BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The answer to the source of the additional CO2 is.... very close to 100%. The natural background concentration of CO2 has not exceeded about 280 parts per million in at least the past 400,000 years and probably longer. It now stands at 388 ppm. We also determine the anthropogenic origin of the accumulating CO2 by the isotopic signature of increasing C12 relative to C13. Plants incorporate C12 over C13 as they grow. As we burn ancient fossilized carbon we release a disproportionate quantity of C12 to the atmosphere. For the majority of our planets existance, Co2 has been at least 500ppm, to 6000ppm.......275ppm is Dangerously low by earth standards. Even 400ppm is low. Either way, our Hypothesis is that the CO2 will warm us immensly......unfortunately, with our CO2 at 400ppm, we should be around +0.75C above avg by now, but instead we've managed to avg around +0.3C recently, with no warming in the past decade. You're not supposed to use a HYPOTHESIS as proof, and thats why AGW is loosing support, alot of bullsh*t being thrown about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Make that an average 0.2C per decade. Also, this figure is dependent on the equilibrium climate sensitivity which lies between 2C-4.5C per doubling of CO2 by best estimate. Well, our cooling trend better stop then! Since 2002, a cooling trend, interrupted by El Nino, now we continue the downward spiral. Current anom of +0.28C... I love hypothesis that fail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 For the majority of our planets existance, Co2 has been at least 500ppm, to 6000ppm.......275ppm is Dangerously low by earth standards. Even 400ppm is low. Either way, our Hypothesis is that the CO2 will warm us immensly......unfortunately, with our CO2 at 400ppm, we should be around +0.75C above avg by now, but instead we've managed to avg around +0.3C recently, with no warming in the past decade. You're not supposed to use a HYPOTHESIS as proof, and thats why AGW is loosing support, alot of bullsh*t being thrown about. The Sun as a younger star was also correspondingly dimmer and produced decreasing output as we look back in time. It is one of those very fortunate circumstances that Earth's greenhouse effect has weakened in keeping pace with the increasing solar output over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 And to think, with CO2 at 5000ppm or higher, there was still Ice at the poles, & Life on earth flourished,with the biggest bio on earth...........the Dinos! Not, the warmer the climate, the higher the life concentration..take the rainforests/equator, vs the arctic. We could use more warmths,we can adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Sun as a younger star was also correspondingly dimmer and produced decreasing output as we look back in time. It is one of those very fortunate circumstances that Earth's greenhouse effect has weakened in keeping pace with the increasing solar output over time. Thats kind of the point. You do realize what happens to resistance in higher solar forcing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 And to think, with CO2 at 5000ppm or higher, there was still Ice at the poles, & Life on earth flourished,with the biggest bio on earth...........the Dinos! Not, the warmer the climate, the higher the life concentration..take the rainforests/equator, vs the arctic. We could use more warmths,we can adapt. The only times there has been ice at the poles has been when continental masses have resided near the poles. Prior to 34 million years ago there was no ice at the south pole for eons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Thats kind of the point. You do realize what happens to resistance in higher solar forcing, right? No why don't you inform me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Every US state with the exception of Florida currently has snow on the ground. Incredible! Were I live, we just picked up 23" of new snow last night through the daylight hours today. Where is global warming ? Oh my...how can this possibly be happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbo Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 The annual discharge of CO2 by human activities exceeds that from average volcanic activity by 140 to 1. Wow! Did not know that. At least now I know where it is coming from, and I know that CO2 is steadily increasing. I know that physics shows that heat will be retained by the CO2. This is where JB at Accuweather made a misstatement the other day. He said that global temps can't rise if you do not add heat to the system. Isn't that a little like saying that a blanket can't keep you warm at night? My understanding has always been that the "Greenhouse Effect" means that the extra CO2 holds in the heat that the earth receives from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbo Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Every US state with the exception of Florida currently has snow on the ground. Incredible! Were I live, we just picked up 23" of new snow last night through the daylight hours today. Where is global warming ? Oh my...how can this possibly be happening? Is it possible that you are confusing weather and climate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbo Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 And to think, with CO2 at 5000ppm or higher, there was still Ice at the poles, & Life on earth flourished,with the biggest bio on earth...........the Dinos! Not, the warmer the climate, the higher the life concentration..take the rainforests/equator, vs the arctic. We could use more warmths,we can adapt. It was hot as H*** back then. Me no likey. No wonder they became extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Is it possible that you are confusing weather and climate? I was being a bit sarcastic with BathesdaWX. He and I don't agree on the issue of climate change. He is a conspiratorial skeptic and I support the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wow! Did not know that. At least now I know where it is coming from, and I know that CO2 is steadily increasing. I know that physics shows that heat will be retained by the CO2. This is where JB at Accuweather made a misstatement the other day. He said that global temps can't rise if you do not add heat to the system. Isn't that a little like saying that a blanket can't keep you warm at night? My understanding has always been that the "Greenhouse Effect" means that the extra CO2 holds in the heat that the earth receives from the sun. There are two fundamental ways to warm a body. As Bastardi said, you can add heat energy to the system. The other way is to slow down the loss of heat energy from the body. In either case the body will be warmer after a given period of time. The greenhouse effect holds the available energy closer to the surface for a period of time. The total energy need not be greater if it is distributed differently. We see this signature of greenhouse warming as the surface and troposphere warm while the stratosphere cools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Can you or anyone refer me to a graph which shows global temperature trends for, let us say, 100-200 years? I would like to see for myself. I would say that many people on both sides of the argument confuse weather and climate. They are two different animals. 