Climate Change - Continued

GG,

This is getting too far out in the weeds from my comment about the conflict of interests.

The tenets of the Republican Party are in direct conflict with the beliefs of the Warmies.

So, if a person claims to believe and support both sides, whenever he supports the interests of one side, He will be acting in direct conflict with the interests of the other side.

There is NOTHING WRONG with him inventing things that will reverse AGW, nor taking money for doing that. But if he supports the interests of Warmies, contrary to the interests of Republican tenets, he is in a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I cannot state it any plainer than that, so this is all I have to say on this point.

The reason i did not comment on your posted link after reading it was to avoid these pointless little wrangles, and i regret responding to your query asking if anyone had read the link you posted.

Kindest regards,
Ernie

How does being a Republican make a person object to the idea of man caused global warming/climate change?!

Willy,

Take a little wider, or deeper perspective on your question. What makes a Republican?

Mostly being of conservative bent, requiring at least a little bit of proof before paying an outrageous price for something, more inclined to using logic and common sense rather than drinking Koolaid prepaed by an eloquent speaker, etc., etc.

Since about sixty percent of the population are not true believers, obviously there are many non-Republicans that are also skeptics. Speaking only for myself, but with the belief that many other skeptics likely feel the same way, most of us are waiting for more proof than is offered by the Keeling Curve projections. Once i see some proof, then i will become a believer, as i am very easily swayed by Facts. The only true value in Plans and Beliefs is they serve as a platform from which to change as conditions warrant.

So, my reply, if the above is not sufficient, is the personal experiences that incline a person to be a conservative also incline that person to be skeptical about the current variations in temperature being solely caused, or reversible by, puny little humans.

I am certainly reluctant to enter into a debate with a man or your knowledge and research skills, but hit me again if this does not answer your question.

Ernie

>> needs to cut his or her energy consumption by 80%.

Space mirrors: Like most proposed space industries, it only "works" if you assume that there is significant industry in space already. We don't have any practical (affordable) way to lift significant weight into low Earth orbit.

"Something" has to pay for the original space industry, like solar power satellites. Smelters on the Moon, or asteroidal mines supplying metal and oxygen to low earth orbit.

My straw man design for geoengineering "space mirrors" would be aluminum or nickle-iron "balloons" blown from molten asteroidal metal, or maybe a metal film sprayed onto thin glass balloons.

I think that everyone except aging L5 "space colony" enthusiasts would agree with Willy and Sally that "space mirrors" are impractical (at this time, with existing technology). I've wished for more investment in space industry since the mid-1970s.

P.S. I think the best argument AGAINST most geoengineering schemes is not that "we can't afford to save the planet". Rather, we don't know enough about climate and ecology to predict the unwanted consequences of global-scale interventions.

That's why I think we should be doing small-scale tests of several geoengineering schemes as soon as possible. We also don't know enough about climate to rule out some unknown interaction that COULD lead to some positive feedback "tipping point" that might suddenly make even risky geoengineering schemes look better than doing nothing.

Good question, Willy. Sounds like it's received wisdom and one isn't allowed to deviate from the party line one iota. Oh well. Smart to withdraw.

Ric- " That's why I think we should be doing small-scale tests of several geoengineering schemes as soon as possible. We also don't know enough about climate to rule out some unknown interaction that COULD lead to some positive feedback "tipping point" that might suddenly make even risky geoengineering schemes look better than doing nothing.

we can't even agree om what the data means to this point. How can we possibly agree on whether there is a good or bad effect from any particular small scale project?

The one thing I saw in photographs (visible and quantifiable) was a project putting blankets on polar snowfields to stop them melting. Sorry I don't remember any associated statements about the effectiveness demonstrated.

>> a project putting blankets on polar snowfields to stop them melting.

Hmm. For that to work, wouldn't the blankets have to reflect even more sunlight than snow does?

>> How can we possibly agree on whether there is a good or bad effect from any particular small scale project?

I would agree that we don't understand climate and ecology in enough detail to predict the overall, long term effect of small or large geoengineering efforts.

