how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Here's the thing. What I post is what I know because I've invested the time to learn from credible sources. If you bothered to check and learn from credible sources you could know it too, I presume. You don't. You repeat what big oil wants you to believe in order for them to follow business's one rule. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

That's all your choice. People who take action on solving the problem are used to people like you and simply regard them as irrelevent to the solution.

Lots of people have trouble distinguishing between what they know to be true and what they wish was true. Don't take it personally, you among massive company.

As are you among the AGW religionsists who are certain they know everything and are certan that the skeptics at any level have done absolutely no homework, no study, no research, and have not come to their own informed opinions via educating themselves. You would offend me and possibly others less if you assumed less, were just a bit less smug and self righteous, and observed and read more carefully.

It is not untypical for scientists to value truth and question opinion. That's why we became scientists. That's what we do.

Just as I am certain that creationists and flat earthers are wrong, I am certain that physics knows many things that you don't. There is just no credible scientific support for believing that AGW is not real. There is just no economic support that denying it leads to the most expensive alternative.

Again nothing personal. There's much that I don't know and a few things that I do know. I presume that it's the same with you.

There was a time when deniers were an obstacle to progress but we're beyond that now for the most part.

Show us EMPIRICAL DATA that supports AGW.

 

[westwall]

There are a few posters here whose ignorance is truly astounding. Gslack is one of them. You will meet many more that make you wonder how they operate a keyboard.

And your constant need to create socks to support your BS is duly noted.

 

[Unkotare]

Do you know [sic] understand PMZ's original point?

Try again in English, please.

 

[westwall]

Non sequitur re the discussion Old Rocks. But we can all cut and paste reams and reams of scientific commentary and analysis from all sorts of sources. Maybe you could read what has been posted and respond to that with your claimed superior knowledge of geology? Right out of your own head and knowledged? Do you share PMZ's belief that fossil fuels are made out of CO2?

Where do you believe that the carbon in hydrocarbons came from?

Where do you believe the C came from? Explain the carbon cycle in your own words Mr. "scientist".

 

[westwall]

Foxfyre -

I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?

Do you now understand PMZ's original point?


btw - please try and stay on topic!

Where did the C come from....

 

[gslack]

Foxfyre -

I assume you have had a look at the two links I posted on the carbon cycle - does that now make sense to you?

Do you now understand PMZ's original point?


btw - please try and stay on topic!

Oh stop trying to cover for the moron will ya.. He rambled half-baked nonsense from start to finish all the excuses from you and oldsocks won't change it.

He knows what he said, he knows what he meant he repeated the nonsense enough. He's a big enough boy to claim hes a scientist on here then he should be a big enough boy to handle his own explanations. let him speak for himself. We already know you're a fraud, let him prove himself one as well..

Unbelievable the level you guys get away with this obvious crap now. What is it going to take for somebody to finally call this crap what it is and be done with it. This tag-team stupidity nonsense is WAY TOO OBVIOUS NOW.

You guys go too far and they will have to do something. So please continue your crap...

And we are on topic weasel, you are trying to fix juniors screw up and cover for him. I asked him to support his claims and he spouts off nonsense again and you, again, try and fix it for him.

Why don't you stay on topic for once, quit whining, and neg-repping, and let him answer for his own posts. Now go cry about me again punk.

 

[Saigon]

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.

 

[gslack]

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.

No despite two pages of your obsession with protecting junior, you still try and do it anyway. The only diversion is your doing, trying to fix his nonsense, and citing one paragraph out of context does not cover up the plethora of BS he has written..

He called himself a scientist yet cannot make a logical argument. And you feel the need to cover for him. Why? If he's a scientist why are you trying to cover for him?

Oh we know why don't we. Your little gang has gone too far now, and your desperation here only proves what I have been saying all along.

If it were me or anyone who doesn't agree with AGW, who said this mush nonsense and posted such mindless drivel, you would be hounding us to no end. But since it came from one your own, and an obvious pal, you are going to defend it no matter how ignorant it is..

You agree with his claims then? Fine then you agree with his implication that life came from CO2, and that CO2 does not break down into it's base elements but is sequestered as CO2 in the ground and we are releasing it again by burning fossil fuels. You further agree with his claim that the Carboniferous period created fossil fuels, not that it was formed from bio-matter left from the period and then through decay and natural processes became the fossil fuels we have now through the ages.

Those were his claims, and those are what you are trying to cover up. You know it, I know it, we all know it, and we see your behavior and actions all too clearly.

 

[westwall]

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.

BS spam and hogwash, yes I realize I'm being superfluous..is what you and your socks do old boy. Propaganda is your business. But you're not doing too good.

 

[Foxfyre]

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.

If every scientist you know believes that CO2 existed before carbon existed, whether in hydrocarbon fuels or anywhere else, surely it would be no effort at all to find at least one credible scientist who has said that on line. Please post a link. (I will say that I know a lot of scientists, and I'm pretty darn sure every single one of them would laugh in your face if you told them that.)

