Atmospheric CO2 & Interglacial Temperatures.....CO2 showing no warming Impact.

[BethesdaWX]

Then you should have said recycled and not "dissolved."

And yes, a build up of energy necessarily means higher temperatures, unless it is stored as chemical energy, which it isn't. The two main types of energy on earth are chemical energy, and thermal energy and thermal energy determines an objects temperature. So if energy is accumulating on earth, which satellites tell us it is, thermal energy and therefore temperature must rise.

Also what you just wrote is essentially jibberish. What "Ratio/proportion" are you referring to? What do you mean by lapse rates? What do you mean by saying "thermal exchange between absorption of radiation energy, in transfer, cannot "create heat?"" None of that makes any sense. You need to learn how to write and explain yourself. I am familiar with all of the words in your post, and yet the way you have jumbled them together they mean absolutely nothing.

Perhaps somebody else can translate? Is there anybody that understands the precise meaning of his post?

You completely misread everything.

1) When I type fast, I sometimes use the wrong words, get over it. You know what I meant.

2) NO...........buildup of energy does not necessarily result in "heat", by any means, this not even factoring in the fact that the energy in question is being recycled & stored.

3) "Ratio Porportion" of the Incoming energy & Outgoing energy from Earths atmosphere, also known as the laws of the GHE.

This is where warmists dig the hole for themselves. There is no energy being CREATED...or in other words..."excess energy". There is always an energy balance, the earth cannot just keep building up heat energy.

It doesn't work like that at all.

[stellarfun]

You completely misread everything.

1) When I type fast, I sometimes use the wrong words, get over it. You know what I meant.

2) NO...........buildup of energy does not necessarily result in "heat", by any means, this not even factoring in the fact that the energy in question is being recycled & stored.

3) "Ratio Porportion" of the Incoming energy & Outgoing energy from Earths atmosphere, also known as the laws of the GHE.

This is where warmists dig the hole for themselves. There is no energy being CREATED...or in other words..."excess energy". There is always an energy balance, the earth cannot just keep building up heat energy.

It doesn't work like that at all.

The earth can experience a buildup of heat energy -- using your terms -- because a.) the earth is not a closed system, and b.) the absorptive and emitting radiation are different wavelengths.

[BethesdaWX]

The earth can experience a buildup of heat energy -- using your terms -- because a.) the earth is not a closed system, and b.) the absorptive and emitting radiation are different wavelengths.

huh?

If there were a buildup of energy in the earths atmosphere, the laws of the GHE state that longwave radiation emitted back into space would have to increase, not decrease. "Building up energy" can be taken in different terms..................Its one thing if there is more energy present.....its another if the earth is somehow closing off and the GHE is mysteriously altered whil earth heats up like a Motha****a.

This, regardless, has nothing to do with the fact that "heat" is not a necessary result of such energy increase.....and that "heat" being derived by modeling through the assumption that Co2 is the cause for such warming, is like shooting arrows in the dark. The notion that the planet recycles everything, including all energy.....to maintain equilibriu.....is much less farfetched than the former conclusion, which is simply laughable.

Earth recycles everything....name one thing that earth does not recycle, and I'll pay up.

[stellarfun]

huh?

If there were a buildup of energy in the earths atmosphere, the laws of the GHE state that longwave radiation emitted back into space would have to increase, not decrease. "Building up energy" can be taken in different terms..................Its one thing if there is more energy present.....its another if the earth is somehow closing off and the GHE is mysteriously altered whil earth heats up like a Motha****a.

This, regardless, has nothing to do with the fact that "heat" is not a necessary result of such energy increase.....and that "heat" being derived by modeling through the assumption that Co2 is the cause for such warming, is like shooting arrows in the dark. The notion that the planet recycles everything, including all energy.....to maintain equilibriu.....is much less farfetched than the former conclusion, which is simply laughable.

Earth recycles everything....name one thing that earth does not recycle, and I'll pay up.

A.) There is no such thing as "GHE laws", as you so describe them.

B.) The laws of thermodynamics apply to all matter, not just what goes on in the atmosphere or in the magnetosphere.

C.) Equilibrium is not stasis, which is why dynamic is part of the word thermodynamics.

[Clifford]

Heat does NOT just build up and build up, thats not how earth works.....it is continuously recycled. So, any excess energy is put where it will be dizzolved and have little to no impact on the planet.

There are 3 places for heat to "Build Up" in the planet.

