OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why does CO2 lag temperature?

"However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many."

 

[SSDD]

I have never said that increased CO2 is anything more than a small additional factor, a slight influence. It certainly doesn't overwhelm natural variability and stasis but it does make a contribution.

It is no factor...except for maybe some slight cooling...certainly not warming.

And there is a mountain of evidence showing that it does.

And there isn't the first bit of actual observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...we have already been through this and all you showed was how easily you were fooled by instrumentation....claiming that instruments were measuring back radiation when in fact, they were measuring nothing more than temperature changes within their own internal thermopiles...

STOP THE PRESS! Just in. SSDD discovers all electronic measuring devices are useless. No word yet whether they read high or low, or whether it it the accuracy or precision that is in doubt.

News at eleven.


Hahahaha, what a dolt.

So now you are down to logical fallacies? When did I ever say that the instruments are useless? When did I ever say that they were inaccurate? What I have said, and what you have proven is that for people who want to believe, it is dammed easy to be fooled by instrumentation...you point to pyrogeometers as evidence of back radiation as if that were what they were measuring...it isn't and the sad thing is that you didn't know it...

The only way to measure back radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the surface, is to cool the instrument to a temperature cooler than that of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

You have it backwards ian...a small temperature increase would result in more CO2 being outgassed...a temperature decrease results in more CO2 being absorbed.

 

[SSDD]

Now it is conduction that is the Boogeyman? Ay Carumba! Why don't you get your stories straight.

Stand next to a brick wall that stored heat during the daytime. At night both you and the wall will be radiating. The warmth you feel is radiation coming from the wall. Not convection which pushes warm air upwards (if anything you might be in the down draught of cooler air replacing the rising heated air). Not conduction which is slow in air, and easily overwhelmed by air flow.

I am a solid object ian...of course radiation will warm me...and if I am feeling heat from the wall, then it is because the wall is a higher temperature than me and I am absorbing energy from it...otherwise, I would feel cool next to the wall because I am losing energy to it.

And radiation is a one way gross proposition..if you think otherwise, then lets see a measurement of two way energy happening..show me a measurement of a discrete wavelength of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank you for your help. I have been waffling as of late.

The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..

View attachment 179620

And when we get to a resolution where you can see them.....

View attachment 179621

This pattern is right in line with Milankovitch cycles and lays waste to any credible CO2 fantasy.

The next time you waffle all you need to do is ask yourself how the earth entered and left a glacial cycle with CO2 levels at or above 7,000ppm..

Was it covailent [sic] bonds?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Was it covailent [sic] bonds?

Dont ask him...he knows **** all about this...ask a scientist!

 

[SSDD]

Was it covailent [sic] bonds?

Dont ask him...he knows **** all about this...ask a scientist!

And you think climate science has an answer for that question? Step on up to the plate then and bring it here...

Of course, we both know that you won't. You will respond with some logical fallacy, an impotent attempt at bullying, or no response at all....what you won't have is anything resembling actual evidence supporting your statement. So go ahead and prove me right...show us all just how predictable you are.

 

[IanC]

And radiation is a one way gross proposition..if you think otherwise, then lets see a measurement of two way energy happening.

You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body. Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.

You are saying that the stored energy in one object controls the vibration in the other object. That is ridiculous. There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.

If I open my mouth to call to someone on the other side of the wall, that does not stop every molecule in line-of-sight of the newly exposed 37C area to stop vibrating, to stop radiating according to the temperature.

Radiation is produced in an amount that is commensurate with the internal stored energy, the temperature.

The amount of cooling in response to that radiation loss is dependent on the environment.

If the environment is 25C, the wall 30C and your body 35C then when you move close to the wall you are losing less net radiation because the wall is replacing more radiation than the environment was. The wall is cooling more slowly because your body has replaced part of the area exposed to the environment. The energy that keeps both you and the nearby portion of the wall warmer comes from energy not lost to the environment.

 

[80zephyr]

I found this quote:

"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "

The problem is, is what causes the initial warming. This has happened throughout history, and we didn't have cars back then. Then the next question becomes, if the initial warming started the process, when did the initial warming stop, and CO2 took over?

Mark

 

[IanC]

For the specific case of atmospheric CO2 dissolving into the oceans, the pCO2 is a larger factor than lower rate of absorption cause by a small temperature increase. The net result is more CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

You have it backwards ian...a small temperature increase would result in more CO2 being outgassed...a temperature decrease results in more CO2 being absorbed.

What do I have backwards? More CO2 in the air forces more CO2 into the ocean. That is one factor. Warming the ocean causes less CO2 to be dissolved. That is a separate factor. The two factors have different sizes. If the amount for increased atmospheric CO2 is three arbitrary units and the amount for reduced absorption is one arbitrary units in the opposite direction then the net result is 3-1 = 2 arbitrary units. Two mechanisms, going in opposite directions, resulting in a net change.

Are you saying I have the general magnitudes backwards and that more CO2 is leaving the oceans?

 

[IanC]

I found this quote:

"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The process takes around 800 to 1000 years, so CO2 levels are observed to rise around 1000 years after the initial warming (Monnin 2001, Mudelsee 2001).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming. "

The problem is, is what causes the initial warming. This has happened throughout history, and we didn't have cars back then. Then the next question becomes, if the initial warming started the process, when did the initial warming stop, and CO2 took over?

Mark

Shakun had a paper out roughly five years ago giving CO2 the top spot in bringing the Earth out of the last ice age.