PMZ is already on record as saying that CO2 was what the fossil fuels are made from. Which is about as silly as anything I have EVER read on one of these forums.

Your defense of that makes you look just as silly you know.

 

[westwall]

So despite two pages of solid spamming and off-topic diversions, I wonder if there is actually a single poster on this thread who does not agree with this statement of PMZ:

Every scientist that I know would agree that the carbon in hydrocarbon fuels was originally in the atmosphere as CO2. It has been sequestered underground since the Carboniferous Period. Thus allowing the climate that we've built civilization around. When hydrocarbon fuels are burned it is returned to the atmosphere and does what it did and what all greenhouse gasses do. Warms the climate. Continuing to do what we've done for the last 100+ years will change the climate to one that requires rebuilding much of civilization to accomodate a new environment. Move our farms to where the water will be, move our cities inland away from the rising sea, and prepare for more violent weather.

It absolutely amazes me that people will attack statement they know full well to be true, simply because they have so much pride invested in their previous posts.

If every scientist you know believes that CO2 existed before carbon existed, whether in hydrocarbon fuels or anywhere else, surely it would be no effort at all to find at least one credible scientist who has said that on line. Please post a link. (I will say that I know a lot of scientists, and I'm pretty darn sure every single one of them would laugh in your face if you told them that.)

PMZ is already on record as saying that CO2 was what the fossil fuels are made from. Which is about as silly as anything I have EVER read on one of these forums.

Your defense of that makes you look just as silly you know.

He HAS to defend PMZ, it's his sock so he MUST support his sock don't you know. I do find it amusing how many socks these imbeciles feel compelled to create to try and support their meme. I can count at least 12 in the last few months.

Pathetic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?

1 gram of potassium cyanide dissolved in a large lake or ocean, however, would not be harmful to anything and would not even be discernible. However your analogy is a bit lacking as we do not need potassium cyanide in our bodies in any amount. We do need some CO2 in our blood, however, for normal brain and lung function.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.

I suspect you know this already.

If you do not agree - please point out EXACTLY where he is wrong, using his own quotes.

 

[gslack]

Foxfyre -

If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.

I suspect you know this alread.

If you do not agree - please point out EXACTLY where he is wrong, using his own quotes.

BULLSHIT!!!!

I quoted him precisely, his words are all here..

Unlike you I quote people..

 

[westwall]

Foxfyre -

If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.

I suspect you know this alread.

If you do not agree - please point out EXACTLY where he is wrong, using his own quotes.

How dare you lecture Foxfyre, she has always presented accurate responses and never once altered a quote...unlike yourself. She doesn't need to obfuscate and lie.... unlike you.

 

[polarbear]

Foxfyre -

If you actually read what PMZ posted (as opposed to the various attempts to pretend he said something else) and then read a scientific explanation - you will find he is 100% correct.

I suspect you know this alread.

If you do not agree - please point out EXACTLY where he is wrong, using his own quotes.

How dare you lecture Foxfyre, she has always presented accurate responses and never once altered a quote...unlike yourself. She doesn't need to obfuscate and lie.... unlike you.

Yeah well they do that and nothing but...with "skepticalscience.org" "blogger-science". We got a "water chemistry/nuclear expert" making "ink molecules", another one is adding "botulism drops" into a swimming pool in Finland and we also have a "physisist" which is apparently not quite the same as a physicist lecturing you that he can dissolve Limestone in the ocean with global warming. I guess you did not want to waste any of your time telling him that it`s common knowledge amongst geologists that Calcium Carbonate is unique because unlike most other substances it`s more soluble the colder the water is. Even house wives that have to scrape out the "kettle stone" from their cooking pots know that.
Strange how far these characters divert from the original question of this thread because they have no answers...then again neither does the IPCC.
Their latest estimate was:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

The atmospheric increase since the preindustrial era contributes ~1.7 W m−2 of radiative forcing (see, e.g., NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI))

And not even that materialized during the last 15 years even though we climbed to ~390 ppm CO2 in the meantime....and lately we are even cooling:

I guess it all boils down to the simple fact that the CO2 15 µm absorption band absorbs more incoming 15µm solar IR than the earth can produce at a comfortable temperature....which the CO2 is supposed to absorb and "back radiate".

Don`t let that 0.5 W/m^2/nm throw you. The sun`s surface is ~ 5500 C and that has a total band radiance of 1760.39 W/m2/sr from 14 to 16 µm.

At the distance we are from the sun the CO2 in the atmosphere shields us from about 20 times more IR watts per m^2 @ 15 µm than what a 20 to 30 C warm earth could possibly produce as IR energy at that wave band with the rest of the solar radiation that went through down to the surface .

