Working to cope with climate change

[bobgnote]

I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.

Good for you. But Al's strategic failures or intransigence on hemp, switchgrass, and re-greening lets all these fugitive zombies from the birther debate gather and rile themselves up, so we get all of them, in traffic. Al is a high-profile guy, so when he screws up, the zombies march. As long as you like lotsa zombies, Al's not an issue.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.

Good for you. But Al's strategic failures or intransigence on hemp, switchgrass, and re-greening lets all these fugitive zombies from the birther debate gather and rile themselves up, so we get all of them, in traffic. Al is a high-profile guy, so when he screws up, the zombies march. As long as you like lotsa zombies, Al's not an issue.

I see you're off your meds again

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

flacaltenn

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

 

[bobgnote]

I don't really give a shit about Al Gore.

Good for you. But Al's strategic failures or intransigence on hemp, switchgrass, and re-greening lets all these fugitive zombies from the birther debate gather and rile themselves up, so we get all of them, in traffic. Al is a high-profile guy, so when he screws up, the zombies march. As long as you like lotsa zombies, Al's not an issue.

I see you're off your meds again

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

I didn't respond to that, since you made a great post. It needed no response, from me. I believe I gave it a thumbs-up. The British are similarly engaged in 'God Save the Queen,' without a bit of help, from me. They are doing fine; later they will miss me, since I do some things very well, which they consume, but I'm on leave.

I don't do meds. I understand strategy, which tacticians, such as you, sometimes overlook. I do big-picture analysis, and I keep my comments concise. Right now, I am waiting for the birther wingnuts who post over here, to come up with a consensus definition of the famous 'hockey stick' graph, which depicts an anticipated rise, in warming. After flogging, they might get it posted, and I will issue a tactical reply.

 

[Trakar]

It seems your concerns are unfounded.....



On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by space–borne lidar

P. Achtert, M. Karlsson Andersson, F. Khosrawi, and J. Gumbel
Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. The type of Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as well as their temporal and spatial extent are important for the occurrence of heterogeneous reactions in the polar stratosphere. The formation of PSCs depends strongly on temperature. However, the mechanisms of the formation of solid PSCs are still poorly understood. Recent satellite studies of Antarctic PSCs have shown that their formation can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds which have the ability to cool the lower stratosphere radiatively and/or adiabatically. In the present study, lidar measurements aboard the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite were used to investigate whether the formation of Arctic PSCs can be associated with deep-tropospheric clouds as well. Deep-tropospheric cloud systems have a vertical extent of more than 6.5 km with a cloud top height above 7 km altitude. PSCs observed by CALIPSO during the Arctic winter 2007/2008 were classified according to their type (STS, NAT, or ice) and to the kind of underlying tropospheric clouds. Our analysis reveals that 172 out of 211 observed PSCs occurred in connection with tropospheric clouds. 72% of these 172 observed PSCs occurred above deep-tropospheric clouds. We also find that the type of PSC seems to be connected to the characteristics of the underlying tropospheric cloud system. During the Arctic winter 2007/2008 PSCs consisting of ice were mainly observed in connection with deep-tropospheric cloud systems while no ice PSC was detected above cirrus. Furthermore, we find no correlation between the occurrence of PSCs and the top temperature of tropospheric clouds. Thus, our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling.

ACP - Abstract - On the linkage between tropospheric and Polar Stratospheric clouds in the Arctic as observed by space?borne lidar

Please explain your understanding of the relevence of this reference to the discussion of this thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

Trakar:


I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER be able to claim that ....



Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data




Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

Trakars knowledge of the subject is severly limited by a willfull ignorance on his part.

LOL. Funny on your part, Walleyes. Trakar's acedemic background and life expreriances far exceed yours. As the quality of his posts demonstrate.

That's funny.. We don't think like that at engineering meetings and skunkworks.. We place value on the contribution, not the credentials..

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I see you're off your meds again

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

I didn't respond to that, since you made a great post. It needed no response, from me. I believe I gave it a thumbs-up. The British are similarly engaged in 'God Save the Queen,' without a bit of help, from me. They are doing fine; later they will miss me, since I do some things very well, which they consume, but I'm on leave.

