 120 ppm would do. That is your quest, not theirs. They just wanted to show a “blanketing” effect, which they did. However, if their goal was the same as yours, then yes they should have had at least one control box with the appropriate amount of CO2 about 120/400 less. But that would not tell you what you want to know. See below.

You also ignored my point that it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the temp not the absolute value.

No, it is the relative amounts (logarithmically) that change the radiation at the end of a column of an absorber. Centuries ago Herr WhatsHisName measured the logarithmic saturation of CO2 in a column although he didn't understand exactly what he was measuring.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the S-B law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered at
Simple Models of Climate
It is a long read, sometimes difficult, but it is essential to understand if you want to argue the science.

And this is where modelers fail. Convection and water vapor are not hindered by an increase of CO2. TOA measurements show that when water vapor is thinner it radiates faster. The earth has been lowering its water content relative to warming (its called a paradoxical presentation) in direct opposition to what is claimed by modelers and the IPCC.

The so called 'positive relationship' between water vapor and CO2 has been shown not to exist in our open atmosphere. The so called coupling has been shown incorrect by empirical evidence.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is a perfect example of who truly hates science..

That would be the AGW cult.

 

[jc456]

This thread is a perfect example of who truly hates science..

That would be the AGW cult.

Nah