WxUSAF Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 This thread is motivated by JB's tweet today: BigJoeBastardi Joe Bastardi Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming http://wp.me/pZE82-1gE via @wordpressdotcom Worth tweeting again. Read!! The full link to the article he posted is here: http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%e2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/ . That article is painfully thin on why they claim CO2 is not well-mixed, but the justification is basically, because CO2 is heavier than air, DUH!!!!!! I guess nevermind the fact that we're all not suffocating on Argon because Argon is heavier than a nitrogen/oxygen mix and either component individually. True CO2 has some spatial variability in the atmosphere due to the seasonal cycle of plant life and high-intensity anthropogenic point sources, but Jesus this just points out in bright neon arrows how incredibly stupid some of these "skeptics" are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Man Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Never mind the fact that the believers have been caught red handed faking their evidence, most of what has been predicted by the climate models hasn't occurred and their has been no warming for the last ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What I find entertaining is that this is an easy claim to check. ESRL has a Carbon Tracker tool which lets people see atmosperic CO2. Here is the global CO2 map for 12/31/2009 (the most recent date available). Note that the highest CO2 levels were around 400 ppm and the lowest around 385 ppm. Or about 4% variation min to max. That seems well mixed to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Never mind the fact that the believers have been caught red handed faking their evidence, most of what has been predicted by the climate models hasn't occurred and their has been no warming for the last ten years. Hey, thanks for the useless response! What I find entertaining is that this is an easy claim to check. ESRL has a Carbon Tracker tool which lets people see atmosperic CO2. Here is the global CO2 map for 12/31/2009 (the most recent date available). Note that the highest CO2 levels were around 400 ppm and the lowest around 385 ppm. Or about 4% variation min to max. That seems well mixed to me. Bingo, this is not a hard fact to check and anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the atmosphere (and I'll be generous and include JB in that group) should understand the basic physics behind this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Never mind the fact that the believers have been caught red handed faking their evidence, most of what has been predicted by the climate models hasn't occurred and their has been no warming for the last ten years. Please provide sources for your claim that "the believers have been caught red handed faking their evidence", and please don't waste anybody's time with links to the so-called Climategate hacked emails. Multiple investigations have cleared the researchers of all wrongdoing. And you are simply wrong in your cliam that there has been no warming for the last ten years. Here is the latest UAH global temperature plot: I think the warming is pretty evident. And remember that Dr Roy Spencer, a prominent skeptical scientist, said in his 12/21/2011 column that the long term global warming trend is 0.15 C per decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 jblolz Does anyone actually pay attention to him? He came on the news and started blaming the PDO and AMO for warming and cooling, so he's not even looking in the right area for causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Please provide sources for your claim that "the believers have been caught red handed faking their evidence", and please don't waste anybody's time with links to the so-called Climategate hacked emails. Multiple investigations have cleared the researchers of all wrongdoing. And you are simply wrong in your cliam that there has been no warming for the last ten years. Here is the latest UAH global temperature plot: I think the warming is pretty evident. And remember that Dr Roy Spencer, a prominent skeptical scientist, said in his 12/21/2011 column that the long term global warming trend is 0.15 C per decade. Climategate is just a politically motivated ploy to mess with the Kyoto meetings. The 1979-2012 trend is +0.15C/decade, but since 2002 there has been no statistically significant warming on RSS, UAH, NCDC, or HADCRUT. GISS stands alone in that category as usual, but that won't stop people from favoring activist run GISS instead of NCDC which extrapolates less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Climategate is just a politically motivated ploy to mess with the Kyoto meetings. You are in the wrong forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You are in the wrong forum. I think you are in the wrong forum if you don't know what climategate is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Climategate is just a politically motivated ploy to mess with the Kyoto meetings. The 1979-2012 trend is +0.15C/decade, but since 2002 there has been no statistically significant warming on RSS, UAH, NCDC, or HADCRUT. GISS stands alone in that category as usual, but that won't stop people from favoring activist run GISS instead of NCDC which extrapolates less. You may be confused about the difference between climate and weather. Climate, by definition, is concerned with long-term trends (30 years is the accepted standard) whereas weather is more concerned with short-term events. If you can provide a link to a current 30 year or longer trend that supports your position we'd all love to see it. But you can't, can you? So you can play all of the games you want, cherrypicking trend periods and data to try prop up your hypotheses, but short-term trends don't mean a darn thing in terms of climate. And even the choice to cherrypick data is not honest, and certainly not scientific - but I think you already know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 You may be confused about the difference between climate and weather. Climate, by definition, is concerned with long-term trends (30 years is the accepted standard) whereas weather is more concerned with short-term events. If you can provide a link to a current 30 year or longer trend that supports your position we'd all love to see it. But you can't, can you? So you can play all of the games you want, cherrypicking trend periods and data to try prop up your hypotheses, but short-term trends don't mean a darn thing in terms of climate. And even the choice to cherrypick data is not honest, and certainly not scientific - but I think you already know that. A 10 year period is not weather, that is climate. Do you understand this? I think you might be confused on what the definition of weather is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A 10 year period is not weather, that is climate. Do you understand this? I think you might be confused on what the definition of weather is. You wouldn't base anomalies on any 10 year period would you? Yes ten years of average weather is climate, but any ten years could significantly deviate from the climate of say, 30 years. By defininition climate represents the average weather over a given period of time while smoothing out conditions of variability within that time frame. Ten years is not long enough to smooth natural variability to the point of removing biases. There is a reason 30 years is used as the standard baseline. Oh, and