And I agree that the immediate effects of even small-scale tests may be surprisingly bad (or good).

And whenever you try to scale up from small tests, you encounter surprises.

But small scale tests ought to be able to answer questions like these:

In ocean fertilization, does the source of iron stay near the surface long enough to have the desired results? And test different ways to keep it floating.

In ocean fertilization, how much captured carbon sinks deep and how long does it STAY deep?

In ocean fertilization, how long can "blooms" be made to last?

In creating stratospheric reflecting aerosols -
- how long do they stay up?
- how to make them stay up longer
- can we confine them to certain latitudes if we need to?
- what are the most obvious, immediate unwanted side effects?

What the heck can we do to affect cloud formation and stability?
What kinds of clouds have the most anti-AGW benefit?
(Anything we learn about that will give us a head-start once we find out where and what kind of clouds are needed most.)

Whether major climate changes come fast or slow, basic science will be a useful input to the attempts to build better climate models. Maybe I should be urging us to find ways to rapidly TEST existing climate models' assumptions without "breaking the entire climate".

What I'm taking away from the "Energy for Presidents" book is really depressing: nothing that developed nations do can have a significant effect compared to countries with emerging economies like China and India. What they are doing already predominates what we are doing, and will soon swamp our emissions.

To have any significant effect, we need to find technologies that are CHEAP ENOUGH to be attractive to poor nations, and that may mean technologies that turn a profit as they reduce emissions. Scientists, start drinking more coffee.

Sure, a Seattle area person WOULD suggest more coffee! :«)

Ernie you make a couple of great points...its fairly often I come across an article about some conservative or republican that is some how more smart and open minded because he or she is supposedly concerned about AGW, or embracing some other opposing liberal philosophy etc etc.

But I rarely come across articles about bleeding heart liberals embracing some conservative ideal. Which makes the former seem suspect.

As a scientist, I am skeptical about everything until I can see verifiable and repeatable data. Trying to predict the future is a challenging science...if you can really call it science. We can look back at earths history and see that climate has never been stable. And the only thing that one can predict for sure in my opinion is that climate will likely change as it always has.

Why has the climate always changed? And what factors have caused those changes? And if those factors changed climate then are they changing climate now?

I think until we answer those questions it is unwise to place blame on the all important and delicious plant essential and all natural organic non GMO CO2.

John,

First, on the liberals not espousing conservative opinions, I have seen several references to the fact that Liberals are often ordered to not even listen to, or read conservative opinions, and that may be part of the reason so many liberals deny some speakers the freedom of speech on the College Campuses. They do seem to follow the talking points and party line more closely than conservatives do. I do not consider my self a full blooded Republican, as I see a lot of good in Libertarian and Indendent viewpoints but for sure, Republicans uphold the traditioal American values more than the Democrats do, and we are alll stuck with the two party system.

Just as your experience as a Scientist has affected your viewpoints, we are all shaped by our own experiences. When we walk along the beach and see plastic flotsam littering the shoreline. we are all disgusted with the mess humans are making of the small part of the planet they occupy.

But when, like me, you have been fortunate enough to spend week after week sailing across the Pacific Ocean about four feet above the water line, and seeing thousands of square miles of pristine Ocean, you get a different perspective of just how powerful, or weak, those puny little litterbugs living along the shore line really are. Sure, we can make a mess out of the alley behind where we live, or pollute a local river, but what we do is very minor to what one big Volcanic eruption or a naturally caused Ice Age or Warming period does on its own.

As i read about the plans to place plastic ballons in the atmosphere, or sprinkle moon dust or such over wide areas of the ocean, I wonder what the jet stream or a hurricane, or the resulting waves would do to such installations. But of course, when you are spending other people's money, you do not need to worry about the cost. Remember Solyndra. That was part of a plan to reverse AGW.

Ernie

One question: Since it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and since it is a fact that we have experienced a significant rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and since it is a fact that the excess CO2 has come from burning fossil fuels, how could that CO2 NOT contribute to a rise in temperature?

I am not saying that the CO2 will definitely cause a catastrophe, just asking how it could not contribute to rising temperatures.