I don't do meds. I understand strategy, which tacticians, such as you, sometimes overlook. I do big-picture analysis, and I keep my comments concise. Right now, I am waiting for the birther wingnuts who post over here, to come up with a consensus definition of the famous 'hockey stick' graph, which depicts an anticipated rise, in warming. After flogging, they might get it posted, and I will issue a tactical reply.

Sorry I was talking to flacaltenn, forgot to put it in the post.


Let met guess -

you're 12?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory.

There are no complete theories of anything.

[flacaltenn]

Then how come the AGW leadership is whining about "settled science" and trying to stifle dissent? Which is it Oopie? Settled or incomplete?? I really need you to tell me.

You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.

That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

Holes such as?

You can look up my posts in this very forum. To give you an index, my scientific concerns and doubts boil down to:

1) Never in my science/engineering life have I seen such a complex interdisciplinity problem be boiled down to one nebulous number -- that's the Mean Global Surface Temperature. I DOUBT that we have a sufficiently accurate pre-satellite record of this prior to about 1970. I doubt we could ever agree on that single number because of the difficulty of defining locations, sampling methods, calibrations, irregularities and such. And I doubt that one simple number varying in the 2nd decimal place tells us as much about the problem as the AGW cult wants us to believe. It's more complex than that.

I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

2) I have doubts about the contribution of CO2. In fact, the equation for heating due to CO2 is not linear. It flattens out at a concentration change that we've yet to determined in the atmosphere. But more importantly the greenhouse effect of CO2 alone is determined by it's spectral absorption. The bands at which CO2 insulates heat are almost identical to water vapor except for 1 maybe 2 spots in the spectrum. Therefore -- in the presence of even MODERATE concentrations of water vapor, the effect of CO2 heat is filtered out. See the next item.

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.

3) We know JACK about the spectral emission of our sun.. Attempts to study the emissions bands are difficult to impossible when observing thru the very atmosphere that we're trying to determine filtering properties. That's why our REAL knowledge of shifts in solar spectrum begins about 1980 with the 1st GOOD Orbiting Solar Observatories. It's SO interesting and valuable that every country except Zimbabwe has launched one. We know that power cycles, spot cycles, radiation cycles are over long -- perhaps 12 to 100 year cycles. We've only had the TOOLS for 30 years. You might remember that we KNOW the sun is gonna go thru cycles of color (emissions spectrum) from yellow to red. We don't know about subtle shifts in frequencies that change the "greenhouse power" of various gases in the atmosphere. A simple shift in ONE LINE of that spectra could make almost ANY gas the culprit..

Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

4) I can't avoid the obvious attempts to falsify and misrepresent data. Hand-picking trees for tree-rings studies should be a capital offense when this much money and time has been wasted on INTENTIONALLY fraudalent data. THAT -- and the political shenanigans and the masses of 3rd world countries SCREAMING for money in the name of AGW -- just makes me a skeptic by itself.. It's disgusting and the biggest abuse of science in my lifetime.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.

5) There are important experiments that SHOULD confirm greenhouse theory that don't show the efffect. My favorite is the "night-time cooling" studies done in the deserts without the presence of the sun to simplify the experimental set-up. You SHOULD see night-time low temperatures trending higher with the CO2 increase. The data aren't obvious. A 2nd is that you SHOULD see not only surface, but atmospheric temperature increases tracking as well. THey do -- but nowhere near the GH models..

Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

6) A couple degC / century change ought to be something we can mitigate without HOBBLING the entire world economy.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

What do you need my approval for?

 

[flacaltenn]

<WestWall>
Thanks for that save... You'll get credit for the kill back at the base..

OleRocks -- Don't make me do this.. it's late and you're forcing me to horse picture upload to USMB for nothing. "... CO2 welling up from deeper, colder waters...." is NOT ACID. It has to disassociate to contribute to PH. In fact, it''s part of the 440GTons of CO2 that the OCEANS contribute to GW every year. (it's a net sink, but what the oceans pump into the atmosphere dwarfs cow farts and man-made crap)

AGW OA occurs at the boundary of the interface. That would be the surface. The measured decrease in PH correlated with AGW effects will be driven now and in the future AT THE SURFACE!! It'll be a hundred years before the depths even see it...