Atmosphere: This really can't hold onto much heat. Perhaps a few days or month's worth of heat. But, it is also the easiest thing to measure, and what we "experience".

Oceans: A very dynamic system. Cool in the depths, warm at the surface. Currents running from ocean to ocean, and poles to tropics. Can slowly build up temperatures, perhaps on decade or century time scales.

Subsurface: The temperature somewhere around 6-10 feet underground, more or less, is indicative of the average temperature of the local area. It is a slow reactor, but really is where we should be concentrating our efforts as it will average out yearly, or perhaps decade shifts to give a long-term trend. Unfortunately, records are very sparse. Especially good rural records.

The subsurface temperatures are why well water might be around 50-60 °F, at least in the NW USA.

It is also what causes Permafrost. If the average temperature of a region is below freezing, then the subsurface ground will remain frozen despite the outside temperatures periodically raising above freezing.

There is a phenomenon called "Drunken Forests" which is being blamed on melting permafrost causing trees to take up odd angles.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Drunken_trees

While it is hard to tell the age of the trees/forest, all the photos I can find seem to indicate younger trees. For example, this phenomenon may not be a new phenomenon, but rather may periodically hit certain regions, thus the trees may naturally topple every half century or century or so.

There is a river in Oregon that is primarily spring fed (perhaps by glacier runoff). Unfortunately the temperature station is a couple miles downstream from the headwaters. However, the river has good year-around flow... and is COLD!!!

Temperature Record, Metolius River, 1954 to present.

http://waterdata.usg...erred_module=sw

In over a half century (with a gap in records), there is NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in temperatures. Like with many things, it appears as if between 1975 and 2005 that they changed recording methods. I've downloaded the data, and am now trying to figure out how best to analyse it.

Perhaps the spring feeding the river is too deep to see any appreciable rapid response within a century or so, or there is too much glacier influence. However, it is interesting that it really is showing absolutely NOTHING.

If we looked for underground "proxy" records from the past like the Metolius above, as well as burying 10,000 subsurface temperature probes around the world... we could bury this global warming phenomenon once and for all. Or at least we could get a better handle on decade or century long warming/cooling patterns, although the causes could still be up for debate.

[BethesdaWX]

A.) There is no such thing as "GHE laws", as you so describe them.

B.) The laws of thermodynamics apply to all matter, not just what goes on in the atmosphere or in the magnetosphere.

C.) Equilibrium is not stasis, which is why dynamic is part of the word thermodynamics.

1) You're saying the GHE has no laws? You think the earth works like "typical" greenhouse?! You cannot harangue me on "physics" when you clearly cannot read a post.

2) Ties into #1

3) Ties into #2

[Clifford]

Earth recycles everything....name one thing that earth does not recycle, and I'll pay up.

Hmmm

How do you define recycling?

Earth will produce ⁴He, but can not produce ³He, nor does it do a good job at capturing and holding onto Solar ³He, nor holding onto the ³He that was available at the time the planet was formed. The only reason it can hold onto Hydrogen (H₂) is that it is normally found combined with Oxygen, or other heavier elements, as well as the cold-trap for water.

Anyway...

The temperatures in Earth's atmosphere are very transient. If there was a multi-year solar eclipse, the atmosphere would get very cold very quickly.

Earth's crust does absorb some heat. However, perhaps it doesn't radiate it back to the atmosphere well, except for the interactions with water (ice, snow, evaporation, condensation, freezing).

The problem is not a build-up of temperature in the atmosphere, but rather a determination of a "Forcing Agent". The build-up of temperature would go away very quickly once the "Forcing Agent" is eliminated.

Methane has a half-life of about a decade. If we stop releasing methane, the effects of methane will quickly go away. However, the earth has HUGE reserves of methane that we may not be able to control.

CO₂ is essentially at a ground state, so it must either be sequestered by a physical/chemical process such as absorption into the atmosphere, and the formation of carbonic acid and various carbonates (weathering), or CO₂ can be mopped up by a biologic process (essentially plants making petroleum), a process that is likely to take millions of years.

So, if CO₂ is in fact a significant "Forcing Agent", and we increased the atmospheric CO₂ from 0.04% to 1%, then we not only would be giving people headaches (although, people would likely quickly adapt to the increased levels), but theoretically we would have big problems getting rid of it.

That brings us back to Earth's ability to buffer CO₂. Due to weathering, and absorption into the oceans, a large part of the CO₂ that we release doesn't stay in the atmosphere.

