Global Warming is real, but not primarily man-made

[IanC]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

CO2's residence time is NOT 200 years! It is between 5 and 15 years.

CO2 Science

that is one of those things that make you go 'hmmmmmmm'

was a much, much longer atmospheric lifespan for CO2 necessary for the alarmists or just convenient? the 5-15 years is the half life isnt it, and I don't really know what residence time is.

 

[bassho]

The whole scheme has nothing to do with GHGs and CO2...it's about finding away to confiscate that green stuff in your wallet.

 

[konradv]

The whole scheme has nothing to do with GHGs and CO2...it's about finding away to confiscate that green stuff in your wallet.

When are we going to hear from bassjohn?

 

[antagon]

There were several times silicate weathering reduced the amount of CO2 in the earths atmosphere to the point where nearly the whole of the globe was glaciated. That is a what the model mimics.

What is the Snowball Earth Hypothesis?

last time you'd mentioned this hypothesis, i recalled that it had more to do with the concentration of land mass at the equator before CO2 became vogue. this simply makes more sense than this silicate weathering-based cooling. this is post-facto hypothesis based on the charge to tie GW to CO2, but is not based on its own (that i'm aware of) evidence indicating that there is a serious potential for this weathering to impact the atmosphere as proposed. it is supposed based on a foregone premise, and written over former theory without challenging it. this is the same MO of post-CO2-craze climate change and that which was proposed before CO2 became the catchphrase.

i maintain that is not plausible that anything natural would zero-out CO2 and all the other non-condensers naturally, or that it ever happened.

 

[antagon]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

others have pointed out the inaccuracy in your residence time claim, but i point to the flaw in the logical basis of it. the average diesel molecule stays in my tank for about a week. does my truck still run on diesel?

 

[Old Rocks]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

CO2's residence time is NOT 200 years! It is between 5 and 15 years.

CO2 Science

5 and 15 years is the cylic rate of CO2, atmosphere to ocean and back again. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will take at least 200 years for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be about what it was.

What that means, that even if we stopped emitting CO2 right now, it would be about 200 years before we were back to 280 ppm. At 300 ppm, the sea level stood 3 to 7 meters above where it is today, that was 120,000 years ago. The last time the CO2 level was where it is today, the sea level stood 30 to 40 meters above where it is today.

 

[antagon]

there's a relationship between sea level and CO2 now? what next? how is CO2 presumed to be the isolated culprit of everything all of a sudden?

 

[Old Rocks]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

others have pointed out the inaccuracy in your residence time claim, but i point to the flaw in the logical basis of it. the average diesel molecule stays in my tank for about a week. does my truck still run on diesel?

http://waage.sr.unh.edu/~braswell/my-papers/Moore_1994_GBC.pdf

Really, they have pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement? What they have said is that an individual molecule of CO2 only remains in the atmosphere from 5 to 15 years. What they don't say, is in that same time, another molecule comes out of the ocean or a terrestrial source, for no net gain or loss for the atmosphere, biosphere, or oceans. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only slowly decline, taking a hundred to two hundred years to fall to the point at which it began.

A nice twisted logic looking at only one molecule, and only at the atmosphere. A sly lie, easily detected with a bit of research.

 

[Old Rocks]

there's a relationship between sea level and CO2 now? what next? how is CO2 presumed to be the isolated culprit of everything all of a sudden?

There is a relationship of ocean levels and heat. There is a relationship of increasing heat with increasing CO2.

 

[westwall]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

CO2's residence time is NOT 200 years! It is between 5 and 15 years.

CO2 Science

5 and 15 years is the cylic rate of CO2, atmosphere to ocean and back again. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it will take at least 200 years for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be about what it was.

What that means, that even if we stopped emitting CO2 right now, it would be about 200 years before we were back to 280 ppm. At 300 ppm, the sea level stood 3 to 7 meters above where it is today, that was 120,000 years ago. The last time the CO2 level was where it is today, the sea level stood 30 to 40 meters above where it is today.