Willy,

Great point! So as CO2 rises so should the temperatures. But they are not rising even as CO2 does. How can this be?

Even though CO2 concentrations have doubled it may not be as influential as what some scientists have suggested in raising earths temperature. Obviously there are some questions that need to be answered. All gasses including Nitrogen, Oxygen and water vapor can all absorb and trap heat. CO2 is still less than 4/100ths of 1%.

So if indeed CO2 is rising, and it is a greenhouse gas...but the temperatures are not rising...why is that? How is it possible? What then is counteracting the extra heat trapped by the higher CO2 levels we have? In other words what is causing the cooling?






This message was edited May 1, 2014 8:49 AM

Willy, John,

I have developed considerable respect for both of you from reading your posts that expound on your own thoughts, and are not dependent on other people's writings.

And the two opposing posts you have just made strike right to the heart of this discussion for me, and probably a lot of other people.

I stand on the fence between what you say. If there had been a correpsonding rise in temperatures to the increase in CO2, I would then believe that more CO2 would be expected to produce more future warming and i would agree with Willy and be concerned about the future. I would probably never reach the panic stage that some of the people have reached, but that is just the difference in our natures and not a dispute about the facts.

But, since there has not been a discernable relationship to the amount of CO2 and the Global Temperatures, I have not yet been convinced of the danger.

I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts and discussion on this subject, as we are all curious as to what is the actual truth here, or we would not be following this thread.

Ernie

drobarr--Because other factors besides CO2 affect temperature as well. During times when CO2 concentrations were stable, climate still varied from year to year. I am no climate expert, but my guess would be that if we hadn't experienced an increase in CO2 then average temperatures over the last decade would have cooled instead of roughly flat-lined.

But you have evaded my question: Why shouldn't rising CO2 levels contribute to rising temperatures? An analogy--you install double pane windows on your home but you notice no savings on your electric bill. Do you conclude that double pane windows are a scam or do you conclude that there must be some "leak" in the home somewhere that allows your heated or cooled air to escape to the outside? Being a scientist, you surely recognize that it can sometimes be very difficult to isolate the signal from the noise.

In other words--do you reject the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?.

Let me try another approach. It is my understanding that a simple energy balance between incoming (from the sun, roughly 240 W/square meter on average) and outgoing (radiative losses to "space") energy yields an average global temperature of roughly 0°F. The fact that we don't have that as an average temperature--it's more like 60°F--is due to the presence of a few greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, among them are CO2, water vapor and methane. Since our atmosphere is almost 100% N2 and O2 (neither of which are greenhouse gases), this means we owe our relatively comfortable 60°F average temperature to gases that make up less than 1% of the atmosphere. Altering the amount of these gases may seem tiny compared to the entire atmosphere, but it's very significant when compared to just other greenhouse gases.

Yet another approach--Adding fertilizer to the soil, will, all else being equal, increase your yield. But, if the weather is bad, or you have an insect infestation, or the gophers and crows eat a lot, your yield will be poor despite the addition of fertilizer--an easy example of separating the signal from the noise.

Excellent points, and I hope the two of you keep the discussion going.

A side comment on the Global Temp balance, I have noticed there is a lot of warmth, much above 0 degrees, coming up from the earth,. That stops the soil from freezing, and thaws what does freeze from below, while the Sun's heat thaws from above. Also Geothermal hot spots adds to it in certain areas.

Ernie

Willy,

What other factors besides CO2 affect climate? And how do we know if temperatures would have cooled if the CO2 level was lower?

When were CO2 concentrations stable? Have they always been stable?

To your question...."Why shouldn't rising CO2 levels contribute to rising temperatures?" If the theory is correct they should. But I do not beleive they do. Because there is no evidence to show that any rise intemperature is due to the rise in CO2 vs a rise in temperature that was observed when CO2 concentrations were, to use your words, more stable. Temperatures have always gone up and down regardless of CO2. So when the temperatures go up how can one say it is due to the CO2 and not due to one of the other factors that also can cause warming....rises that have always been seen.