Estimates of release and absorption change with time, and seem to be all over the ballpark. But, it is somewhere on the order of 10% to 50% of the "excess" carbon dioxide that we release each year gets absorbed by the oceans, soils, minerals, and plants.

It is likely this buffering is at least in part temperature related, and is what drove the perceived CO₂ changes concurrent with, or slightly after Ice Age temperature fluctuations.

If & when we stop releasing CO₂, it will likely reach a new equilibrium, lower than whatever levels it is when we stop or substantially slow the emissions, but higher than historical levels.

So the questions are whether CO₂ is a "Forcing Agent" which could have long-term climate impacts, and if so, how significant?

Will the CO₂ in the atmosphere cause a cascade of other systems such as Permafrost Methane Reserves, or Antarctic Ice shelves?

I agree that it is unlikely there will be a significant lag between CO₂ or a "Greenhouse Gas" entering the atmosphere and the atmospheric effects from it. The atmosphere just doesn't hold onto heat that well.

Surface heat can build up, but the effects are different. Especially when considering the subsurface heat sink.

[BethesdaWX]

"recycling" more in chemical terms I guess, effects are another story. If there is no significant "lag" between GHG & the Atmospheric effect, then we probably have have nothing to worry about, right?

Current Co2 is near 400PPM. This is over 30% higher than any other time in the past 600,000yrs. Pretty Scary huh? Methane currently stands at 130% higher than any other time in the past 600,000yrs....thats terrifying!!!

Lets see how this immense GHG buildup has affected the climate....

Hmmmmmm, I don't see anything but an extrordinarily COLD interglacial and unprecedentedly low anomalies.

6500yrs ago,temperatures peaked over 2C warmer than avg....we're nowhere near that. The 2C spike was solar....we're ina max right now......but we're COLD! We can sleep well tonight.

[Clifford]

I don't know if that chart is up to date or not.... I don't see the hockey stick on it!!!!

Ever notice that it gets cold in the winter, and hot in the summer.... unless you're in Argentina where it gets hot in the winter and cold in the summer

The atmosphere just doesn't hold onto heat that well.

If the planet is in fact warming, it will take some time for Earth's crust to reach a new equilibrium which could affect ocean evaporation, permafrost, and glacier extent.

The only delays for atmospheric heating would be in cascade process such as:

Temp Increase --> Permafrost Melting --> Methane Release --> Temp Increase

(assuming that is a real risk).

or

Temp Increase --> Ocean CO₂ outgassing --> Temp Increase

(again assuming that is a risk. At the moment it appears as if the ocean is absorbing excess CO₂

The inevitable Atmospheric Water changes could also cause secondary heating or cooling (has that ever been determined, or is the answer "Both"

[BethesdaWX]

I don't know if that chart is up to date or not.... I don't see the hockey stick on it!!!!

Ever notice that it gets cold in the winter, and hot in the summer.... unless you're in Argentina where it gets hot in the winter and cold in the summer

The atmosphere just doesn't hold onto heat that well.

If the planet is in fact warming, it will take some time for Earth's crust to reach a new equilibrium which could affect ocean evaporation, permafrost, and glacier extent.

The only delays for atmospheric heating would be in cascade process such as:

Temp Increase --> Permafrost Melting --> Methane Release --> Temp Increase

(assuming that is a real risk).

or

Temp Increase --> Ocean CO₂ outgassing --> Temp Increase

(again assuming that is a risk. At the moment it appears as if the ocean is absorbing excess CO₂

The inevitable Atmospheric Water changes could also cause secondary heating or cooling (has that ever been determined, or is the answer "Both"

Thankyou. It is a wonderful thing to have objective posters like you aboard here.

The climate is very complex, was about to post the same, oceans are sucking Co2 out of the atmosphere like a vaccum.

[beneficii]

1) You're saying the GHE has no laws? You think the earth works like "typical" greenhouse?! You cannot harangue me on "physics" when you clearly cannot read a post.

I think stellarfun read your post just fine.

[beneficii]

If there were a buildup of energy in the earths atmosphere, the laws of the GHE state that longwave radiation emitted back into space would have to increase, not decrease. "Building up energy" can be taken in different terms..................Its one thing if there is more energy present.....its another if the earth is somehow closing off and the GHE is mysteriously altered whil earth heats up like a Motha****a.

stellarfun, et al., say you're just making this up or getting it from somebody else that has been. Put up a legitimate scientific source that says this or shut up, for once.