Ocean Acidification

Based on the increase of atmospheric CO2 that has already occurred and on future increases, scientists have modeled future seawater chemistry. They have used knowledge of ocean currents and mixing, so that projections can be made for surface and deep waters. Although it is fairly complicated, the illustration in Figure 1 has been displayed in many places to illustrate the modeling of future pH changes. ..................... The bottom panel of the figure shows the pH in ocean waters from the surface to 4.5 km depth (4500 meters, about 15,000 feet) for the same time period.

Find the picture yourself dammit until I get uploaded...

I posted an observed phenomonem, one studied by real scientists. If you don't like the observations, it still does not change them one whit.

Of course it does. OA is a surface phenomenon. That's what the basic science says. YOU on the other hand lept to all kind of conclusions that your "real scientists" didn't intend to say. Are you saying this course content at Univ of Conn is shit? Or can't you read Junior year college content?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Non-responsive oopiedoo' --- I got as far as the part where you CLAIM you don't know who was shouting "shut -up, the science is settled"...

I can't answer why someone said something without at least knowing who they are an exactly what it is they said.

I need to know whether you still think "all theories are incomplete" or "the science is settled"...

It is both in some cases.
example:
It is settled science that if we toss you off the Empire state building, you will fall.
Yet the theory of gravity is not complete.

I've got to go watch a Nancy Pelosi special -- I hear she's gonna give Al Gore some advice on dating...

OK. So what?

Please copy/paste/edit and take out the pretend stupidity.. Gosh I hope it's only "pretend"... THEN I can tell how phoney AGW scientists examined tree rings from 100 cut trees in Russia and hand-picked the 20 or so that fit their theory of lower surface temp. And how THAT data got all exposed in Al Gores' fantasy film that helped win him a Nobel prize...

Again, you need to be more specific about the study or persons you're talking about. Names and papers would help. I need to be able to verify the things you are saying.

Another clue as to how much YOU MIGHT LEARN if you weren't just flirting with me... All that talk I did about spectral absorption of CO2 and the spectrum of solar radiation HAS NOTHING to do with plot of solar irradiance. The learning we have to do concerns the "color" of sunlight and the variation in different bands of frequencies like the visible light, the infra-red and maybe even the UV spectrum...

What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you miss my reply here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-cope-with-climate-change-13.html#post5385519

or did I miss your response to it?

Wowww.. You're slow on the backswing OopieDoo.. That's the post I'm complaining about. You didn't answer my question, you mangled my comments on solar spectral observations, and otherwise blew off my comments on the premise that I didn't know what I was talking about, but you're not gonna debate..

So go back and try again. I'd LOVE to discuss with you. There might be learning accomplished.

I answered all of your questions. Here it is again:



You'll have to be more specific about who said what and what they said before I could even begin to anwer that.



I'm sorry, but having a number called the global mean temperature and having it vary in the 2nd decimal place isn't proof or disproof of anythig. Youre 1) point is really just laughable, it boils down to "I feel like this number is silly, and I'm an enigeer, I should know!"

No one is disputing the non-linear response of atmopsheric IR absorption due to CO2 or any other gas.


Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

You'll need to be more speficic about what you're talking about.

Tree rings have diverged from real temperatures since 1960. Its a well known problem. No one has attempted to cover it up or hide that.




Please be more specific. "They" and "the GH models" just isn't anything I can validate for myself.

??? It is. Uhh HELLO DUDE, It is the skeptics that claim efforts to curb global warming will hobble the world's economy. Jeez.

Obviously, the promoters of this circus don't WANT to solve it -- or we'd have 180 new nuclear plants in this country yesterday.THAT should tell you how THEY assess the relative risks between the Earth's "fever" and nuclear paranoia. Furthermore, the claims of what we're seeing now range from increased hemmoroids to total annilation -- and are grounded very LITTLE in any real science. They've been debunked, reputed, shot-down repeatedly. The adults are not in charge.

There you have it folks - the SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING MUCH BE INCORRECT BECAUSE THERE AREN'T MORE NUCLEAR PLANTS.

Well that just about does it for me, I've heard enough.

Let me know if that's enough for you to ALLOW me to be a skeptic. I'd sure appreciate your approval and sanction to question the morons behind the circus.....