Pure unadulterated horse crap. Residence time is residence time. Nice attempt to change the terminology. 50% of all CO2 that we create is almost immediatly absorbed by plants which you folks also seem to ignore. Nope olfraud, this is just another poor attempt to change the language to suit your needs but it isn't going to work.




CO2 saturation and residence time – your questions answered | The SPPI Blog

 

[westwall]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

others have pointed out the inaccuracy in your residence time claim, but i point to the flaw in the logical basis of it. the average diesel molecule stays in my tank for about a week. does my truck still run on diesel?

http://waage.sr.unh.edu/~braswell/my-papers/Moore_1994_GBC.pdf

Really, they have pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement? What they have said is that an individual molecule of CO2 only remains in the atmosphere from 5 to 15 years. What they don't say, is in that same time, another molecule comes out of the ocean or a terrestrial source, for no net gain or loss for the atmosphere, biosphere, or oceans. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only slowly decline, taking a hundred to two hundred years to fall to the point at which it began.

A nice twisted logic looking at only one molecule, and only at the atmosphere. A sly lie, easily detected with a bit of research.

Interesting then how in the link you provided to that excellent article they pointed out how the Vostock cores showed a 400 to 800 year lag from the inception of warming to the increase in CO2, then when the levels remained high the temperature went on its merry way lowering and rising for over a period of 1000 years all with the level of CO2 remaining the same.

Why don't you post that article again. I am sure many others would love to see it as well.

 

[antagon]

there's a relationship between sea level and CO2 now? what next? how is CO2 presumed to be the isolated culprit of everything all of a sudden?

There is a relationship of ocean levels and heat. There is a relationship of increasing heat with increasing CO2.

there is a relationship of ocean levels and land mass, too. the relationship between heat and CO2 is marginal except when a study makes an absurd demonstration of missing CO2 on a computer.

 

[antagon]

antagon;

edit: H2O is molecule for molecule more effective than CO2 across the spectrum, at least.

.........................................................

That is correct. However, the residence time of H2O in the atmosphere is less than ten days. That of CO2 about two centuries. So the little valve turns on the big valve.

others have pointed out the inaccuracy in your residence time claim, but i point to the flaw in the logical basis of it. the average diesel molecule stays in my tank for about a week. does my truck still run on diesel?

http://waage.sr.unh.edu/~braswell/my-papers/Moore_1994_GBC.pdf

Really, they have pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement? What they have said is that an individual molecule of CO2 only remains in the atmosphere from 5 to 15 years. What they don't say, is in that same time, another molecule comes out of the ocean or a terrestrial source, for no net gain or loss for the atmosphere, biosphere, or oceans. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only slowly decline, taking a hundred to two hundred years to fall to the point at which it began.

A nice twisted logic looking at only one molecule, and only at the atmosphere. A sly lie, easily detected with a bit of research.

"residence time" is about hypothetical molecules precisely like my diesel. this is the same fact which you put forward with H2O and < 10 days. this H2O figure does not align with your CO2, 200 year figure. that remains inaccurate. if anything is a sly lie, it is this apple/orange juxtaposition which you've made.

i was presuming it was just a mistake. now you put this 200 year decline bit forward as if you meant something different than residence time when you said residence time. dont bother to explain.

no sweat.

my diesel argument is aimed at exploring the significance of this bullshit altogether. water vapor might last a week in the air, but there remains an equilibrium which keeps an average abundance in the atmosphere. while you have claimed that CO2 is that facilitator, i have made it real clear that CO2 does not significantly warm the atmosphere, but that the sun and water, particularly do in degrees more significant than are availed CO2. while the atmosphere can scarcely heat standing water, standing water which absorbs massive amounts of infrared can heat the atmosphere. one of the mechanisms is through water vapor itself. i'm a broken record on this.

this shit is dead-obvious, rocks. if you live on the coast, you can witness uptake and deposit indicating the extent which water directly influences atmospheric temperatures to a greater degree than land. this is water, rocks. one of the highest levels of heat enthalpy on the planet. CO2 dont play that.

tell you what, 'easily detect with a bit of research' how sea temperature averages dramatically increased in the 1970s and make the case that the directly correlated water vapor and atmospheric temperature increases are actually due to CO2 instead of water temps. alternatively, you can explain how CO2 could make the sea surface temp increase despite H2O holding about a 1000:1 heat retention advantage over air -- explain your thermodynamic magic, buddy.