[stellarfun]

stellarfun, et al., say you're just making this up or getting it from somebody else that has been. Put up a legitimate scientific source that says this or shut up, for once.

Anybody who has taken high school physics for example, has learned about Charles Law and Boyle's Law. So there should be even a modest familiarity with how laws are named in science; specific laws cover specific phenomena. As such, there is no Green House Effect (GHE) Law, that if you fill out the variables in an equation (for the GHE Law), you get the answer.

I have started characterizing certain posters as parrots, because they read something on a site consistent with their view, and then repeat it. They almost never go back to the original source to understand what.was being described or concluded, and rely only on someone else's interpretation. The interpretations are usually selective, self-serving, and sometimes manipulative. But if the discussion in a thread gets into areas not covered by the source that the parrot relies on, the parrot is at a loss for words. Well, not exactly a loss for words, for a parrot will turn to ad hominen attacks on the poster raising the point, these attacks typically questioning the poster's intelligence, eyesight, or sexuality.

Here are two laws that have bearing on the subject of this thread, and were even indirectly referenced in this thread. I am certain any poster who believes there is a GHE Law will recognize the equations, and so I won't state the obvious by giving out their names here.

α_λ = ε_λ

and,

[Mello]

Somewhat off topic, but has anyone ever tried to offer an explanation why the temps over the last 10K years diverge from the more cyclic behavior seen beforehand? Obviously, we have much higher resolution data from the past 10K years. Does that mean that those previous temperature spikes may not have been as short lived as the ice cores indicate or is there something else going on?

[WeatherRusty]

Somewhat off topic, but has anyone ever tried to offer an explanation why the temps over the last 10K years diverge from the more cyclic behavior seen beforehand? Obviously, we have much higher resolution data from the past 10K years. Does that mean that those previous temperature spikes may not have been as short lived as the ice cores indicate or is there something else going on?

Milankovitch theory suggest that the current phasing of it's three parameters favors an interglacial period lasting as long as another 50,000 years.

The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years. A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.

Wiki Article

[Clifford]

Milankovitch theory suggest that the current phasing of it's three parameters favors an interglacial period lasting as long as another 50,000 years.

The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years. A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.

Wiki Article

There are still a lot of things that don't add up with the Milankovitch theory.

There is just nothing remarkable about the current Milankovitch cycle.

The eccentricity seems to match the 100,000 year cycles best. However, while we are at a local high in the eccentricity, we are still much below the level previous interglacial periods had ended and the glaciation periods had resumed.

For the northern hemisphere, we've passed through a half a procession cycle. Starting the Holocene with the North closest to the sun in the summer (short, hot summers, long cool winters), and now ending the half cycle with the south closest to the sun in the winter (for the north, short, hot winter, long cool summers).

Just kind of average with the axial tilt.

Even the prediction of not much near-term change in the 65N TSI just seems to all be in moderation.

Perhaps what we are missing is a strong negative that might have otherwise triggered a glacial period.

[BethesdaWX]

Anybody who has taken high school physics for example, has learned about Charles Law and Boyle's Law. So there should be even a modest familiarity with how laws are named in science; specific laws cover specific phenomena. As such, there is no Green House Effect (GHE) Law, that if you fill out the variables in an equation (for the GHE Law), you get the answer.

I have started characterizing certain posters as parrots, because they read something on a site consistent with their view, and then repeat it. They almost never go back to the original source to understand what.was being described or concluded, and rely only on someone else's interpretation. The interpretations are usually selective, self-serving, and sometimes manipulative. But if the discussion in a thread gets into areas not covered by the source that the parrot relies on, the parrot is at a loss for words. Well, not exactly a loss for words, for a parrot will turn to ad hominen attacks on the poster raising the point, these attacks typically questioning the poster's intelligence, eyesight, or sexuality.

Here are two laws that have bearing on the subject of this thread, and were even indirectly referenced in this thread. I am certain any poster who believes there is a GHE Law will recognize the equations, and so I won't state the obvious by giving out their names here.

α_λ = ε_λ

and,

Point being?