What do you need my approval for?

Reposting that original reply unmodified is kind of retarded OopieDoo.. And PROVES to me that you don't want a real discussion..

Is the .."science settled and the debate over" ?? Or are all scientific theories incomplete? Which is it ?

BTW GEnius:

Sorry but solar activity does not correlate to warming since 1980 or so. And 1980 is the year you claim we started having good solar records.

Even tho I didn't bring up solar irradiance and the graph is irrelevant. There is strong correlation between the two shown on that graph UNTIL about 1980.. As a scientist -- I find that fascinating. Don't you? Why DIDN'T the correlation continue?

 

[bobgnote]

That's funny.. We don't think like that at engineering meetings and skunkworks.. We place value on the contribution, not the credentials..

Damn. Somebody let a drawling retard get into a skunkworks? No wonder pigs fly, and experiments are underway, to toss more shit-shapes. What a contribution, from somebody stupid, stupider, or stupidest.

Wingnuts have a contribution: One of them claims the 'hockey stick' isn't about accelerated warming, after all, but rather, a tree, and the other claims a difference of opinion, between warmists and skeptics:

Wienerbender: "What a moron. The hockey stick is driven by a single tree. More precisely, the tree designated YADO61. Take that picked cherry away from mann and the hockey stick blows away on the wind like the smoke that it is. They discounted data from a very large number of trees in favor of that particular tree because it showed what they had already decided that they wanted to see before the "study" began."

IanCrapforbrains: "The "Hockey Stick" is shorthand for two ways of thinking about global warming. For anti-carbon crusaders, a 1998 paper and its 1999 follow-up showing temperatures over the past 1,000 years demonstrated the terrible and immediate threat that man poses to the planet. For global-warming skeptics, though, the graph and the name are prime examples of the overblown claims and sloppy science behind much of climatology."

Your wingpunks need your help, fathead! You admit to the existence of carbonic acid, you are a miserable retard who fails to understand cold-water dissipation affinity of acid, ENSO, upwellings, die-offs, and overwhelming evidence, but maybe your choo-choo, tardytrain-brand of engineering can help your retarded classmates out of their dilemma, at understanding a graph. You know, the kind with an upswing, at the end of the plot.

I have a contribution. Why don't you Log Cabin speed-freaks put on your speedos, call the cops, and run a couple of Chinese-fire-drill laps, for their amusement?

After all that fun, who could possibly want to come up, with a consensus, for the 'hockey stick' graph, but I insist, get back to work, and find out why a graph is a tree or ambiguous, or just admit you are gay, go out, parade, dance your gay, neo-con asses off, and try not to pass the dose or burn the planet, assholes!

 

[Trakar]

Can you post one repeatable scientific experiment that shows the effect on temperature and ocean pH of a 125PPM increase in CO2?

I've been asking for years now

memory a problem?

I gave you several such experiments last year when you repeated this trope, surely you haven't forgotten already?! The only difference now is that you've added in a pH stipulation.

Very well, I assume you recall the temperature experiment from before confirming GHG action, so I'll just address the pH issue this time.

Fill a container to the halfway point with filtered sea-water.

seal, shake well and let settle, this is your control.

take two additional containers prepared in the same manner. Into one container flush the air and replace with pure Nitrogen. in the other container displace the appropriate amount of atmosphere to correctly approximate a change in atmospheric composition equal to change from pre-industrial levels to current levels (120ppm/280ppm = roughly a 42.9% increase, given today's ~ 400ppm level, that means that you will need to add enough CO2 to bring the containers atmospheric CO2 component to approximately 571ppm CO2). Shake the sealed containers vigorously and then allow them to all sit quietly for about an hour. Using good laboratory procedures carefully extract samples of the seawater and test sample pH with appropriately sensitive pH analysis equipment.

previous experimentation and science understanding indicate that the control will read a pH of about 8.1, the sample from the Nitrogen replacement atmosphere will read significantly higher as the CO2 is depleted in that test sample (how much more will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement), The CO2 enhanced sample will read significantly lower than the control due to the additional CO2 in the sample (again, how much lower will depend upon a lot of factors that we aren't controlling for or monitoring in this experiement).

