Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[jc456]

We have records now?

Yes, we have records. Prior to ~200,000 years ago (ie, the first 4,542,800,000 years of the Earth), no homo sapiens ever started a forest fire. Do you believe that indicates that no homo sapiens has started one since? Simple question. Yes or no?

Are you saying there weren't forest fires?

 

[Crick]

Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Man, you're a project.

I am. what are those changes you speak of?? How does this change in solar output and orbital parameters affect Co2 exactly??

I presume when you say "I am", you mean that you are disputing that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

If I want to dissolve the most sugar in a cup of tea, I want that tea to be hot. As a liquid's temperature goes up, it's ability to take solids into solution increases. Somewhat counter-intuitively, that's reversed for dissolving gases. The colder a liquid, the more gas can be dissolved into it. Think of all your experience with coke or other sodas. The ocean contains, among other things, all the gases in the Earth's atmosphere, in solution. The colder the Earth, the more of all those gases the oceans can hold. Raise the Earth's temperature; either by increasing the output of the sun or by altering the Earth's orbit so that it gets more sunshine, and some of those dissolved gases will come out of solution and re-enter the atmosphere..

No one has EVER disputed that point.

You got to be kidding, I am.

You were. But now you know better.

However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures. Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago. Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere. This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.

What does a meteor impact on earth have to do with global warming??

This is the impact that killed all the dinosaurs. It first made the Earth cold by throwing enormous amounts of dust and smoke all the way up to the stratosphere - so much that very little sunlight could get through. Temperatures dropped 2-9C. That doesn't sound like much, but it is, and it happened virtually overnight. From the cold and the lack of sunlight, plants died all over the planet. The dinosaurs that hadn't been killed outright by the impact either froze and or starved to death. These days we'd call this a "nuclear winter" as a full scale nuclear exchange is expected to produce similar results. This lasted several decades. Eventually, enough of the dust and aerosols were washed out of the atmosphere by rain that sunlight could make it through again and things began to warm up. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere had been raised by two factors: a good portion of all the plant and wood on the planet had been burned by fires started by the impact and the meteor had struck directly into a basin of almost solid limestone: calcium carbonate. The heat of the impact converted billions of tons of that rock into super-heated carbon dioxide. The result of all that was that when the dust finally cleared, the greenhouse effect could finally take effect and temperatures climbed several degrees higher than they had been before the impacts and they stayed there for several thousand years.

Those particles block the transmission of the suns electromagnetic radiation from ever reaching the earth, thus the cooling.

It's a little more complicated than that. Particles in the atmosphere can do a couple of things. Ash, from volcanoes and fires, is light in color and reflects more than it absorbs. In the atmosphere, it has a tendency to reflect the sun's incoming light back to space, cooling the planet. How much effect that has depends a great deal how high in the atmosphere it is. Reflective material near the surface has much less effect than the same sort of material in the stratosphere at the edge of the atmosphere. Dark material - carbon soot is the classic example, absorbs more than it reflects and increases the amount of solar radiant energy absorbed by the atmosphere itself. And if the soot falls to the ground - particularly to ice, it will be very effective at warming things up.

Has nothing to do with "excess heat", what was your point again??

I think I've spent more than enough time explaining my point.

So the earth burned for thousands of years

No. The Earth burned for a few years.

but you state it had a cooling off period attributed to the same phenomena.

It was as I explained above.

So which was it, did the impact put up a dust storm and blocked the sun light??
Or did the impact cause fires which lasted for many thousands of years.
So these thousand year fires, where is a ******* link on that shit bro, peeks the hell out of my curiosity.
I mean where do you get a fuel load for a thousand year fire??

You need to read more carefully. You have made a number of mistakes about what I've said here and elsewhere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. No one has EVER disputed that point. However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures. Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago. Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere. This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.

You're sticking with CO2 starts forest fires?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Warming the Earth, either through changes in solar output or our orbital parameters, will cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. No one has EVER disputed that point. However, it does NOTHING to show that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation won't increase temperatures. Dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere has not happened prior to present times since the Chicxulub Impact at the KT boundary, 65 million years ago. Chicxulub was followed by a cooling period lasting several decades from the enormous amount of aerosols it injected into the atmosphere. This was followed by a warm period, caused by GHGs released by the impact and fires, that lasted many thousands of years.