Your double paned glass analogy doesnt apply here. That can be repeated a number of times. On a global scale you can only see what has happened historically. I agree it is very difficult to separate the signal from the noise. Since there is so much noise I don't think we yet have a signal that is strong enough to come to any conclusion yet which is why I am skeptical.

I beleive that CO2 levels at their present level has had little affect so far on raising temperatures on earth.

Again your fertilizer example you always have a control and you only adjust one factor. You can't compare those types of experiments with this. I understand what you are trying to say that other things can come in and confound your results...but scientifically you are just making an assumption....that you think the earth would have been cooler over the last 10 years had CO2 concentrations been lower. You dont know that for sure. What are the factors that have prevented the expected warming? In your plant example you know there was insects that ate the plants....what is confounding the warming of the earth?

Water vapor has more affect on earth temperatures than CO2. Ever slept outside on a cold clear night verses a cloudy night? Clouds trap heat. They also block sunlight and heat from entering. If we raised the temperature 1 degree do you realize how much evaporation that would cause from our oceans which cover nearly 3/4 of the planet?...the amount of cloud cover we would get...and how much cooling would be caused by the amount of light reflected, rain fallen etc. As temperatures rise there are many mechanisms that can control and regulate and cool the earth.

How about the sun? Is the heat it delivers to earth constant? NO! It varies all the time.

CO2 in my opinion is not the devil here. We could cut emissions to 0 and I think we would see the same trends.

So your contention is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

This message was edited Apr 30, 2014 5:04 PM

I dont beleive that only 1% of whats in the atmosphere controls the temperature here on earth. Thats not correct science. All of the gases absorb heat and can reflect and or absorb light. Some do more than others. Water vapor is present in levels much higher than 1% and has much more of an affect on climate than CO2 many times over.

This message was edited Apr 30, 2014 4:00 PM

My contention is that the potency that many climate scientists are attributing to CO2 is not corrrect. In fact I am saying that since there are so many other and more important factors that regulate temperatures that it is a very minor regulator of temperatures on earth.

So what I am saying Willy is that climate is regulated by other more important and more powerful forces than CO2 concentration...especially at the CO2 levels we currently have.

Association is not causation. In a 20 or 30 year period warming was seen and at the same time CO2 was rising. Makes sense right? But climate scientists have no hard evidence CO2 has done anything to affect earths temperatures...just associations.

Heres an analogy...we had cooling in the 1960's and 70's and we didnt have any Honda cars. In the 1980's we had Honda cars and they sold a whole bunch...ever since we have had Hondas its been getting warmer and warmer. Must be the Hondas! yes the Hondas are causing the warming....That is just an association...not causation. So no I do not believe Honda is a greenhouse car. Or at least the Honda cars are not producing enough heat to affect the climate on any large scale...though they may be producing some.

This message was edited Apr 30, 2014 4:12 PM

I believe you are flat out wrong. The gases in the atmosphere are all transparent to incoming solar radiation and oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to infrared radiation going out. CO2 and other so called greenhouse gases (GHG) absorb IR and keep the earth warmer than it otherwise would be. If it weren't for them, we'd be wearing parkas all the time. This is very basic science and beyond dispute. The degree of future warming is certainly debatable and the complexity of the atmosphere makes an accurate model very dependent on assumptions. I have done computer modeling of much, much simpler systems (back when programming was done in FORTRAN, which is maybe more archaic than Latin, eh!?), so I can vaguely imagine the enormous difficulty of modeling the atmosphere. As a result, I am quite skeptical of long term forecasts, but...

The bottom line for me is that CO2 IS a GHG--it WILL make earth warmer than it would otherwise be without question as that is basic science--and we're kind of foolish to affect the composition of our atmosphere by adding more. Alas, I don't see any short-term practical ways to reduce CO2 emissions without hurting people, but we really should try to start doing something. I vote for nukes, natural gas, conservation, and heavy research.

Correlation is not causation--agree 100%.

CO2 is a GHG--fact. There is no choice but for it to have a positive influence on temperature.