Trakar --
I don't doubt that OA (acidification) is happening. But your little experiment is limited to grade school utility compared to the magnitude of the analysis that is being done. For starters, the OA is primarily a SURFACE phenomenom. And mixing with deep water occurs constantly. In addition, the buffering in the ocean depends on HUGE deposits of Calcium buffering on the floor (tum and rolaids for Neptune).

Yeah it needs to be understood.. But right now -- the equal logical conclusion is that PH is changing due to FRESH WATER intrusion (much more acidic) -- ie the melting polar ice...

Yes, of course the experiment is simplistic, but it is given as a repeatable (meaning something people can do in their own garage/basement with easy to acquire equipment - which were the conditions established in previous such "experiment" requests) and demonstrates the basic principles to an individual that seriously rejects many basic principles and findings of physics and chemistry in relation to their application within Climate science understandings.

As to your specific understandings of OA, we can talk about that in more detail, if you'd like.

 

[flacaltenn]

AttaBoy Oopie:

What do the different colors cause? Its all thermalized when its absorbed by the Earth's surface.

Now --- we're talking.... I gotta go kiss some relatives and buy some plants. We'll chat about this when I get back...

 

[flacaltenn]

Trakar:

Yes, of course the experiment is simplistic, but it is given as a repeatable (meaning something people can do in their own garage/basement with easy to acquire equipment - which were the conditions established in previous such "experiment" requests) and demonstrates the basic principles to an individual that seriously rejects many basic principles and findings of physics and chemistry in relation to their application within Climate science understandings.

As to your specific understandings of OA, we can talk about that in more detail, if you'd like.

I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...

 

[bobgnote]

I wasn't picking on you.. I like your style. I like simple experiments. Just trying to get to the punchline a little tiny bit faster...

If you meet somebody smart in Tennessee, send 'em over, even if he's a three-dollar-hillbilly, like you. YOU are not a smart man. Quote in quote in quote, gumption-junction.

YOU have failed, to understand acid, you finally admitted to OA, but you are an idiot, who won't understand the basic affinity of acid, for cold water, or evidence, of related die-offs, or urgency, for re-greening, but I do have a simple task for you, define the 'hockey stick.'

Then I'll put it up with the other tardy wingpunk rants, and we'll see if a consensus shows.

 

[Trakar]

Interesting that tree rings are considered gospel up until 1960. Then those pesky trees became unreliable. One day solar flares are the Faithers line of defense, the next it means nothing. Dodging the AGW settled science point was lame at best.

Well, it was in the sixties that CO2 levels and aerosol levels began reaching points where they began impacting tree growth in ways that are not apparent in tree growth throughout the most species in the late Holocene (last 6-8000years) when CO2 and aerosol levels have been at relatively constant and significantly lower, levels. When you begin dramatically and chronically changing the factors that are responsible for long-term growth, it really isn't unreasonable to expect that the growth rate begins to diverge from historic levels and rates.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regards to solar flares, but if you are willing to clarify the reference, I am willing to respond to the issue according to my understandings.

I don't know of any science that is settled, in general, the only issues of science that I am aware of that are definitively "settled" are issues that are demonstrated to be false and compellingly contradicted by experiment/observation.

That said, there are many issues in science where our understanding is compellingly supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence, the primary principles of AGW (increasing GHG ratios primary forcing of current climate change, anthropogenic sourcing of overwhelming majority of increasing atmospheric GHGs, general applicability of paleoclimate record to guide considerations of the types of effects we can expect from generally similar atmospheric compositions to what we have currently and what we expect if things proceed along any one of several well considered public policy courses of action - including "doing nothing different from what we have so far") is one of these areas that is compellingly supported by an overwhelming preponderance of the available evidence.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with being an advocate of alternative understandings or perspectives of the evidences, or even continuing to investigate and even advocate for a personal perspective favoring an alternative climate change hypothesis. There is a big difference, however between individuals preferring to investigate, explore and prefer specific alternate concepts and individuals who try to grab bits and pieces from every alternative they run across trying to cast doubt upon AGW rather than actually advocating for any specific alternative. The former, I may disagree with, but I can generally respect, their perspective as a legitimately considered and reasoned consequence of their specific understandings.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar:

Please cite and reference the studies and discrepancies you assert. Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

I'm dissapointed that you chalk up all my points to ignorance of science. You ASSUME I haven't this.