In typical climate science fashion he cut off the CO2 results for the last 6000years because it was inconvenient. The temperature has dropped since the Holocene maximum while CO2 continued to increase, the opposite of his theory.

Personally, I have no problem with CO2 being a factor that helps move the system from glacial to interglacial. But I do have a problem with his hiding the inconvenient data from the Holocene.

 

[catatomic]

I am just an amateur scientist. Biology neurology and climate science ought to be the most difficult sciences. I am not dead sure, but since one of you told me to think in non-absolute I'm thinking I should probably just trust the president that there is some manmade climate change. That can lead to conspiracy theories with politics, but if it's good enough for the President it's good enough for me.

 

[SSDD]

You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body. Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.

Sorry ian...SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

You are saying that the stored energy in one object controls the vibration in the other object. That is ridiculous. There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.

Really? You know all the possible sub atomic mechanisms? All of them and all that are possible? Where did you get this knowledge? More info from your magic grimoire?

You grow so tiresome spouting the proclamations of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality... All you have to do is show some observed measured evidence of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...that would put the whole discussion to rest...but guess what? There is none..not the first observation or measurement of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...it is all models and no reality...

 

[SSDD]

I am just an amateur scientist. Biology neurology and climate science ought to be the most difficult sciences. I am not dead sure, but since one of you told me to think in non-absolute I'm thinking I should probably just trust the president that there is some manmade climate change. That can lead to conspiracy theories with politics, but if it's good enough for the President it's good enough for me.

Climate science is a soft science...any chemistry, physics, or engineering grad with a masters could teach PhD level climate science while most PhD climate scientists would be hopelessly lost teaching 4000 level classes in the hard sciences...

You have had a couple of days to look now.. have you found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? My bet is no...Ian doesn't like to think in terms of success or failure because when that sort of thinking is applied, his beliefs fail every time.

 

[catatomic]

No I have not found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW that I can understand. Of course, I am making assumptions and trusting you on some things. For instance, I was told that the medieval warming period and little ice age don't fit with AR4, but I am trusting you guys on that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep saying that even though it defies cause and effect. The wall radiates because it has stored energy that causes its molecules to vibrate. Likewise for your body. Both objects radiate according to their temperatures, their stored energy, all the time.

Sorry ian...SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

You are saying that the stored energy in one object controls the vibration in the other object. That is ridiculous. There is no possible mechanism for that to happen.

Really? You know all the possible sub atomic mechanisms? All of them and all that are possible? Where did you get this knowledge? More info from your magic grimoire?

You grow so tiresome spouting the proclamations of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models as if they were reality... All you have to do is show some observed measured evidence of a discrete wavelength of energy moving from a cool object to a warmer object...that would put the whole discussion to rest...but guess what? There is none..not the first observation or measurement of energy moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...it is all models and no reality...

SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

Of course, because dimmer switch. Seeing into the future. Measuring temperatures of targets without said targets radiating. Because photons don't experience time.

Did I leave anything out?

Weird that all your epicycles have no back up, eh?

 

[SSDD]

SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

Of course, because dimmer switch. Seeing into the future. Measuring temperatures of targets without said targets radiating. Because photons don't experience time.

Did I leave anything out?

Weird that all your epicycles have no back up, eh?

Stefan-Boltzman doesn't say anything about a dimmer switch...that is just your weird interpretation of the equation.

As best as I can tell, the equation says that P (the amount of radiation being emitted by the radiator) is equal to the emissivity of the object (e) times the SB constant times the area of the object (A) times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power T^4 minus the temperature of the radiator's surroundings to the 4th power (T^4 - Tc^4).

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.

 

[SSDD]

No I have not found a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW that I can understand. Of course, I am making assumptions and trusting you on some things. For instance, I was told that the medieval warming period and little ice age don't fit with AR4, but I am trusting you guys on that.

If you only look at the past 100 years and make a wheel barrow full of assumptions, then there are data that support the AGW hypothesis...scratch the assumptions and look at the larger picture...and the idea that the present climate is behaving in some new and unprecedented way becomes simply indefensible.

As to the MWP and the little ice age....the fingerprint of those events can be seen in gold standard temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores taken above the arctic circle, and above the antarctic circle. I have asked but no one seems to be able to come up with a reason the same temperature fingerprints would be seen at both poles, but not apply to what was happening to all of the globe between those two circles.

 

[Wuwei]

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.

Here is your misconception that numerous people pointed out numerous times. Note that all scientists for the last 100 years have known that there is two way energy flow: emission and absorption.

This is the only thing that scientists have found that makes sense:

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption.

The net rate is the difference;

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SB says that if the object is not in a vacuum, or at absolute zero, then it radiates according to its area, its emissivity and the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

Of course, because dimmer switch. Seeing into the future. Measuring temperatures of targets without said targets radiating. Because photons don't experience time.

Did I leave anything out?

Weird that all your epicycles have no back up, eh?

Stefan-Boltzman doesn't say anything about a dimmer switch...that is just your weird interpretation of the equation.

As best as I can tell, the equation says that P (the amount of radiation being emitted by the radiator) is equal to the emissivity of the object (e) times the SB constant times the area of the object (A) times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power T^4 minus the temperature of the radiator's surroundings to the 4th power (T^4 - Tc^4).

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.

Stefan-Boltzman doesn't say anything about a dimmer switch...

I agree, the dimmer switch is all you.

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow

Or if you ever find a source that agrees with your one-way only flow of energy........
It's only been years, still no back up? Weird.