Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[IlarMeilyr]

Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole. It's just a little too dry.

I doubt you were doing this work while I was in diapers.

It`s not "my theory"...!!!

That no IR penetrates past the uppermost layers of the atmosphere due to CO2 absorption? I'd say it was.

First off I`m a chemical engineer and have done IR, UV and atomic absorption spectroscopy and just about any trace analysis you care to name while most of you were still in diapers.

Yesterday you were an analytical chemist. Close, but not quite the same thing. What degree do you have?



But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works. Is that an accurate statement?



How about spelling out preciselly what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth and that would be something NOT confirmed by physics long before you were born.



I think you know specifically what's being addressed here. How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines. The point under debate is whether or not the greenhouse effect is correctly understood and is therefore responsible for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.



I was hoping you'd directly address SSDD's understanding of radiative heat transfer, but this will do for the purposes of this conversation. There was no question that I was aware of concerning shielding, but whether an object of some given temperature radiates towards an object of a higher temperature.



The molar absorbance of CO2 is, as you've noted, a known value. So the question is not how much for CO2 but how much takes place in our atmsosphere.



You're being ridiculous. The purpose of the experiments shown was simply to demonstrate that the presence of CO2 - in the range it exists in our atmosphere - can cause added warming.



Very impressive.



But that wasn't the purpose of the experiments shown.



No one cares.



Well, then, if "everybody" does it, there's no problem with the data everyone's currently using, is there.



Seriously. No one cares.



As we've heard over and over and over again. Really.



Yes you did. And we saw them then. And they haven't changed.



Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption. You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition. Why not?



I did it myself back in school. But I'd like to make a point here. One does NOT conduct quantitative IR spectroscopy in order to measure the absorption spectra or the molar extinction coefficients of CO2 or any other gas. IR spectroscopy USES known values for those parameters to do spectroscopic analysis of samples - identifying the components of unknown mixtures or samples.



Really, again, no one cares



Really? Wow.



And, again, you say everyone does it - no one makes this plebian mistake. So this isn't a problem with the data being used by the world's researchers. Excellent.



Bravo.



Yes. And this question involves climate modeling: a topic about which you and I have NO expertise.



I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention to be true.



I think you have overstretched the analogies between your lab experience and the science of creating accurate climate models. Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true. Without it, I find it difficult to believe such factors are not accounted for.



I do understand everything you've said. I do not yet believe everything you've said, but you can cure that with the right evidence. As to the success of the models, their failure to predict the hiatus is not grounds for thowing them all out. Their hindcasting has been excellent as have their forecast aside from that single flaw - and it is a flaw from which they ALL suffer. Besides, there is still NO climate model that can recreate the behavior of our climate for the last 150 years that does not assume global warming from the greenhouse effect expressed on human GHG emissions. None.
That tends to make your complaints about their accuracy more of a political whine than a meaningful observation.



Who the fuck ever said it would? The demonstration was for idiots like Skookerasshole, jc456, CrusaderFrank and SSDD who have claimed - with NO opposition from you - that it was impossible to demonstrate any warming from CO2. How about SSDD reliance on the "heat of compression"? Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense? If not, why not?



I agree that the target there, as well as here, was those with a schoolchild education. But the demonstrations in every case involved the interaction between IR and CO2. You cannot deny that the effect demonstrated was caused by the presence of the gas.

They are of no interest or in any way useful for any scientists pro- or con- the energy budget and the numbers the IPCC chose to use.

Again, no one suggested any, fucking, such thing. When you take this tack, all I can conclude is that you have no valid criticisms.


What a surprise.

QUESTIONS

1) First off I`m a chemical engineer...

Yesterday you were an analytical chemist. Close, but not quite the same thing. What degree do you have?

2) But I've gotten the impression you believe the people doing the research being used by the IPCC DON'T know how absorption works. Is that an accurate statement?

3) How about spelling out precisely what we're talking about here, because I thought we were talking about the contention that NO IR reaches the surface of the Earth

4) How many times have we seen "temperature leads CO2" and "CO2 cannot control climate" and a dozen other worthless diatribes along these lines.

5) Then perhaps you should have told your denier brethren to stop insisting that no experiment existed which would demonstrate CO2's ability to increase temperature through IR absorption. You obviously knew those statements to be false, yet I have not ONCE seen you voice the SLIGHTEST opposition. Why not?

6) I would very much like a link inside IPCC.CH demonstrating this contention (constant, dry conditions assumed) to be true.

7) Again, I would like to see some good evidence that what you are saying (that IPCC models do not take surface temperature into account regarding IR reradiation) about the climate models upon which the IPCC relies is true.

8) How about SSDD's reliance on the "heat of compression"? Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense?

8a) If not, why not?

I wonder if the asshole known as Abe/prick realizes that it is self defeating to post a wall of words like that?

Who the fuck bothers reading all of that mess?

It's not as though it's a textbook with anything worth reading.

It's just abe/prick bleating and braying.

 

[polarbear]

I agree with polarbear's reasonable description of lab procedures and mechanisms for testing. You don't have to go to the far north to check it out, your local hospital lab will tell you the same thing.