Willy,

You need to double check your chemistry. How is ozone made? Solar radiation can break the bonds of O2 diassociating and forming O3 ozone. All gases including O2 and N2 molecules absorb heat though differing wave lengths. O2 and N2 absorb short wave lengths...which are more intense light coming from the sun directly...where as CH4, CO2 and H2O absorb longer wavelengths typical of light reflected from the earth. Nothing is invisible...except maybe to our own eyes. Most UV light for example is absorbed by the ozone layer.

So if CO2 causes warming why is future warming debatable?

I answered your question...but you have yet to answer mine. What causes warming if CO2 is stable?

I guess the theory is one thing but the practice is another. CO2 concentrations have doubled but temperatures have not.

Time will tell who is correct.

Since I'm a plant lover I get excited every time I exhale...when we burn coal or oil we are returning the carbon back to the air where it came from. They are plants and animals that never had a chance to fully decompose.

I'm not sure why the fact the solar radiation can split O2 atoms and ultimately create O3--ozone--has anything to do with the fact that CO2 is not completely transparent to IR while O2 and N2 are much more so. O2 and N2 let the energy of the sun pass through the atmosphere "unmolested". Once the photons hit the earth, some of that energy is converted into IR, which is blocked by greenhouse gases. Hence, warming. Go back to my first post today--we should be roughly 60°F cooler on average if it weren't for GHGs. Venus is broiling hot because it's atmosphere is much more heavily concentrated in CO2 than earth's is; Mars is much colder than it otherwise would be because it doesn't have many GHGs.

Why is a typical garden greenhouse effective? Because photons are not affected much by the glass walls of the greenhouse, but, once the photons strike a surface in the greenhouse, some of their energy is converted to IR, which the glass walls of the greenhouse prevent from exiting the greenhouse. Hence, a warmer greenhouse. Bottom line: UV and IR are completely different animals when it comes to residual heat.

The reason that future warming is debatable is that there are many interactions that are not well understood once the earth receives additional energy in the form of heat. Do clouds form in greater number as the atmosphere gets warmer? No one knows for sure. Where does the heat go, oceans, atmosphere, elsewhere? No one knows for sure. There are many other unanswered questions. These questions, plus the huge detrimental economic impact of rejecting fossils fuels immediately, are why I am not an "alarmist".

My point is simple. CO2 is a GHG. No disputing that. A rise in CO2, barring other changes, will, by definition, result in a rising in the temperature of something on earth. We have added roughly 30% more CO2 to the atmosphere since 1958 (from about 310 ppm to about 400 ppm)according to the Keeling Curve, we have not doubled it as you claim.

Lots of things cause warming and cooling: solar cycles, air pollution (from natural or man made sources), the amount of vegetation, the amount of ice and snow that reflect light, ... Just because many things influence climate doesn't mean that CO2 is not a factor. I am not claiming that CO2 is the only, or even necessarily the most important, influence.

Here is a discussion of why CO2 is a GHG: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html.

I agree with you that other factors significantly influence climate--no doubt about it. Water vapor and methane are both more effective than CO2 in terms of being GHGs. The thing is, we aren't adding either of them to the atmosphere like we are CO2, although I think one of the points of dispute in the global warming debate involves just how much a warmer atmosphere might result in an increase in water vapor as well--a so-called positive reinforcement. What that does to cloud formation is another poorly understood detail.

Finally, if the issue was as simple as you say it is, most of the world's climate scientists would be smart enough to reject the idea of AGW, just like they reject the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Do you really, truly believe most climate scientists are ignorant of basic physics and thermodynamics and have no idea what they are doing?

Willy,

I am not saying that it is simple...I am saying that it is complex. Its climate scientists saying that its all pretty much CO2 and I don't agree. That would be simple.

I don't see them talking about or researching any of the other causes of climate change.

Without human activity earth CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm and 7000 ppm. Pre industrial revolution was at 280 ppm and now we are at 400ppm....so a 43% rise in CO2....or on a percentage basis of 0.028% to 0.040% (percent carbon in the air).

Climate scientists are dumbfounded temperatures are not rising as they predicted. It goes against their theory.