10 years is only a hiccup, it seems to me. My own feeling is that global warming is happening but, it is being overstated. I like the cooling idea but, I don't think it will last for very long. Has anyone ever settled the question of what is the SOURCE of the CO2? Anthropogenic? Natural? Combination of both? I hope someone has some answers because I don't have 100 years to wait around. Any arbitrary timeframe can be chosen to demonstrate any trend people want. The term "long term" has never been clearly quantified in the AGW camps, which doesn't allow for falsifiable testing....(Is it 25 years? 50 years? 70 years 200 years?) And the reason it is important to establish at least some range that characterizes "long term" yeilds testable predictions, which then gives the hypothesis a sporting chance of passing "something" other than the well pulled out simplified fact of CO2 increases a forcing in global temperatures. Rusty can give you the literature (sources) on the carbon isotopes, and the theory of how it is determined to be mostly manmade. The evidence is certainly in their favor on that. We do produce enough CO2 that would be measurable outside the natural emissions. We do have a relatively shallow atmosphere. But the subtle yet significant increase in every metabolic system of every plant, would seemingly to me offset SOME (possibly significant) overall increase, by virtue of bigger plants, globe wide, and a more robust uptake of their food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Any arbitrary timeframe can be chosen to demonstrate any trend people want. The term "long term" has never been clearly quantified in the AGW camps, which doesn't allow for falsifiable testing....(Is it 25 years? 50 years? 70 years 200 years?) And the reason it is important to establish at least some range that characterizes "long term" yeilds testable predictions, which then gives the hypothesis a sporting chance of passing "something" other than the well pulled out simplified fact of CO2 increases a forcing in global temperatures. Rusty can give you the literature (sources) on the carbon isotopes, and the theory of how it is determined to be mostly manmade. The evidence is certainly in their favor on that. We do produce enough CO2 that would be measurable outside the natural emissions. We do have a relatively shallow atmosphere. But the subtle yet significant increase in every metabolic system of every plant, would seemingly to me offset SOME (possibly significant) overall increase, by virtue of bigger plants, globe wide, and a more robust uptake of their food. Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase -- around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. Tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere -- which took many thousand years -- was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years. Source(s): Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748. Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not going to read the last several days/weeks worth to see if this was posted, but: 2010 temps tied for warmest on record globally. 2010 also the wettest year on record globally. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/science/earth/13climate.html?hpw Hadn't someone on Eastern in the Climate forum said that temps "WILL" go down in 2010? Ooops... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Every US state with the exception of Florida currently has snow on the ground. Incredible! Were I live, we just picked up 23" of new snow last night through the daylight hours today. Where is global warming ? Oh my...how can this possibly be happening? Wow...congrats on your complete and utter lack of climate understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wow...congrats on your complete and utter lack of climate understanding. Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beneficii Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Wow...congrats on your complete and utter lack of climate understanding. Hint: Your sarcasm detector is broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saggy Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Lol at Rusty. This might not be the place for this but I will try anyway. Why is man made heat never part of the equation? Or is it somewhere in the discussion and it's already known to be a non factor? Just seems with millions and millions of car engines..compressors..electric motors..heated buildings etc. that we have to be generating a fair amount of heat that otherwise wouldn't be there? Even googling didn't give me many satisfying answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbo Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Any arbitrary timeframe can be chosen to demonstrate any trend people want. The term "long term" has never been clearly quantified in the AGW camps, which doesn't allow for falsifiable testing....(Is it 25 years? 50 years? 70 years 200 years?) And the reason it is important to establish at least some range that characterizes "long term" yeilds testable predictions, which then gives the hypothesis a sporting chance of passing "something" other than the well pulled out simplified fact of CO2 increases a forcing in global temperatures. Rusty can give you the literature (sources) on the carbon isotopes, and the theory of how it is determined to be mostly manmade. The evidence is certainly in their favor on that. We do produce enough CO2 that would be measurable outside the natural emissions. We do have a relatively shallow atmosphere. But the subtle yet significant increase in every metabolic system of every plant, would seemingly to me offset SOME (possibly significant) overall increase, by virtue of bigger plants, globe wide, and a more robust uptake of their food. Yes, plant metabolism should increase with warmer temperatures, unless we get up near 100 degrees F. But, if temps are rising as stated above, then why haven't plants begun taking up the extra CO2? Measurements in Hawaii, since the year 1957 show a clear, steady increase in CO2. If anything, the increase is accelerating. It is not the end of the world, but is undeniable that temps and CO2 continue to rise. At least