 

[loosecannon]

It is really difficult to get too much CO2. Modern plants thrive if you increase CO2 levels 300% above today's 380ppm. Historically the earth's atmosphere has had 3-20 times as much CO2 in circulation as we do today:

Please observe from the chart that the 4 million year ice age period in which we are currently stuck correlates to the lowest CO2 levels in Earth's history.

Personally the extremely real threat of another ice age is far more of a concern to me than the threat of warming. After all the Earth has proven itself to thrive in much warmer climates but not in colder climates.

And miles deep ice shelves atop the major continents sounds like a much bigger problem than a little warm weather.

Do the Earth a favor and increase your CO2 footprint!

 

[loosecannon]

. the earth has maintained a stable range of temperature during its billions of years even though there has been many large disruptions to the system,

By stable range you must mean between 2 degrees C below today's global average and 13 degrees C above today's global average, right?

Dig it Dude, today's global temps are near an all time low. A little warming would be a huge benefit. Lest we cycle into another civilization killing ice age.

 

[loosecannon]

others have pointed out the inaccuracy in your residence time claim, but i point to the flaw in the logical basis of it. the average diesel molecule stays in my tank for about a week. does my truck still run on diesel?

http://waage.sr.unh.edu/~braswell/my-papers/Moore_1994_GBC.pdf

Really, they have pointed out the inaccuracy of that statement? What they have said is that an individual molecule of CO2 only remains in the atmosphere from 5 to 15 years. What they don't say, is in that same time, another molecule comes out of the ocean or a terrestrial source, for no net gain or loss for the atmosphere, biosphere, or oceans. However, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will only slowly decline, taking a hundred to two hundred years to fall to the point at which it began.

A nice twisted logic looking at only one molecule, and only at the atmosphere. A sly lie, easily detected with a bit of research.

"residence time" is about hypothetical molecules precisely like my diesel. this is the same fact which you put forward with H2O and < 10 days. this H2O figure does not align with your CO2, 200 year figure. that remains inaccurate. if anything is a sly lie, it is this apple/orange juxtaposition which you've made.

i was presuming it was just a mistake. now you put this 200 year decline bit forward as if you meant something different than residence time when you said residence time. dont bother to explain.

no sweat.

my diesel argument is aimed at exploring the significance of this bullshit altogether. water vapor might last a week in the air, but there remains an equilibrium which keeps an average abundance in the atmosphere. while you have claimed that CO2 is that facilitator, i have made it real clear that CO2 does not significantly warm the atmosphere, but that the sun and water, particularly do in degrees more significant than are availed CO2. while the atmosphere can scarcely heat standing water, standing water which absorbs massive amounts of infrared can heat the atmosphere. one of the mechanisms is through water vapor itself. i'm a broken record on this.

this shit is dead-obvious, rocks. if you live on the coast, you can witness uptake and deposit indicating the extent which water directly influences atmospheric temperatures to a greater degree than land. this is water, rocks. one of the highest levels of heat enthalpy on the planet. CO2 dont play that.

tell you what, 'easily detect with a bit of research' how sea temperature averages dramatically increased in the 1970s and make the case that the directly correlated water vapor and atmospheric temperature increases are actually due to CO2 instead of water temps. alternatively, you can explain how CO2 could make the sea surface temp increase despite H2O holding about a 1000:1 heat retention advantage over air -- explain your thermodynamic magic, buddy.

What you are describing is two completely separate events. Both are net neutral.