They keep having to modify their models, their predictions, their theory...etc. Its not about how smart they all are or if 95 percent of them agree or not....its about reality. Its about what is happening.

And right now its not warming. So maybe something about their theory is flawed.

I have said a million times that I cant predict the future and I don't believe smart climate scientists can either.

I am not opposed to research...or conservation. Im not opposed to cutting back or being more efficient. There are plenty of reasons why those are smart choices regardless of if they impacted climate or not.

But I think I have made my point that there are many factors that affect climate...

drobarr--I have not disputed the fact that many things contribute to climate and temperature; a quick review of my comments above will show that to be true. I am just trying to determine if you accept or reject the idea the CO2 is a GHG. I think you are saying you believe it is not a GHG.

As to CO2 variation over time, it is certainly true that CO2 varies. The CO2 concentration charts I have seen show variation from about 170 ppm to maybe 300-ish ppm for roughly the last million years (we are now at 400 ppm). To get to 7,000 ppm, you need to go back half a billion years or more to a time when our climate would not have been exactly pleasant for humans. If your source for the 7,000 ppm claim is here (http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/), please note the time scale on the x axis is so large that it completely masks/distorts the last million years when the concentration was in the 200-300 ppm range. That million years would be within the range of time when humans found conditions tolerable. If you look at oxygen levels over the history of the earth, you will find that there was a period (billions of years ago) where there was virtually no oxygen in the atmosphere. Does that mean an oxygen free atmosphere is OK now? I think the appropriate comparison here would be to your 7,000 ppm CO2 reference.

Anyhoo--I think for us to be intentionally altering the composition of the atmosphere is unwise--both from the standpoint of AGW and air pollution--and we should try to reduce fossil fuel consumption over the coming decades in a way that does not result in economic destruction.

Great find, Willy, and thanks for the comment.

In no way I am suggesting that we should strive for 7000 ppm. That would be a factor of almost 20 higher than what we have currently. I believe even if we burned every fossil fuel we could find we could not reach that level...fossil fuels are limited. The main reason there wasn't O2 long ago is because also at that time we didn't have plants producing Oxygen. Now the earth is filled with plants which are a critical part of the carbon cycle. CO2 levels would be much higher without plants.

What is your definition of a greenhouse gas?

We all agree CO2 has risen significantly...43% above pre industrial revolution levels and that most of this rise is due to human activity...burning of fossil fuels, oxidation, agricultural cultivation etc. But since the industrial revolution began our earthly temperatures have not risen significantly. They have gone up and down very similarly to the time periods before that prior to the industrial revolution. This isn't just some current data being confounded like your insects in the fertilizer trial. This is 300 years of data showing that the earth has warmed very little...and atmospheric temperatures have been flat.

These facts put into question whether increased CO2 concentration at the levels we have seen thus far alters the climate.

I am not denying that CO2 and H2O and CH4 do intercept some of the long wave radiation reflected from the surface of the earth back into space....if that is your definition of a greenhouse gas. What I do dispute is that this has happened to a degree that in turn has altered our climate.

My feeling is that other factors are regulating our climate not current CO2 levels.

Even climate scientists have realized this to some extent...each time they they adjust their theory the have reduced the impact of a rise of CO2 will have on climate.

Your definition of a GHG is fine. In different words, it's a gas that affects the ability of IR to be reflected out of the atmosphere, hence one that results in more heat being retained in the atmosphere.

The reason I pointed out the 7,000 ppm deal is so a casual reader wouldn't assume that 7,000 ppm is within a reasonable range.

The way I am looking at AGW--and I come from the point of view of a skeptic, almost a denier a decade or more ago--is this:

1) CO2 is a GHG. As such, it MUST serve to increase temperature
2) Many things influence climate, CO2 is one of them.
3) We do not yet fully understand the impact of additional CO2 in a for-sure, for-sure Valley Girl quantifiable way
4) We are adding CO2 in ever increasing amounts. In the last few decades we have begun to make significant changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and those changes are accelerating.
5) It seems pretty dumb to be modifying our atmosphere without a certain understanding of what the impact will be. See rabbits in Australia, kudzu in Alabama, zebra mussels in wherever, Asian carp, fires on the Cuyahoga River, air quality in Beijing, etc.
6) Technologies exist that will allow us to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner energy. We should begin that transition now, in a cost effective, economical way. The might even mean that the US Department of Energy could do something constructive and LEAD us to a better energy future. Seriously, what do those people do? 30-plus years and I have no idea what they have done to help or guide us.

