Correlation between temperature and CO2

[jc456]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

What fucking bullshit.



Dr. Richard Alley, a real scientist.

per your definition, not mine. sorry sock

 

[westwall]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

What fucking bullshit.



Dr. Richard Alley, a real scientist.

And ALL of it is factually correct unlike your anti science fiction.

 

[SSDD]

LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.

You know rocks...I just had a revelation, and came to realize that you are even more gullible than I though you were. I took a little trip in the way back machine all the way back to 2008 when you first showed up here...you were pushing the same line of bullshit then that you are are now...tell me rocks, how many failed predictions does "every scientific society" have to support and thus entice you on the bandwagon before you wake up to the fact that you have been duped?

Or have you been bent over the kitchen table by "every scientific society in the world' for so long now that you have come to like it..and can't imagine not being screwed by them every day of your life?

 

[IanC]

I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity

That was enough...a substance that reduces the emissivity of the atmosphere might cause warming...a substance that increase the emissivity does not, will not, and can not cause warming...THE END...FINI...

I'm open to new or better ideas.

Explain your position. If you point out something I missed I would appreciate it.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't help much.

 

[SSDD]

I just said that CO2 adds an emissivity

That was enough...a substance that reduces the emissivity of the atmosphere might cause warming...a substance that increase the emissivity does not, will not, and can not cause warming...THE END...FINI...

I'm open to new or better ideas.

Explain your position. If you point out something I missed I would appreciate it.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't help much.

Grab yourself a basic physics book ian...look up emissivity...see if you can find an observed, measured example of a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing that thing to warm...just one...with something other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models for support.

 

[jc456]

My point is that in the real world we see no measurable effect from CO2. None at all

The surface radiates about 400w. CO2 captures all the 15 micron surface radiation but the atmosphere regenerates a portion further up. About 35w is missing and was added to the total energy of the atmosphere.

How can you convinced yourself that this is insignificant?

This is especially important at near surface levels. All the surface 15 micron IR goes into the first few 10s of metres of atmosphere. A warmer atmosphere is then less capable of receiving energy by conduction.

You have seen more than enough evidence to understand that CO2, even at a small concentration, has a significant effect.

No, I haven't because the historical and paleo records show beyond question that the global temp swings hot and cold no matter what the CO2 concentration has been. The Vostock cores show a period of cooling when the CO2 levels were above now, and likewise show warming when they were lower. There IS no correlation between CO2 and global temp. There just isn't. There is only theory and models.

The only time we see a temperature impact from CO2 is in very highly controlled lab experiments. And even there the scientist halved the potential rate of temp increase after further experimentation. And to date there has been no lab experimentation on the GHG effect of CO2 since then. We have instrumentation that is far more sophisticated than he did, my hope is that the subject will be revisited.

What fucking bullshit.



Dr. Richard Alley, a real scientist.

here is a real climate scientist

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’

Dueling Datasets: Satellite temperatures show no warming for over 18 years, while heavily adjusted ground based data shows alleged 'hottest year'

Satellites: No global warming at all for 18 years 8 months

 

[IanC]

Grab yourself a basic physics book ian...look up emissivity...see if you can find an observed, measured example of a substance that increases the emissivity of a thing causing that thing to warm...just one...with something other than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models for support.

????

Shine radiation on any material. If it capable of absorbing that radiation it will warm up. If it can't then there will be no change because the radiation was either reflected or transmitted.

The surface shines 15 micron radiation at the atmosphere. It absorbs it and warms up. The surface also shines other wavelengths, some of which are simply transmitted through, which have no effect on the atmosphere.

In either case the surface itself is losing energy by shedding radiation.

Explain what you meant by your statement. It doesn't appear to make sense.

 

[mamooth]

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

By the same "logic" that Westwall uses to justify that insane claim, it's impossible for sunlight to heat a rock, being that sunlight can't penetrate into a rock more than a few microns.

Westwall has never explained that rather obvious flaw in his crazyland physics. When pressed, he'll mumble something about a magical difference between liquids and solids, but won't explain it any further.

He also doesn't explain why his crazyland physics is allowed to violate conservation of energy, being that in his model, the longwave IR strikes the oceans and then vanishes into a mystery dimension.