that is my impression. How much, how fast and how bad the effects? I don't know. No one does. But I believe it is a mistake for the world to do essentially nothing. Sticking our head in the sand and hoping it is all a natural cycle could be something we will regret. But, I must admit, it is already too late to change things. How could we possibly reduce FF combustion enough to reverse the trend? REVERSE not reduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I was being a bit sarcastic with BathesdaWX. He and I don't agree on the issue of climate change. He is a conspiratorial skeptic and I support the science. No, I'm view things objectively and stray away from the warmists as a result......they don't like objectivity. Thus, when I have doubts that the warmist result is Legit, I'm called a conspiracy theorist (lol) because I'm going against their HYPOTHESIS & trashing their false made "consensus".....pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not going to read the last several days/weeks worth to see if this was posted, but: 2010 temps tied for warmest on record globally. 2010 also the wettest year on record globally. http://www.nytimes.c...limate.html?hpw Hadn't someone on Eastern in the Climate forum said that temps "WILL" go down in 2010? Ooops... Dude, using GISS, then yes! Everyone else, No. Satellite says not so fast. Unfortunately, It wasn't the warmest year ever. Now I'm a conspiracy theorist because I go with Satellites instead of GISS, even though satellite kicks the pants off the extrapolation GISS, with warm Bias, Hansen behind it all, & the only source that says 2005 was warmest ever. No surprise it has the resolution of a cow. Why would NASA refuse FOI requests & not release the pre-grid raw data to the public? Our tax money is paying for this after all, and I have the right to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Please try and state accurate facts so we can have an intelligent discussion in this forum. NOAA is also reporting 2010 as tied for the warmest. We have yet to hear from the UK folks. Also NOAA/NCDC does release a lot of observational data. Have you had a chance to look at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Lol at Rusty. This might not be the place for this but I will try anyway. Why is man made heat never part of the equation? Or is it somewhere in the discussion and it's already known to be a non factor? Just seems with millions and millions of car engines..compressors..electric motors..heated buildings etc. that we have to be generating a fair amount of heat that otherwise wouldn't be there? Even googling didn't give me many satisfying answers. This has been discussed on Eastern Wx (by myself and others). We have a couple of orders of magnitude to go before it becomes a major factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Please try and state accurate facts so we can have an intelligent discussion in this forum. NOAA is also reporting 2010 as tied for the warmest. We have yet to hear from the UK folks. Also NOAA/NCDC does release a lot of observational data. Have you had a chance to look at it? Ditto to you. GISS is the only source that has the "tied for hottest"...and its error potential is higher than satellite data. So, GISS & its resolution is the right answer, & All Satellites, basically everyone else, is wrong? You wouldn't happen to be speaking of NOAA's "dotted" Map, & the filling in warm where these is no data? OH.........and its GISS derived! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The NYT article being cited in this thread says NOAA also has 2010 tied for warmest. Please try and state things more accurately so we can avoid wasted time repeating ourselves. It really makes me feel like this forum is a waste of my effort. NOAA and GISS do use much of the same observations, but I thought their analyses were more independent. The jury is still out on the HadCRU. As mentioned in another thread, UAH is only .01 degree behind a record. That is a good question on why the satellites show 1998 warm with their depiction of the El Nino. Yet they tend to skip the warming polar regions as has been discussed in the forum. It is a good question of why there may be some divergence between satellite and surface obs the past 5 years or so. They have been fairly consistent though over the past couple of decades. As I mentioned you can probably get the raw data from NOAA/NCDC. So, where is your "correct' analysis derived from this? When dealing with long term averages, filling in of a few hundred km (or even 1000km) isn't that critical. It's the large number of stations that collectively are showing the warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The NYT article being cited in this thread says NOAA also has 2010 tied for warmest. Please try and state things more accurately so we can avoid wasted time repeating ourselves. It really makes me feel like this forum is a waste of my time. NOAA and GISS do use much of the same observations, but I thought their analyses were more independent. The jury is stil out on the HadCRU. That is a good question on why the satellites show 1998 warm with their depiction of the El Nino. Yet they tend to skip the warming polar regions as has been discussed in the forum. It is a good question of why there may be som divergence between satellite and surface obs the past 5 years or so. As I mentioned you can probably get the raw data from NOAA/NCDC. So, where is your "correct' analysis derived from this? When dealing with long term averages, filling in of a few hundred km (or even 1000km) isn't that critical. It's the large number of stations that collectively are showing the warming. In another thread I gave him links to the GHCN data. This is the raw data used by GISS, NOAA and Hadley. It is freely available, and none of it has been lost. You can even look at individual station data and trends. GHCN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 In another thread I gave him links to the GHCN data. This is the raw data used by GISS, NOAA and Hadley. It is freely available, and none of it has been lost. You can even look at individual station data and trends. GHCN I've told him multiple times that the information he is seeking is available to the public and yet he keeps saying "I FOI requested XXX" and "Why won't they release the RAW data to the public." I'm not sure he knows what he is looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I've told him multiple times that the information he is seeking is available to the public and yet he keeps saying "I FOI requested XXX" and "Why won't they release the RAW data to the public." I'm not sure he knows what he is looking for. Quote me. I'm not sure you know where its being derived from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.