I knew that you would also dismiss these CO2 in a bottle under a heat lamp demonstrations as irrelevant.
None of these yield any useful data and the only purpose they serve is to show the general public that CO2 does absorb IR.
They all fail to demonstrate the most important part of the process which has to be quantified, namely how CO2 re-radiates the IR it did absorb when it is not bottled up in a container...especially not in containers, like ordinary glass which absorbs IR
There is one demonstration that comes close, but unfortunately they did not quantify the CO2 but used a shot of pure CO2 from a fire extinguisher.
Nevertheless it does reveal something very interesting:
3.3-How CO2 traps the sun's warmth on Vimeo
Here is the instrumentation they set up:

Its a HP dual beam IR spectrophotometer that can be used not just in absorption mode, but also in emission mode...which is the mode we want if we want to see how much IR CO2 re-radiates...(we all know already that it absorbs)
So it`s in emission mode and is looking at the sky through a reflector telescope.
Here is what it "sees".

This is down dwelling IR and at the far end you can see where and how much IR CO2 amongst other ghg`s re-radiates back down.
CO2 is where the "notch" is....which indicates that CO2 is not just absorbing up dwelling IR, but does the same to down dwelling IR.
Of course it would, because at this point we are dealing with a much longer path length than just 10 meters which is where the current levels of CO2 absorbs all it can from the up-dwelling IR which is emitted by the surface.
...and that`s the part, which can and does re-radiate back down to the surface.
So what happens if we increase ppm CO2 in the region within these first 10 meters:

That reduced the amount of down dwelling IR from the sky above dramatically:

The IR spec is still in emission mode measuring down dwelling IR

Too bad they did this experiment so crudely with an arbitrary amount of CO2. Else they could have determined how much extra heat/down dwelling IR we get with x-ppm CO2 and correct that amount by subtracting how much more down-dwelling IR from the sky above the 10 meter envelope is missing as we increase ppm CO2.
There is no question that the first 10 meters re-radiate 1/2 of what was absorbed there back down to the surface, but it is equally as important to know how much IR from above this 10m envelope never even makes it down to the surface to warm it.
At the least that would be one problem with the global energy budget that could be solved...the rest of it these huge variations in barometric pressure, surface temp, albedo , overcast etc. etc will still remain unless we dedicate way more computing power and data collection than we have so far.
P.S.
I have done a much cruder experiment with a 6 inch reflector telescope and a sensitive thermistor in the focal point.
If you double the ppm CO2 inside the telescope`s tube the temperature of course does go up...but if you increase CO2 outside of the telescope tube it drops...just like they also have shown a drop in IR which the detector registered when they increased CO2.

 

[polarbear]

Umm... your lab building appears to be a good ways north, but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole. It's just a little too dry.

It`s not near the pole?
I wonder why where that lab is at CFS Alert is called the world`s most northerly station NEXT TO THE POLE:

but it is not, as you stated, near the North Pole. It's just a little too dry.

Show me any land closer to the North Pole than where that lab is...it`s at the northern most tip of Ellesmere Island.
The entire region is classified as an arid zone:

About one third of the land surface of the world is arid or semi-arid. This includes much of the polar regions where little precipitation occurs and which are sometimes called "cold deserts".

Man how much more stupid can you get?
And you are trying to lecture me? That`s a laugh !
It`s not even worth it to read the rest of the crap you just posted.
You don`t have the slightest clue about spectroscopy or anything else discussed here.

By the way how did you manage to re-register here with a new username after you got banned as "Abraham3" and incessantly spam 24/7 every thread with your garbage?

 

[Crick]

I will have to remember that the way to win an argument about facts is to simply not respond.

 

[polarbear]

I will have to remember that the way to win an argument about facts is to simply not respond.

And which of the incessant spam you keep dumping in this forum is a fact?
It`s you who does not respond when confronted with facts.
You either change the subject and make childish attempts to goat others into some stupid argument to deflect from the subject at hand.
Like:

Who the fuck ever said it would? The demonstration was for idiots like Skookerasshole, jc456, CrusaderFrank and SSDD who have claimed - with NO opposition from you - that it was impossible to demonstrate any warming from CO2. How about SSDD reliance on the "heat of compression"? Were you ever planning on correcting him on that nonsense? If not, why not?

Okay then I`ll tell you why not. I see no reason to come to your aid, firstly because it is way too amusing to watch how lame and impotent your response to any of the above is.

Secondly because you richly deserve it when they get under your skin.
..and what`s your response? You whine to the moderators and try to get them banned like for posting a Youtube video that you say was a threat against you


Third, when it comes to who wins the Pinnochio awards you and Liberals in general are the un-disputed winners.

Do any of you ever argue with MSNBC or such and nonsense bloggers like Cook ? Of course not.

It bugs the hell out of you what the people you are whining about have been posting because they tarred and feathered you while the rest of the readers are watching with delight.

No matter how many posts you make every day all day long you aren`t making any converts amongst the thousands of readers who show up in the stats for the environment threads.