Everyone knows the energy released from earth does not stand at the same wavelength frequency as that entering, but exact numbering from each forcing alone is another story. The relation between each stand-alone value, in tandom with changes in energy throughout processing in the atmosphere, makes this an impossible tactic to base computer models off of! Well, if you want to be inaccurate at doing so, be my guest, but its the exact reason why exact #'s are not my target at this time, nor should the be yours, because as we Learn, the Formulas change, we still will never understand the concept of each forcing.

When I say "equilibrium", what do you infer from that? (FYI, it has nothing to do with energy release in DIRECT RELATION TO WHAT ENTERS the atmosphere, by any means, more in context of where it goes, and what we'd see in the longwave release FROM earth). You seem to imply that I feel there is no distance in wavelengths beterrn incoming & outgoing energy. Not true.

However, this is something that we'd need our current measurements to apply to, if we want a match to obervations. (aka, OBS to the "formula", or visa versa).

Somewhere you are misunderstanding my argument, and I'm curious as to where this kink is. Maybe you may need to make an inference for once? It might help you alot.

[Mencken_Fan]

Anybody who has taken high school physics for example, has learned about Charles Law and Boyle's Law. So there should be even a modest familiarity with how laws are named in science; specific laws cover specific phenomena. As such, there is no Green House Effect (GHE) Law, that if you fill out the variables in an equation (for the GHE Law), you get the answer.

I have started characterizing certain posters as parrots, because they read something on a site consistent with their view, and then repeat it. They almost never go back to the original source to understand what.was being described or concluded, and rely only on someone else's interpretation. The interpretations are usually selective, self-serving, and sometimes manipulative. But if the discussion in a thread gets into areas not covered by the source that the parrot relies on, the parrot is at a loss for words. Well, not exactly a loss for words, for a parrot will turn to ad hominen attacks on the poster raising the point, these attacks typically questioning the poster's intelligence, eyesight, or sexuality.

Oh man....not only is that true here; it's true everywhere; such is the American psyche. I'm well versed in science, history, politics and finance; and I see the same "parroting' day in and day out; from friends, radio, and television.

Being that most Americans are "critical thinking retards", our media relies on them to use the more simplistic (and intellectually useless) "common sense" when deciding what is real and what is not.

Oh well...perhaps I should turn on Fox News so I can be reminded how superior we are.....

[Clifford]

Talking Birds..

Or Sound-Bites?

Unfortunately the entire concept of Global Warming has been presented to the Public as Sound Bites.

And, I must admit that I have a bad habit of looking at the pictures in any article first

The problem is that the "sound-bite-theories" get amplified until suddenly nothing adds up.

1+1 = 10

Which is, of course, true... only if you are a computer

But, with the global warming... the sound-bite-theories quickly get riddled with holes... on both sides.

Then, it boils down to a 1-2°C change in temperatures.

What does that 1-2°C change really mean to me when I already know that the local temperature varies from about -5°C in the winter up to about 25 to 30°C in the summer, and it is not uncommon for the temperature to drop 5-10°C in the evening.

And there we run into problems because the Junk-Science suddenly becomes Junk-Predictions..... which are again captured in sound-bite-predictions... which eventually get so convoluted that one never really knows what was intended.

If some of us truly try to keep informed.

Well, I guess I get pissed off when a company like ScienceDirect wants to sell me a critical reference document for $35.

I don't make a penny off of the global warming.

I would pay... hmmm... 50 cents for the article.

I suppose I need to head down to the local library to try to determine if there is any reality to the buckets and insulated buckets and engine room sensors and hull sensor arguments leading to the ocean data adjustments.

I will say that if you pull a bucket of water out of the ocean and set it on the deck... it will cool down if it is -10°C outside. It will warm up if it is 40°C outside. Any temperature adjustments would have to be done with either an actual ambient temperature reading, or an approximate ambient temperature reading. But, it is hard for a person to fully understand the arguments if the data is essentially restricted from access.

And, now the bucket paper is a fundamental part of any of the temperature models based on terrestrial recordings pre-1960.

I suppose I am tempted to ask for a single number.

Is the temperature getting warmer? or Cooler? By how much? Just one number.

But, I would also like some deeper information, and I know that it is difficult to provide transparency to black-box calculations.

Which weather stations are being used? How are they weighted?

Which is excluded?

What is adjusted or interpolated?

Why?

How?

With the huge jump in reported temperatures at the conversion from MSU to AMSU data, I've tried to understand how MSU and AMSU data is correlated. The explanations looked reasonable... but I would still like to do a comparison of the overlapping data for myself. But, again the black-box presentation of the data makes that impossible.