The peak IR at +20 C is nowhere near the 15 µm CO2 absorption band but is at 9.88 µm and gets shorter the warmer...in other words even farther away from the absorption band. If you integrate from 14 to 16 µm, straddling the 15 µm peak all you get is a total band radiance: 12.3786 W/m2/sr....of which only 6.2 W/m2/sr is in the center of CO2 absorption spectral line.

But let`s be generous and give them the whole band.
We can also drop the "sr" the solid angle because the IPCC says it does not matter, all of it is absorbed because the surface is surrounded by CO2.
But they also say that 50% of that goes up and out and the other 50 % radiate back.
That leaves us with 3.1 watts/m^2 "back radiation" from CO2 compared to ~250 watts/m^2 that were shielded by the CO2 in the upper part of our atmosphere.
Next lets put the amount of energy which is absorbed in the first 10 meters above ground with over 300 ppm CO2 into a Temperature perspective. Energy is not necessarily heat as in "hot" but can be expressed as an equivalent black body temperature.

IanC likes it better that way and I thought I should oblige IanC, because I liked his Marcott proxies post, that shot the AGW hockey stick graph to pieces.

Anyway, if you do that conversion, that`s called the "effective temperature"...it is how we estimate how hot distant stars are by comparing it with a black body temperature that has the same radiation energy profile and a matching peak wavelength.

A black body that has it`s peak emission at 15 µm like the evil "man made CO2" and "re-emits" at 15 µm happens to have an "effective temperature" of - 80 C.

The ice cubes in my freezer are "effectively" 8 times warmer than CO2 that just absorbed all the IR it could and "back radiates" it.

 

[IanC]

polarbear- reasonable point which I have brought up before. the atmosphere does keep us both cooler in the daytime and warmer in the nightime.

the earth is in an equilibrium state with numerous sub-systems that buffer disturbances. any time you take one piece out to examine on its own, you can easily fool yourself about its importance or insignificance to the overall whole. IR radiation from the Sun is already part of the equilibrium, and has been taken into account for reality (rather than climate models). CO2 is changing and therefore affecting the equilibrium. Modtran is an attempt to estimate the effectassuming no changes in the other conditions. obviously other factors will change in response and I believe it will be a stable negative feedback rather than an unstable positive feedback. after all, the earth is still here after many opportunities for calamity.

you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 indirectly heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.

 

[Foxfyre]

Global cooling anyone? From Forbes last Sunday - emphasis mine:

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.
To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

If CO2 heats the atmosphere, given the hardships on millions created by the last little ice age, maybe we need to start generating a lot more CO2?

 

[polarbear]

you keep implying that CO2 heats the surface directly by radiation. it does not. the net flow of energy is from the surface to the atmosphere to space, all in accordance to the second law of thermodynamics. CO2 indirectly heats the surface by impedeing energy loss in a specific IR band, changing the surface equilibrium temperature that is controlled by solar input( temperature independent) and surface output (temperature dependent). is that really so difficult to comprehend? you can change the surface temperature by either raising input or lowering output. CO2 lowers output.

No it`s the IPCC which is implying that by saying,... 50% of the 15 µm IR which the CO2 absorbed is re-emitted down and 50% up. There are numerous publications to that effect and I don`t feel that I need to post the links to any of these.
After all when a substance absorbs light of a specific wavelength that`s how it works in general. You have a source, an absorbing substance and a detector. % absorption is what`s missing at the detector compared to what the source emits. The light that has been absorbed is emitted again by the absorbing substance but in all possible directions. Look it up !
I`ve done a lot of spectroscopy for a living and I don`t have to look up how it works. Do you know the guts of an IR spectrophotometer?
If you have to scan over a wide band then often the source is a Barium filament lamp. In no way does CO2 or any other IR absorbing substance "impede the energy flow" from the lamp.
God, if that was the case there would be no way to calibrate a scanning IR spectrophotometer. For scan calibrations say from a wave number of 2500 down to 600 we often use clear polystyrene as an absorbing substance because it has more than a dozen very sharp and intense absorption peaks that serve as wave number markers to calibrate the monochromator.
In the regions between these peaks you get a 100% transmission with which the instrument is "nulled". In other words that`s where the detector gets 100 % of the source output which was going in that direction, as if there were no absorbing substance at all between the source and the detector.
You make it sound as if the photons that were absorbed were "impeded" from leaving the lamp.
In reality you can detect all of them all being re-emitted from the absorbing substance in all possible directions.
IanC, there is a big difference between reality and the way you have interpreted the stuff that you found on the internet.
If you want to read some books on analytical spectroscopy I could send you some that are sitting on my book shelf.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I don't pretend to understand a bit of that Polarbear, and in all honesty, just don't have sufficient interest to sit down and learn to understand it.

But I will say, if CO2 is a significant factor in all this, and if the info I posted earlier today on global cooling is the real deal, you and Ian and such better figure this out in a big hurry so we know whether we need to be decreasing or increasing CO2.