I am not advocating dropping fossil fuels immediately. I think Keystone should be built. I mean, be realistic, if we don't use that resource, someone else will. In the longer run, though, eliminating fossil fuels will give us cleaner air and eliminate our need to have a Middle East presence. Let those folks stew in their prehistoric idiocy without concerning us.

Them's my thoughts.

This message was edited May 1, 2014 2:46 PM

Willy,

Lets say the atmosphere is warming. What happens to a gas when it warms? The molecules move faster and the gas expands...in a fixed volume pressure builds. In an atmosphere the molecules become farther apart. The farther they are apart the more open spaces there are. The more open spaces the less long wave radiation is intercepted by those molecules. This may be a way temperatures are regulated?

Just a thought.

????????????

I don't think that IR, which would travel in a straight line, would be able to "snake" it's way through a maze of molecules....Wavelengths of IR run from hundreds of nanometers to about a millimeter. That's huge compared to intermolecular distances, no?

When you heat any gas....you have fewer molecules per cubic area. Fewer molecules per cubic area would have the same effect as lowering the concentration. Having fewer molecules per cubic area would lower IR intercepted. Less IR intercepted means less heat trapped and more heat escapes to space. This could cause cooling which may help keep things in equilibrium or act as a buffer even as CO2 increases.

Since the longer wavelengths (IR)heat the CO2 more so than the O2...CO2 ppm would lower under warmer temps(disperse more)whereas O2 concentration would stay constant if O2 is invisible to IR.

Perhaps a natural mechanism to cool.





This message was edited May 1, 2014 8:31 PM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

But it is much more abundant than is CO2 ranging from 0.01 to 4.24%....100 to 42,400 ppm.

"Water vapor is also the most potent greenhouse gas owing to the presence of the hydroxyl bond which strongly absorbs in the infra-red region of the light spectrum."

I think we would be better off reducing water vapor in the atmosphere.

>> It seems pretty dumb to be modifying our atmosphere without a certain understanding of what the impact will be.

Thanks for saying that so much better than I have.

I'm mostly out of this thread, but I do want to repeat one thing. I reject arguments like "it hasn't happened yet so it never will". I don't expect the global climate to turn on a dime unless we get into some positive feedback situation that has not yet been thought of. There will be lag, just as a field of seedlings doesn't pop out bushels of corn five minutes after you fertilize it.

But when you don't know, you DON'T know. Such a tipping point could exist at 450 ppm, 500 ppm, or might6 already have occurred back at 375 ppm and the climate has simply not reacted yet in ways that we can distinguish from the (large) natural variations in weather..

We all agree that many things drive short-term climate up and down, but the simplest and most direct gradual greenhouse effect is only a few degrees so far (observed and measured).

The large, short-term random variations due to "everything else" will swamp and overwhelm the small simplest and most direct gradual greenhouse effect until even that direct-and-simple effect is greater than all other sources of variation combined.

Like, 10 or 15 degrees. Like, after we have pumped so much excess CO2 into the atmosphere that the point of no return was exceeded billions of tons ago.

At least the point has been made that there are SOME stable climate regimes above 500 PPM CO2.

That's the most positive thing I've heard, even including the claim that the 2007 IPCC exaggerated deliberately, instead of just not knowing and guessing conservatively ("conservatively" meaning "in the direction more likely to preserve human civilization").

Above 500 or 1,000 ppm, the whole planet might be as hot as India is right now, and as humid as the Amazon basin, the seasons totally unrecognizable, and none of our crops would be at all adapted to it , but at least it looks less likely to become like Venus ("since it didn't happen in the past, it never will happen ...")