So why do you keep doing it even after you got banned as Abraham3 ?
What`s the matter?
Is it that the emergency services in your town are fed up because you dial 911 every time a piece of ice breaks off a glacier?
Is it that you have no place else left to go that is willing to post the incredible amount of gibberish you produce every day all day long?
Alarmists like you are quite welcome at Cook`s "skepticalscience.com" so why don`t you post there?
Ahh, I almost forgot, that won`t work because they would set up a spam filter just for you.

 

[Crick]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

 

[jc456]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

 

[mamooth]

Sucks to be a denier. The world is now just ignoring them. So they scream louder, and they still get ignored, and so they declare it's all a vast conspiracy against them. No, it's just the world ignoring crazy people.

I think we're watching the death rattles of the denier cult. Sure, we'll have stupid individuals for a long time, but the organized denier movement is flailing.

 

[Crick]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

 

[SSDD]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

All you have shown abe is how easily you are fooled. Linking to papers that you claim support your position and then not being able to point to any part of them that prove anything.

 

[freedombecki]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

This should suffice your needs:

 

[freedombecki]

Sucks to be a denier. The world is now just ignoring them. So they scream louder, and they still get ignored, and so they declare it's all a vast conspiracy against them. No, it's just the world ignoring crazy people.

I think we're watching the death rattles of the denier cult. Sure, we'll have stupid individuals for a long time, but the organized denier movement is flailing.

You're denying hands-on chemical analysts by hyperventilating them into something you call "the organized denier movement?"

This be thee, silly fellow:​

​

​

Fortunately, you may or may not be able to grow out of it if your mommy removes the headgear. ​

 

[freedombecki]

Look all you lying dumb fucks, the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago;

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report | UCLA

In 2009, the level then exceeded anything in the last 2 million years.

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years

Knowledge of the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations throughout the Earth's history is important for a reconstruction of the links between climate and radiative forcing of the Earth's surface temperatures. Although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Cenozoic era (about 60 Myr ago) are widely believed to have been higher than at present, there is disagreement regarding the exact carbon dioxide levels, the timing of the decline and the mechanisms that are most important for the control of CO2 concentrations over geological timescales. Here we use the boron-isotope ratios of ancient planktonic foraminifer shells to estimate the pH of surface-layer sea water throughout the past 60 million years, which can be used to reconstruct atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We estimate CO2 concentrations of more than 2,000 p.p.m. for the late Palaeocene and earliest Eocene periods (from about 60 to 52 Myr ago), and find an erratic decline between 55 and 40 Myr ago that may have been caused by reduced CO2 outgassing from ocean ridges, volcanoes and metamorphic belts and increased carbon burial. Since the early Miocene (about 24 Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years : Abstract : Nature

"the last time the CO2 level was where it is today was over 15 million years ago"

So you admit that CO2 levels are not in any way anthropogenic after all, hm.

 

[jc456]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

So friend, since you wish to go down this road, then please highlight just one of what it is you think I'm missing. I'm happy to see the results you choose to present. Not a link, not a paper, highlighted video or observations that can actually prove that CO2 drives climate. A graph with unsubstantiated data is not welcomed. You provided many links, pull the exact section from one and highlight the proof. That's all! I supposed I need it pointed out to me. I'm obviously missing what you want me to see.

 

[SSDD]

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

So friend, since you wish to go down this road, then please highlight just one of what it is you think I'm missing. I'm happy to see the results you choose to present. Not a link, not a paper, highlighted video or observations that can actually prove that CO2 drives climate. A graph with unsubstantiated data is not welcomed. You provided many links, pull the exact section from one and highlight the proof. That's all! I supposed I need it pointed out to me. I'm obviously missing what you want me to see.

He wants you to see that shiny silk suit that the emperor is wearing. He sees it as clearly as can be and is flummoxed by anyone who does't see it. In his eyes, the emperor's clothes are beautiful...all the greens, and blues of nature interwoven into a fabric that represents nirvana.

How, he wonders, can anyone not see something so beautiful?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And, of course, still no meaningful response.

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

Jeez, we all must have missed it.

Where did you post it again?

 

[SSDD]

And yet, no experimental evidence showing and increase of 120PPM of CO2 drives climate. You'll get a response once you provide the experiment. Otherwise you get jack and like it.

And they claim they've not been shown something they've been shown repeatedly. Their's a name for that jc. They call it "LYING".

Jeez, we all must have missed it.

Where did you post it again?

If they had any such evidence you better believe that they would be slapping us down with it on every post.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

Now TWO liars. Anyone else want to climb on this bandwagon?

 

[SSDD]

Now TWO liars. Anyone else want to climb on this bandwagon?

And still not a hint of the evidence you claim to have provided. You are a larger liar than any of us skeptics...not only do you lie to us...you lie to yourself...and apparently believe your own lies. How sad is that?

 

[Crick]

For those readers new to this discussion, please review the Two Theories thread - post by GT in particular - for discussion of a simple experiment to demonstrate greenhouse warming of CO2 at levels similar to those in our present day atmosphere.

Or go read any text book or reference on the greenhouse effect.

And then think back on the claims of SSDD, jc456, CrusaderFrank and all the others that discussed those experiments and now claim they never saw such things. Try to imagine the level of honesty such behavior requires.