What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

I love it when the right plays, "pretend scientist".
Remember when Bush played "pretend hero"? Remember that?
cinc1.jpg


or when he played "pretend cowboy"?

cowboy_bush_sm.jpg


Vicente Fox said Bush was afraid of horses. Too bad. Pictures of him on a horse would have been better than pictures of him slobbering all over an Arabian Prince.

You have scientists and universities from all over the world, yea, even in China, saying that even though more CO2 causes plants to grow bigger, at first, they are less nutritious because the CO2 blocks nitrogen and minerals. You might as well eat cardboard.

Still, you can link to all the universities and sites with "real" scientists, but the Confederate Republicans Sheeple will believe what they want to believe.

Now this is hilarious. After they fail, like ALWAYS, they angrily turn to scientists and scream, "Why didn't you tell us sooner????"

Isn't that hilarious?

YOU BETCHA!!!!
 
Except more warming doesn't lead to more vapour and more warming ad infinitim. Extra water vapour falls from the sky. It happens every single year.

That doesn't tell me where the warming is going. Extra water falling is just that, extra water falling. The heat element of the equation is covered by Conservation of Energy. More water falling doesn't tell me where the extra heat is going.
 
Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.
Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.


Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts


I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.


Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?
 
So, water vapor, which comes almost exclusively from natural sources, is the major GHG and the "massive" amount of GHG that are man caused amount to less than 1% of the water vapor, yet you expect me to accept that man is the dominant cause of global warming?


To help put this into perspective:

All GHG's = 5% of the atmosphere.
Water Vapor = about 95% of the GHG's
CO2 = about 3% of all GHG's

Man's contribution to CO2 in the air annually = about 3% of the total contibuted from all sources.

Which has added up to a 40% increase over the last 150 years. From 289 ppm to 390 ppm.

That is, 4.5 hundred thousands of a percent of the air.

Ever suffered from allergies? Do you know how the amount of pollen in the air is measured? It is in Parts per Billion. Now tell me small amounts cannot mess up a large complex system. Why don't you look up the weight of the amount of botulism toxin it would take to kill you, compared to your weight.

Code, you are using a totally false arguement, designed for the less intelligent on this board. Of which there are plenty.


[/B]


It requires an atmospheric content of 3% or greater to affect your performance. 10% or greater for asphixiation. At 380 ppm, we will require an increase on the order of about 100 times, as opposed to .4 times, to achieve the effect you are calling to mind.

Would your's qualify as a totally false argument? Seems pretty close to being one.
 
Is the eco-system resiliant? Where's the oil?

Most of it is still there, underwater. Ask the Alaskans affected by the Exxon Valdez spill where the oil is. In fact, why don't you go into a bar in one of those communities and loudly announce that the oil is no longer having any effects.

Back to our regular programming...

Yes, back to the other lies and misinformation.


The Valdeez Spill and the BP spill seem to have very different profiles. The Valdeez was in a very closed in place and the oil washed up on shore. The oil from the BP well seems to be wandering around and not causing the devastation that it seemed like it would.

This is not to say that there is no damage and no ill effects. Obviously, there is plenty of both. Applying my memories of the Valdeez to this instance, though, I was pretty much expecting to see a black tide washing up onto the shore and staining every beech from Galveston to Miami.

The Valdeez type of black tide wasn't all that prevalent. Tar balls and a little sheen. In Alaska, the oil is still there today about a foot or two down and it's been what? 20 years?

Right now in Alabama, there's talk of shore fishing starting right now and deep water fishing very soon, a matter of weeks. I'm guessing that the public's confidence in the products caught from the Gulf waters will remain down long after the quality of the habitat goes back up.

Again, where's the oil?

Alabama awaits testing to see whether fishing can resume after Gulf of Mexico oil spill | NOLA.com

State Conservation Commissioner Barnett Lawley said state waters are free of oil, and officials are awaiting test results that will determine whether federal officials will allow fishing to resume around Dauphin Island and the Mississippi Sound, perhaps as soon as this week.

"There's no sheen, no nothing," Lawley said. "If it's up to me, we'd be open right now."
 
Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

It's the fact that we're ADDING CO2 that's important, 25-30% above historical averages. That molecule of CO2 matters because it's a molecule that wasn't there before, soaking up infra-red radiation. Given that the trapped radiation only has a 50% chance to be re-emitted into space and that there's the principle of Conservation of Energy to consider, what's the other half doing except to warm the earth?
 
Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

It's the fact that we're ADDING CO2 that's important, 25-30% above historical averages. That molecule of CO2 matters because it's a molecule that wasn't there before, soaking up infra-red radiation. Given that the trapped radiation only has a 50% chance to be re-emitted into space and that there's the principle of Conservation of Energy to consider, what's the other half doing except to warm the earth?


In terms of heat retention, any incremental increase in temperature that results from CO2 will require a doubling of the CO2 from the previous base line. The climate requires huge CO2 increases for equal incremental warming. That is how the science of this is stated.

However, the performance of the climate compared to the increase of the CO2 is lagging behind the projections of the finest mind in the field, Dr. James Hansen.

The performance of the climate between 1988 and 2009 reflected a slow rise and then a decrease in CO2, according to Hansens's scenarios, while in the real world the amount of CO2 increased at a pretty constant rate.

If the real world performance of the climate is in varience to the performance predicted by the expert scientists, are to deduce that the climate is wrong or that the scientists are wrong?

No matter how beautiful the theory, at some point, the results must be examined.
 