 

[westwall]

And, we KNOW that the CO2 can't warm the oceans which are the heat reservoirs of the planet. Thus I AM asking the right questions.

By the same "logic" that Westwall uses to justify that insane claim, it's impossible for sunlight to heat a rock, being that sunlight can't penetrate into a rock more than a few microns.

Westwall has never explained that rather obvious flaw in his crazyland physics. When pressed, he'll mumble something about a magical difference between liquids and solids, but won't explain it any further.

He also doesn't explain why his crazyland physics is allowed to violate conservation of energy, being that in his model, the longwave IR strikes the oceans and then vanishes into a mystery dimension.

Going full retard on us again ya little one? Please point out where I said that. As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL. Unlike your ridiculous claims.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

CO2 warming is exaggerated not non-existent.

Does this mean that you are finally gibing up the magic and are coming around to the fact that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less?

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?



Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[IanC]

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I disagree.

The numbers aren't exact. We didn't learn it in elementary school. CO2 isn't toxic, although it does have side effects in concentrations much, much higher than 400 ppm. There is no LD50, except as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen.

On the other hand, concentrations of less than about 180 ppm CO2 WOULD kill off most plant life, which in turn would kill off the animals who eat them.

Are you thankful for the increased crop yields and greening of the Earth due to CO2?

 

[mamooth]

Going full retard on us again ya little one? Please point out where I said that. As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL. Unlike your ridiculous claims.

Excellent. You're asking me to humiliate you again, so I will.

Your bizarre claim is that longwave IR can't heat the ocean, because it can't penetrate the ocean skin.

By the same logic, sunlight can't heat a rock, because it can't penetrate the 'skin' of the rock.

Since sunlight certainly can heat a rock, your crazyland physics is obviously totally wrong.

If you don't think your theory is wrong, explain to us why sunlight can heat a rock, but longwave IR can't heat the ocean.

Then, tell us where the longwave IR energy that strikes the ocean goes, if it's not going into the ocean.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Only every single Scientific Society of Physicists in the world states that you are dead wrong. And go ahead and claim it is an international conspiracy of greedy scientists in every nation in the world. Shows you up for the dumb ass you truly are.

You know rocks...I just had a revelation, and came to realize that you are even more gullible than I though you were. I took a little trip in the way back machine all the way back to 2008 when you first showed up here...you were pushing the same line of bullshit then that you are are now...tell me rocks, how many failed predictions does "every scientific society" have to support and thus entice you on the bandwagon before you wake up to the fact that you have been duped?

Or have you been bent over the kitchen table by "every scientific society in the world' for so long now that you have come to like it..and can't imagine not being screwed by them every day of your life?

Egad, the guru of smart photons is saying that the predictions of increasing warming has failed since 2008? LOL, what a really dumb fuck. Six of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since then.

10 Hottest Years on Record

 

[Old Rocks]

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I disagree.

The numbers aren't exact. We didn't learn it in elementary school. CO2 isn't toxic, although it does have side effects in concentrations much, much higher than 400 ppm. There is no LD50, except as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen.

On the other hand, concentrations of less than about 180 ppm CO2 WOULD kill off most plant life, which in turn would kill off the animals who eat them.

Are you thankful for the increased crop yields and greening of the Earth due to CO2?

Really?

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here in Oregon during the ice ages, there were vast lakes where the high desert is today. There were spruce forests, and a far greater diversity of large mammals than there is in any place in North America today. I don't know what the low level is for shutting down plant life, but it has to be well below 180 ppm.

 

[westwall]

Going full retard on us again ya little one? Please point out where I said that. As far as the statement I made, it is FACTUAL. Unlike your ridiculous claims.

Excellent. You're asking me to humiliate you again, so I will.

Your bizarre claim is that longwave IR can't heat the ocean, because it can't penetrate the ocean skin.

By the same logic, sunlight can't heat a rock, because it can't penetrate the 'skin' of the rock.

Since sunlight certainly can heat a rock, your crazyland physics is obviously totally wrong.

If you don't think your theory is wrong, explain to us why sunlight can heat a rock, but longwave IR can't heat the ocean.

