I agree with this in essence. I do believe we're entering (entered) a time where rising CO2 levels will lead and raise temperatures. (All other things held constant, putting on a thicker blanket will make you warmer.) Of course this assumes that the CO2 molecule absorbs radiant energy with wavelengths longer than 4000 nanometers, that that physical property will not change, and that the energized molecule will (eventually) release that energy in one of three general directions: up, down, or sideways. Unfortunately, two of those three possibilities simply retain the additional energy (aka heat) in the atmosphere for longer.
16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
I agree with this in essence. I do believe we're entering (entered) a time where rising CO2 levels will lead and raise temperatures. (All other things held constant, putting on a thicker blanket will make you warmer.) Of course this assumes that the CO2 molecule absorbs radiant energy with wavelengths longer than 4000 nanometers, that that physical property will not change, and that the energized molecule will (eventually) release that energy in one of three general directions: up, down, or sideways. Unfortunately, two of those three possibilities simply retain the additional energy (aka heat) in the atmosphere for longer.
No, not at all. It just means tremendous amounts of CO2, in addition to that added by mans use of fossil fuel, both enter and leave the atmosphere over the same time period one is considering the amount of anthropomorphic CO2 added. In other words, it appears that these natural processes are more important in establishing the atmosphere's CO2 concentration than is man's contribution.
Maybe it will turn out that we've been barking up the wrong tree, or maybe not. It is too soon to know. We will have a better grasp in a few hundred more years of careful observation and measurement. It is a very difficult problem. One thing is certain, those who predicted in the 1980s disastrous climate change in as little as a quarter century were wrong.
Everything we have observed since the late 19th century so far falls well within the estimated natural historical range for climate and CO2 concentration and their rates of change . For example, after correcting for CO2 diffusion in the ice caps, Salby found from examination of ice core data that past CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were at least fifteen times higher than they are today. [Apparently the early studies of CO2 concentration in ice core samples failed to correct for diffusion which results in CO2 moving spontaneously from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration, ultimately resulting in uniform concentration.
I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the unbelievably stupid bullshit you wrote. The first statement in bold is just plain fucking wrong. CO2 has gone up 40% due to man's emissions. We know how much we have put in the air because we know how much fuel we have burned. It started going up as soon as man started burning fossil fuels. The isotope ratio proves this 40% more is due to man. What the fuck is wrong with you? Dropped on your head when you were small?
Murry Salby: Galileo? Bozo? Or P.T.Barnum?
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum
âThey laughed at Galileo ⦠but they also laughed at Bozo the Clownâ might be appled to Murry Salby, who until May was a Professor of Environmental Science at Australia's Macquarie University (MU). P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.
Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum
âThey laughed at Galileo ⦠but they also laughed at Bozo the Clownâ might be appled to Murry Salby, who until May was a Professor of Environmental Science at Australia's Macquarie University (MU). P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.
Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Without viewing Salby's calculations on the temperature/net global CO2 relationship, it's not possible to provide the 'killer blow' to his assertions; however, I don't believe that's necessary, considering the many flaws in Salby's work and fundamental reasoning.
The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions of CO2 from human sources, so by elementary deduction, the excess must be going into the oceans, forests and soils, the other components of the fast carbon cycle.
A tell-tale signature of human fossil fuel emissions is the large fraction of CO2 being driven into the oceans. According to Henry's Law, we would expect the oceans to absorb more CO2 as the air above it becomes increasingly saturated with CO2. In other words the CO2 must be coming from a source external to the fast carbon cycle. This is supported by measurements showing that CO2 is accumulating in the ocean, and is reflected in the declining oceanic pH, showing the ocean is actually gaining CO2 over the long-term, not losing it, as Salby seems to believe.
We also know that the world's land vegetation has increased in mass - through re-growth in forests in the Northern Hemisphere, and CO2 fertilization of tropical forests. So that is gaining carbon too, and the areas affected are so large, we would expect them to have an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels at a global scale.
There are a host of other problems with Salby's 'model', such as the ice core record, and where the warming came from in the first place, but there's no need to go into these details when the fundamental premise of Salby's argument is so clearly wrong.
Without viewing Salby's calculations on the temperature/net global CO2 relationship, it's not possible to provide the 'killer blow' to his assertions; however, I don't believe that's necessary, considering the many flaws in Salby's work and fundamental reasoning.
The gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the total emissions of CO2 from human sources, so by elementary deduction, the excess must be going into the oceans, forests and soils, the other components of the fast carbon cycle.
A tell-tale signature of human fossil fuel emissions is the large fraction of CO2 being driven into the oceans. According to Henry's Law, we would expect the oceans to absorb more CO2 as the air above it becomes increasingly saturated with CO2. In other words the CO2 must be coming from a source external to the fast carbon cycle. This is supported by measurements showing that CO2 is accumulating in the ocean, and is reflected in the declining oceanic pH, showing the ocean is actually gaining CO2 over the long-term, not losing it, as Salby seems to believe.
We also know that the world's land vegetation has increased in mass - through re-growth in forests in the Northern Hemisphere, and CO2 fertilization of tropical forests. So that is gaining carbon too, and the areas affected are so large, we would expect them to have an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels at a global scale.
There are a host of other problems with Salby's 'model', such as the ice core record, and where the warming came from in the first place, but there's no need to go into these details when the fundamental premise of Salby's argument is so clearly wrong.
WTF do you know, rectum? You didn't even know about thermohaline circulation and how it could potentially be disrupted by melting ice. So quit pretending you have a clue.
CO2 is only 1/2500th of the atmosphere. It leads and lags temperatures and has been uncoupled from temperatures for centuries at a time. Also, dumbass, the earth is an incredibly complex DYNAMIC system, not static. Which means there are many and varied CHANGING and INTERACTING physical, chemical and biological processes governing the planet. And it's so complex that NOBODY understands how it all works, which is why the models have failed and new discoveries are constantly being made, even in things as basic as the role of the sun. And which is also why "climate scientists" who pretend they know/understand more than they actually do are frauds. Just like you.
http://mrc.org/articles/obama-and-s...g-extreme-weather-events-shift-public-opinion
Obama and Showtime Admit to Exploiting Extreme Weather Events to âShiftâ Public Opinion
Obama and Showtime Admit to Exploiting Extreme Weather Events to âShiftâ Public Opinion
Oooh! I know the answer to this question! Pick me!