With "luck", the transition from our current climate to a Jurassic or Pre-Cambrian climate would be so chaotic and catastrophic that almost all of our current population will be killed off first, so that the survivors can subsist on cycads and ferns until we evolve entirely new crops from scratch.

Of course, since the only combustion at that time will be campfires in caves, the CO2 level will probably start dropping back down towards modern levels, defining "modern" as "after the invention of agriculture".

I hope the survivors remember to archive some seeds that can survive in Pleistocene / Holocene climate regimes.

Maybe the GMO tools recently developed should be used to create crops and animals likely to flourish in Jurassic climates. Gee, wasn't there a movie like that ...?

I don't think it affects your argument either way, but the uncertainty range in the more recent graph shows that the "7,000 PPM" number cited is more like "3,000 PPM or more".

The last time I cited climate evidence from glacial cores, someone dumped on all of that as "completely wrong", perhaps since it provided evidence of AGW.

I think I was only going back a few million years, but I forget. I wonder what the source is of 500 million year old CO2 levels? I'm going to guess isotope ratios of something, somehow.


=====================
sunsettommy Mai 2013 at 03:50 |

The first chart is out of date.It has been updated with CO2 uncertainty range and new temperature data added.

Here is the newer version:

http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-6905.html#pid6905

drobarr--I'm beginning to think that you must be pulling my leg with this molecular spacing crap...

I'm also beginning to feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole with a young earth creationist or rabid anti-GMO'er. There's always one more website to throw up from somewhere. Everything you say--for instance, the fact that water vapor is much more abundant than CO2--is well understood by climate scientists. You are not thinking of any original, gotcha ideas here. The climate scientists have addressed these issues long before you thought of them. Here's a good basic discussion of greenhouse gases that addresses the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Non-greenhouse_gases. It might be worth reading it.

Example: One of the uncertainties in climate modeling is the action of water vapor in a warmer world. If warming leads to more water vapor--bingo--the positive feedback (hence accelerated warming) that you read about. If there isn't a significant increase in atmospheric water vapor, or if more clouds form, the warming effect will not be as strong. There are many more "known" unknowns, as there are with any science, including botany.

For many reasons beyond just AGW, we should begin to make a concerted effort to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. IF the more extreme AGW predictions are correct, our grandkids will remember us the folks who could have made changes, but didn't. If the situation turn out to be more benign, we've still done a good thing by turning from fossil fuels. Win-win.

Willy, Rick,
I feel like I am playing Whack a Mole, too. I have yet to hear either one of you explain, with the Carbon increasing as we all acknowledge, why the temperatures have not shown a corresponding increase in the last 19 or 100 years.

You both write some very intelligent sounding posts, and then spoil the good impression you have made by Rick either making an untrue statement by inferring that any of the Skeptics have posted on this thread that “AGW will never happen”. We all agree it is possible and are waiting for proof.

Then you make a stupid remark like in your last sentence above, “If the situation turn [sic] out to be more benign, we’ve still done a good thing by turning from fossil fuels.”

That makes no sense at all, as increasing the production of fossil fuels is one of the very few ways we have left as a Country to create new wealth. And as long as our Society keeps creating new entitlements, we must create new wealth to pay for them.

And you think it is a Win Win for us to continue paying Saudi Arabia 100 dollars a barrel for oil that only cost 40 to produce, with most of the 40 remaining in circulation in our economy?

As far as your blind faith in the unimpeachable knowledge of the Climatologists, they were totally wrong about the Mini Ice Age just a few years ago, half of them probably graduated as below average students, and Scientists, being human, will go to great lengths to defend any mistakes they make before being forced to admit to them.

I am a great admirer of higher education, but it is not a guarantee from making big mistakes. I have spent a considerable amount of time correcting mistakes made by excellent Civil Engineers.

Please answer the question posed above, as to why the huge amount of Carbon that has been added to the atmosphere has not produced a corresponding amount of increase in the Global Temperatures.

Ernie

Ernie--go back and read my comments over the entire length of the thread. Or, just assume I'm stupid.