Then, tell us where the longwave IR energy that strikes the ocean goes, if it's not going into the ocean.

Wrong you imbecile. Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily. That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water. The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body?
April 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I frequently see the assertion made that infrared (IR) radiation cannot warm a water body because IR only affects the skin (microns of water depth), whereas solar radiation is absorbed over water depths of meters to tens of meters.

Before discussing the issue, though, we first must agree that temperature and temperature change of a body is related to rates of energy gain and energy loss by that body. If we cannot agree on the basic concept that temperature changes when energy gain does not equal energy loss, then there is no basis for further discussion.

If the surface of a water body is emitting IR, then IR must be part of its energy budget, and therefore of its temperature. Evaporation only occurs at the skin, and we know that evaporation is the major component of heat loss by water bodies. How is it that evaporation can perform this function, and IR cannot?

The temperature of land clearly is affected by IR, and that only occurs at the surface of the soil. So, how can IR affect land temperature and not ocean temperature?

If you claim that any additional IR (say, due to increasing carbon dioxide) is immediately lost by the water body through evaporation, how exactly does that occur? The surface doesn’t know why it has the temperature it does, it will evaporate water based (partly) on surface temperature, and it does not distinguish where the heat comes from (solar radiation from above, mixing from below, IR from above, sensible heat flux across the air/water interface). To claim that any energy gain from IR is immediately lost by evaporation is just an assertion.

Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body? « Roy Spencer, PhD

A pretty good answer.

 

[IanC]

When did "dead" come to mean "sensitivity"?

The amount of CO2 we can live with is vert exact. Go higher than that amount and you die. That is not up for debate.

We all learned that fact in 6th grade General Science class along with the process called "photosynthesis".

Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

I disagree.

The numbers aren't exact. We didn't learn it in elementary school. CO2 isn't toxic, although it does have side effects in concentrations much, much higher than 400 ppm. There is no LD50, except as an asphyxiant by displacing oxygen.

On the other hand, concentrations of less than about 180 ppm CO2 WOULD kill off most plant life, which in turn would kill off the animals who eat them.

Are you thankful for the increased crop yields and greening of the Earth due to CO2?

Really?

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here in Oregon during the ice ages, there were vast lakes where the high desert is today. There were spruce forests, and a far greater diversity of large mammals than there is in any place in North America today. I don't know what the low level is for shutting down plant life, but it has to be well below 180 ppm.

I wouldn't stake my reputation on the 180 figure.

And plant life would probably adapt to diminishing CO2 level. C4 plants developed in response to low CO2, and C3 became more efficient.

Sorry, I was being hyperbolic, like so many others here, including you.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong you imbecile. Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily. That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water. The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.

Optics theory says reflection only occurs at a boundary of differing indexes of refraction.

You're saying that's all wrong, and that the IR penetrates the water, and then does a U-turn further down.

That is, optics is another branch of physics that you're rewriting.

Oh, the reflectance of seawater has been measured. It's about 3% in the far IR. That's another way that reality smacks down your crazyland physics.

 

[mamooth]

Also

Use of ATSR-measured ocean skin temperatures in ocean and atmosphere models
---
Studies of the bulk-skin temperature difference (the "skin effect") show that it has a typical daytime value of 0.3 K (Schlussel, 1990) for high latitudes.
---

That is, people have measured ocean skin temperature. It's not boiling. That means the longwave IR being absorbed is not being lost to evaporation, and it is heating the ocean.

 

[westwall]

Wrong you imbecile. Long wave IR can warm solids quite easily. That is a well documented FACT (facts are something you seem to have trouble with eh bub), and it is an equally well known FACT that long wave IR CAN'T penetrate more than a few microns deep into water. The IR that hits the water is reflected back up into the air.

Optics theory says reflection only occurs at a boundary of differing indexes of refraction.

You're saying that's all wrong, and that the IR penetrates the water, and then does a U-turn further down.

That is, optics is another branch of physics that you're rewriting.

Oh, the reflectance of seawater has been measured. It's about 3% in the far IR. That's another way that reality smacks down your crazyland physics.

Air and water don't have different indexes of refraction? Do tell....