yes CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas. Empty a vile of CO2 to the atmosphere any where on Earth and follow the trajectories of every molecule. I think you will find that after 10 years of following, the molecules will be pretty well evenly distributed around the globe. Some will be found in the atmosphere, some in the oceans, some of the carbon and oxygen disassociated and some reboneded to form entirely new molecules. For almost every one of them removed from the atmosphere another will have taken it's place maintaining the mixing ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You wouldn't base anomalies on any 10 year period would you? Yes ten years of average weather is climate, but any ten years could significantly deviate from the climate of say, 30 years. By defininition climate represents the average weather over a given period of time while smoothing out conditions of variability within that time frame. Ten years is not long enough to smooth natural variability. There is a reason 30 years is used as the standard baseline. Oh, and yes CO2 is a well mixed greenhouse gas. Empty a vile of CO2 to the atmosphere any where on Earth and follow the trajectories of every molecule. I think you will find that after 10 years of following, the molecules will be pretty well evenly distributed around the globe. No I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's weather which is the point Felipe was trying to make. Sillyness. What would help would be to see daily images of global CO2 PPM count, do they have those anywhere? We should rely on Satellite measurements for global CO2 measurements anyway and not Manua Loa. On a monthly mean CO2 is not as well dispersed as once thought using satellite data, with the highest PPM counts often not in heavily populated areas but rather over the oceans or over the Himalayan Mountains. I'd like to see a daily image. In 1 month of course anything would average well dispersed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 No I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's weather which is the point Felipe was trying to make. Sillyness. What would help would be to see daily images of global CO2 PPM count, do they have those anywhere? We should rely on Satellite measurements for global CO2 measurements anyway and not Manua Loa. On a monthly mean CO2 is not as well dispersed as once thought using satellite data, with the highest PPM counts often not in heavily populated areas but rather over the oceans or over the Himalayan Mountains. I'd like to see a daily image. In 1 month of course anything would average well dispersed. Just shooting from the hip here, but wouldn't you expect CO2 to concentrate on the regions from which it orignates? Water vapor is less well mixed than CO2 because it precipitates out in less than two weeks. Radiative forcing is figured on an annual basis and over the globe as a whole, not as an instantaneous reading at any single point. This averages out any tendency for greenhouse gases to clump in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Just shooting from the hip here, but wouldn't you expect CO2 to concentrate on the regions from which it orignates? Water vapor is less well mixed than CO2 because it precipitates out in less than two weeks. Radiative forcing is figured on an annual basis and over the globe as a whole, not as an instantaneous reading at any single point. This averages out any tendency for greenhouse gases to clump in the short term. I would expect to see the highest CO2 counts in areas like the Los Angeles Valley, along and off the coast of China, over tropical waters. etc. If Co2 is not well mixed [i'm not making any claims one way or the other], it would have profound implications on the warming effect it would have depending on how fast thermal energy is released naturally. If the process is extended it might not matter as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 No I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it's weather which is the point Felipe was trying to make. Sillyness. What would help would be to see daily images of global CO2 PPM count, do they have those anywhere? We should rely on Satellite measurements for global CO2 measurements anyway and not Manua Loa. On a monthly mean CO2 is not as well dispersed as once thought using satellite data, with the highest PPM counts often not in heavily populated areas but rather over the oceans or over the Himalayan Mountains. I'd like to see a daily image. In 1 month of course anything would average well dispersed. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I would expect to see the highest CO2 counts in areas like the Los Angeles Valley, along and off the coast of China, over tropical waters. etc. If Co2 is not well mixed [i'm not making any claims one way or the other], it would have profound implications on the warming effect it would have depending on how fast thermal energy is released naturally. If the process is extended it might not matter as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 http://www.esrl.noaa...am=ccgg&type=ts What is the definiton of "the globe"? I forget. Meanwhile I'm not a fan of how CO2 is measured, either. They say 'given that global CO2 rise is supposed to be uniform, outstanding observations are eliminated'. Don't believe me? Want proof? That is how that base their meaurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Do you read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Do you read? the only observations that can measure this, from satellites, require more than one days observations to make a global graph. Try it yourself, post a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 jblolz Does anyone actually pay attention to him? He came on the news and started blaming the PDO and AMO for warming and cooling, so he's not even looking in the right area for causation. LMAO.... Most skeptics on this forum also point the finger at PDO etc....Not you of course, you're onto the geo-mag, solar mag, cloud variation argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 LMAO.... Most skeptics on this forum also point the finger at PDO etc....Not you of course, you're onto the geo-mag, solar mag, cloud variation argument. Pointing to the PDO makes no sense, there isn't enough change in energy from the PDO to cause a change in global climate. The North Pacific is actually warmer in a -PDO than it is in the +PDO. It is the wind and atmospheric pattern change that drives the PDO that has the effect on climate, which of course is... My hypothesis is that the pattern and wind changes that drive the PDO are driven by the Hale cycle of the Sun, problem is the correlation to the Hale Cycle has no causative mechanism. But it is a perfect correlation in the Satellite era and even before. I'm researching this constantly to find the causative mechanism. But this alone if uncovered would inconclusively offer some level proof to the magnetic sun theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aslkahuna Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Mauna Loa has the longest period of record for CO2 measurements, and being a high peak situated above the Trade inversion, which caps any pollution from below, well removed from any large landmass and with probably the driest atmosphere possible above it is an ideal location such measurements. This is why it's the benchmark. You see the same trend from the other locations so what's the issue here? As for not being well mixed, that's poppycock. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.