So, water vapor, which comes almost exclusively from natural sources, is the major GHG and the "massive" amount of GHG that are man caused amount to less than 1% of the water vapor, yet you expect me to accept that man is the dominant cause of global warming?


To help put this into perspective:

All GHG's = 5% of the atmosphere.
Water Vapor = about 95% of the GHG's
CO2 = about 3% of all GHG's

Man's contribution to CO2 in the air annually = about 3% of the total contibuted from all sources.

Which has added up to a 40% increase over the last 150 years. From 289 ppm to 390 ppm.

. [/B]


This is something that is probably not exactly true.

During the last 150 years, there has been warming. That warming has caused various things to occur. Among these things have been melting glaciers and expanding warmer zones northward and this has resulted in the thawing of areas previously gripped by perma frost.

Siberian bogs previously frozen were a trap for CO2 sequestering literally tons of the stuff in the form of plants that once grew there, subsequently died, subsequently was frozen and now has been thawed and is now releasing CO2.

The thawing bogs of Siberia annually relaease as much CO2 at the combined industry of the USA. Allot more since the Failed Stimulus took hold.

With all of the new sources of CO2 emitting their little pitutes off, attributing the whole increase in the CO2 to the puny contribution from Man seems a tad simplistic to me.
 
CO2 residence time is short and meaningless. The vast majority of evidence says that the CO2 levels are increasing because of the warmth not causing it.



Atmospheric Residence Time of Man-Made CO2
Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide

Robert H. Essenhigh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (5), pp 2773–2784
DOI: 10.1021/ef800581r
Publication Date (Web): April 1, 2009
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society

Abstract:

The driver for this study is the wide-ranging published values of the CO2 atmospheric residence time (RT), τ, with the values differing by more than an order of magnitude, where the significance of the difference relates to decisions on whether (1) to attempt control of combustion-sourced (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions, if τ > 100 years, or (2) not to attempt control, if τ 10 years. This given difference is particularly evident in the IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed. However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years. The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2) the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years. As a check on that differentiation and its alternative outcome, the definition and determination of RT thus defined the need for and focus of this study. In this study, using the combustion/chemical-engineering perfectly stirred reactor (PSR) mixing structure or 0D box for the model basis, as an alternative to the more commonly used global circulation models (GCMs), to define and determine the RT in the atmosphere and then using data from the IPCC and other sources for model validation and numerical determination, the data (1) support the validity of the PSR model application in this context and, (2) from the analysis, provide (quasi-equilibrium) RTs for CO2 of 5 years carrying C12 and 16 years carrying C14, with both values essentially in agreement with the IPCC short-term (4 year) value and, separately, in agreement with most other data sources, notably, a 1998 listing by Segalstad of 36 other published values, also in the range of 5−15 years. Additionally, the analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.
 
You have scientists and universities from all over the world, yea, even in China, saying that even though more CO2 causes plants to grow bigger, at first, they are less nutritious because the CO2 blocks nitrogen and minerals. You might as well eat cardboard.


Can you source some of those studies, please?
 
Except more warming doesn't lead to more vapour and more warming ad infinitim. Extra water vapour falls from the sky. It happens every single year.

That doesn't tell me where the warming is going. Extra water falling is just that, extra water falling. The heat element of the equation is covered by Conservation of Energy. More water falling doesn't tell me where the extra heat is going.


All the heat goes to the same place- into space.

GHG's don't prevent this; they slow it.
 
That molecule of CO2 matters because it's a molecule that wasn't there before, soaking up infra-red radiation.

:eusa_eh:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]only able to absorb radiation in very specific electromagnetic frequencies and Earth does not radiate limitless amounts of energy in the appropriate bandwidths. This means there is 'competition' for available energy and significant greenhouse potential is unrealized (carbon dioxide could absorb more than 3 times the energy it currently does in the atmosphere were it not for competition from clouds and water vapor, clouds alone could absorb 50% of available energy but manage to capture just 14% and so on...). [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does. Clouds, in the absence of all other greenhouse gases, could do likewise -- look at it as there already being "competition" for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like. [/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts
Given that the trapped radiation only has a 50% chance to be re-emitted into space


So half the radiation emitted since the cycle began never made its way to space? :eusa_eh:
 
In terms of heat retention, any incremental increase in temperature that results from CO2 will require a doubling of the CO2 from the previous base line. The climate requires huge CO2 increases for equal incremental warming. That is how the science of this is stated.

Source?
 
At least we have satellite data now. The actual temp doesn't matter, just the fluctuations.

Hey Old Rocks- do you have a link to the feud between Willson and Lean over the 'corrections' made to the raw satellite data? Was it ever settled? The satellite guys seemed pretty pissed that their info was being manipulated without their consent or imput.

Under a Variable Sun : Feature Articles
 
I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.


Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.
 
At least we have satellite data now. The actual temp doesn't matter, just the fluctuations.

Hey Old Rocks- do you have a link to the feud between Willson and Lean over the 'corrections' made to the raw satellite data? Was it ever settled? The satellite guys seemed pretty pissed that their info was being manipulated without their consent or imput.

Well, if you have a solid physics background, this would probably tell you which of the gentlemen were correct.

Astronomy & Astrophysics
 
In terms of heat retention, any incremental increase in temperature that results from CO2 will require a doubling of the CO2 from the previous base line. The climate requires huge CO2 increases for equal incremental warming. That is how the science of this is stated.

Source?

Code specializes in well spoken yap-yap to create doubt. Sources are most definately not his strong suit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top