You're sticking with CO2 starts forest fires?

No he can't explain thousand year fires with the same meteor that caused an ice age first.

He has already been made a fool over this.

I didn't bother to rebutt his delusions, but CO2 comes from respiration, fires, decomposition, the ocean, etc.

He is going to tell you some how there is a difference between fossil fuel CO2 and natural CO2.

 

[Politico]

The tree huggers are hilarious.

Which has to do with what in this thread?

That thinking you can stop nature by preventing cow farts is hilarious.

 

[Crick]

Which has what to do with this thread?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Crick?

 

[Crick]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

 

[Crick]

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Crick?

Yes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

Sorry, I thought it caused flooding too. Do different CO2 molecules have different functions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012)."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Crick?

Yes?

The CO2 looks mostly concentrated on land over the equator, how it is warming the ocean down to 3,000m?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

Sorry, I thought it caused flooding too. Do different CO2 molecules have different functions?

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

Are there left handed and right handed CO2 molecules, one causes Cat 5 hurricanes, the forest fires?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 causes more lightning?

"This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks will never show up in this thread again

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Old Rocks will never show up in this thread again

Crick's both in denial and hiding

Billy Bob and Crick both have promised to put me on ignore.

Every one's rants are getting extremely short and all those fancy $10 words have had to be thrashed.

Wonder if they can get a refund from some other warmer for those words .....................

So frank did circk just say forest fires come from drying out trees with non existent heat from non existent global warming.

The other loons forgot to meme him they had to change the rant to cooling ...................

This is going to be a very entertaining thread ...............

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Old Rocks will never show up in this thread again

Crick's both in denial and hiding

Billy Bob and Crick both have promised to put me on ignore.

Every one's rants are getting extremely short and all those fancy $10 words have had to be thrashed.

Wonder if they can get a refund from some other warmer for those words .....................

So frank did circk just say forest fires come from drying out trees with non existent heat from non existent global warming.

The other loons forgot to meme him they had to change the rant to cooling ...................

This is going to be a very entertaining thread ...............

Old Rocks was the first to suggest that CO2 is causing forest fires, Crick peer reviewed it and they had consensus

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

Sorry, I thought it caused flooding too. Do different CO2 molecules have different functions?

not to be confused with global warming

but man made global warming is some pretty amazing stuff

--LOL

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Old Rocks will never show up in this thread again

Crick's both in denial and hiding

Billy Bob and Crick both have promised to put me on ignore.

Every one's rants are getting extremely short and all those fancy $10 words have had to be thrashed.

Wonder if they can get a refund from some other warmer for those words .....................

So frank did circk just say forest fires come from drying out trees with non existent heat from non existent global warming.

The other loons forgot to meme him they had to change the rant to cooling ...................

This is going to be a very entertaining thread ...............

Old Rocks was the first to suggest that CO2 is causing forest fires, Crick peer reviewed it and they had consensus

The proverbial blind leading the blind ..............

I will be glad to debunk that lie for him also.

Whenever he decides he has scientific proof of some cause and effect between the two that will hold water, he is more than welcome to trot it out and gitve us a show.

So far it has been the top 10 shuck and jive fest, I am still watitng on the main event as the warm up acts have all been bad.

So lets get the party started and trot that pretty little pony out here to see.

 

[jc456]

Old Rocks will never show up in this thread again

Crick's both in denial and hiding

Billy Bob and Crick both have promised to put me on ignore.

Every one's rants are getting extremely short and all those fancy $10 words have had to be thrashed.

Wonder if they can get a refund from some other warmer for those words .....................

So frank did circk just say forest fires come from drying out trees with non existent heat from non existent global warming.

The other loons forgot to meme him they had to change the rant to cooling ...................

This is going to be a very entertaining thread ...............

Old Rocks was the first to suggest that CO2 is causing forest fires, Crick peer reviewed it and they had consensus

Frank,

He also suggested that there were never any forest fires until man showed up. I'm still waiting on that answer from him, old socks.