Yet YOU let loose with this gem about "every study I'm aware of". Maybe you haven't read enough studies pal. Or maybe your knowledge of the studies is filtered thru the Huffington Post for all I know.

I don't want to play at this level. You should trust ME more and I want to trust YOU more. That way we don't hurl links at each other that maybe we don't understand.

I DO understand this one however. Lemme do you a big favor tonight -- because after you read the follow study -- you will NEVER again be able to honestly claim that ....

Well, I don't read liberal/conservative idiocy blogs, nor do I get my understanding of science from blogs of any advocacy. But if you'd like to discuss the paper presented in connection with the statements you seem to be trying to support with it, that is a course we can pursue.

Every study I am aware of in this regard is fully and completely in accord with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application.

Per my #Whatever on desert night-time low temperatures correlating with increasing CO2. I can't find the BETTER study that confirms this right now, but this one is easier to read anyway..


A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

The principal source of infra red radiation is solar during the daytime highs (out of the solar constant of about 1390 W/m2 [1], Approximately 415 W/m2 [2] are in the infra red portion) and terrestrial during the night-time lows. Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.


Like all greenhouse agents CO2 absorbs some of this radiation and radiates it back in random directions. Including some back towards the source. Thus the effects of this absorption and re-radiation as measured on the ground will be different. The daytime highs will be lower and the night-time low will be higher than they would have been without the moderation of the atmospheric greenhouse agents including CO2. This method has an advantage in that it offers a way to separate heating due to greenhouse effects and that due to increased solar radiation. The focus is on how things cool rather than how they heat. The greatest greenhouse agent is water vapor. An arid environment, which by definition has a low water vapor content, displays a wider range of temperatures than non-arid locals do. The heating and cooling in the arid environment of New Mexico provides a good example of this effect. In addition this lower water vapor content should also help separate and isolate the greenhouse effects of CO2.

Spoiler alert -- no important correlation with CO2 increase..

Read the conclusion first and validate to your hearts content. Researchers are having a hard time confirming the increase in desert night-time lows that SHOULD BE in the temp record as CO2 increases. Maybe because the GH effect is coupled to changes in solar spectrum (my #whatever in the list)????

BTW: Pardon my frustration, I've posted this crap for so many different people, that I'm tired of the repetition..

I simply don't see that there is anything mysterious or at odds "...with the mainstream physical understanding of atmospheric composition and the radiative transfer theories that handle these aspects of reaction in the predominant AOGCMs in modern application." I haven't fully read much less processed the actual paper yet, just a very cursory skim so far, I'll get back you after I've had the opportunity to fully read and review the paper, its data/processes, and its findings. Initially, I can't say much about their findings deduced from data covering the '70s-'90s over the Mojave, what I can say is that indications from the Sahara seem to pe in perfect accord with the day/night variations expected and exhibited by enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/c...NDP_reports/Morocco/Morocco.lowres.report.pdf

Oh, and I fully understand about finding the repetition of addressing the same issues over and over again, often with the same people, to be quite tiresome.

 

[Trakar]

Couldn't find an experiment at 120PPM CO2.

I understand

And, by the way, the Warmers who have added the "atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans turn acidic" condition, not me.

Find? what do you mean?

I was trying to make it an easy to duplicate analogous experiment. If you insist upon the precise differences due to an additional 120ppm CO2, that only requires a few minor adjustments to the experiment.

Gradually heat the three samples to 95º C and maintain for approximately 30 minutes which should effectively de-gas the seawater. Replace the atmosphere in the first sample with a mix of Nitrogen and CO2 appropriate to equal 120ppm CO2, 280ppm CO2 in the second sample, and 400ppm in the third sample, might even run one at 2000ppm just for grins and giggles, aggitation the sample vigorously, allow to cool to ambient mean temperature, vigorously aggitate one more time, allow sample to settle, measure pH record data. Then repeat the experiment a few dozen times to build up a good preliminary dataset.

This does not provide a direct analogy to OA, but it does answer your requirements and generally produces results in accord with scientific understandings and considerations regarding many of the primary considerations of ocean acidification through increasing atmospheric CO2 ratios.