First the state change of water liquid to water vapor does extract a lot of energy out of the parent material (water) when it occurs, but this energy is released when the water recondenses later.

Second you are describing water's unique ability as a gas or a fluid to carry heat and transfer heat. Again a net neutral reaction.

All of this is distinct from water's ability to secure and store heat and cause global warming. That is a purely atmospheric effect. It is based purely upon water vapor's ability to extract heat energy from passing photons in the atmosphere.

A different effect entirely.

 

[Old Rocks]

. the earth has maintained a stable range of temperature during its billions of years even though there has been many large disruptions to the system,

By stable range you must mean between 2 degrees C below today's global average and 13 degrees C above today's global average, right?

Dig it Dude, today's global temps are near an all time low. A little warming would be a huge benefit. Lest we cycle into another civilization killing ice age.

A little heat, slowly applied. That, unfortunetly, is not what we are seeing. Using the past climatic events like the Younger Dryas, a rapid change will severly damage our agriculture even as we approach the seven billion mark in the population.

During the last interglacial, the CO2 level was about 300 ppm. The CH4, about 700 ppb. And the sea level was 3 to 7 meters above the present sea level. Today, we see CO2 at 388 ppm, and CH4 at 1800 ppb. And the rate of sea level rise accelerating. Much of our agricultural area will be under sea water if the sea level responds to the temperature as it has in the past.

Your answer to Antagon was a model of clarity, thank you.

 

[loosecannon]

A little heat, slowly applied. That, unfortunetly, is not what we are seeing. Using the past climatic events like the Younger Dryas, a rapid change will severly damage our agriculture even as we approach the seven billion mark in the population.

During the last interglacial, the CO2 level was about 300 ppm. The CH4, about 700 ppb. And the sea level was 3 to 7 meters above the present sea level. Today, we see CO2 at 388 ppm, and CH4 at 1800 ppb. And the rate of sea level rise accelerating. Much of our agricultural area will be under sea water if the sea level responds to the temperature as it has in the past.

Your answer to Antagon was a model of clarity, thank you.

we don't know how quickly the climate would change if CO2 forcing actually does have a significant impact on climate. I agree that agricultural disruption is a real possibility. I also agree that low lying development could be at risk.

But I think whatever we lose in arable farmland we will more than make up for by gaining access to Canada and Russia as increasingly habitable zones.

Cities need to be understood as short term investments in a geological frame of reference.

And the population itself is certainly gonna be a larger problem than warming and it's effects, and it will almost certainly peak sooner than warming impacts are realized.

But on the flip side if we do manage to warm the climate and break the 4 million year long ice age cycle we have done ourselves and the earth a giant favor. Ice ages have only occurred during a small minority of the last billion years. The Earth is typically considerably warmer with higher CO2 than it has been recently. So warming is a trend toward normal whereas cooling is an adverse extreme.

At least in my opinion.

 

[Truthmatters]

Amitakh Stanford

About Amitakh Stanford - "It Is Done - It Is Finished"




I suggest you look into who writes your material a little harder

 

[code1211]

Let's see if you have YOUR facts straight.

We know that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation.

We know, according to ice-core data, that their concentrations have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues and considering the Law of Conservation of Energy, warming is inevitable.

That isn't "dogma", that's LOGIC. Get back to me when you can explain that away.

Even accepting the fact and logic of your statement, the warming trend that started in about 1650 pre-dates the Industrial Revolution. This is a fact that you omit. Many facts must be omitted to allow a clean cause-effect relationship needed to support AGW.

Explain how the future affected the past at that time. It rarely does so today outside of science fiction.

Since our current warming started before the cause you cite, the cause you cite might be suspect.

That, too, is logic. It is you who is claiming that there is a cause-effect relationship and others, myself included, who claim that there are myriad causes and CO2 is only one of the many and a weak one at that.

Add that to the variation of our climate within a two degree range across the last 8000 years and the fact that we are currently smack dab in the middle of that range, and the causal link for panic is weaker than causal link between the activity of Man and the warming planet.