General Climate Discussion

[Overlag]

Might help if you reference what "chart" you are attacking.  Maybe I'm just going to assume you're a special education child.... your post above would support that claim.

IF you are referencing the chart at the top of this page...(which I must assume, since it is the most recent to your assault, and there is not another chart within 4 pages of this post)  you might want to take a minute and figure out what it's talking about.  It's showing CO2 rise, not temperature.  IF and only IF that is the chart you are referencing, then my claim that you are a special education child is further strengthened.  As well, the ice age did not end in 1750, no matter how revisionist you may be. 


 

oh right, im special needs because i dont believe the global warming crap like yourself?.... very clever.


it was the last charts posted in this topic.... starting 1750. HOW is 250years of Co2 history going to prove anything? How about posting 5million years worth.

anyway i said LITTLE Ice age, which carried on way into the 1800s, before stopping, hence the rise in those graphs.

[Overlag]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

this graph would totally void the Global warming folks ideas.

first, theres a very "constant" wave of temp increase and co2 increase, but it ALSO shows that C02 increases follow temp increases (delayed by 200ish years). IE the Temp increase causes the c02 increase, not the other way round.

[Angus]

That's odd.
After all, we're looking at both increased co2 AND temps in the last times....
But GW is not just about co2....

[Angus]

Oh, and BTW, don't confuse the little ice-age with the cool years in the northern hemisphere which was caused by a volcanic eruption in the years 1783-1786.
Those years caused problems with both lifestock and crops as far south as Egypt, and some say this period was the last drop to fill the meter in order to spark the French revolution in 1789....hunger means trouble....

[MORAY37]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

this graph would totally void the Global warming folks ideas.

first, theres a very "constant" wave of temp increase and co2 increase, but it ALSO shows that C02 increases follow temp increases (delayed by 200ish years). IE the Temp increase causes the c02 increase, not the other way round.

This graph disproves the science?

I can't really imagine what you see in there to disprove anything.  In fact, the correlation of CO2 to temperature and the relation of dust (volcanic events) to the same is quite striking.  It is amazing the fact that this keeps coming back.  The linear association of CO2 to temperature on this planet is easily observable and the process is understood.  Background temperature isn't only affected by CO2 though.... local conditions will do it as well.

FYI it's already been discussed how warming lags CO2.  It takes approximately 5X the amount of energy to turn ice(H2O) to liquid(H2O), meaning all the extra energy trapped is spent melting the ice, instead of raising the temperature in the background. That, as well as the fact that liquid water requires an extensive amount of energy to warm past any given point, and holds that energy extremely well. Thus, there is a built in "lag" to any change from a cold climate to a warm one, simply because of all that extra energy needed to melt.  Meaning... if there's a giant block of ice, the energy won't go to warming the air.....it will go to melting that big block of ice.

Take an ice cube in hot water and measure the temperature over top of it. You might be surprised to find that, even though it's melting all over.... the air above it is only about 55 degrees.  Make the water only 40 or so degrees in the experiment and the air over top of the cube is only just above freezing.  Water holds onto energy extremely well.  This stuff is the kind of thing you learn in 8th grade science.... maybe you just need to apply your old knowledge?

As well, the lag also is integrated into the planktonic "sink" by which the oceans lock away all that carbon...they suck up CO2 and then use it for respiration, then die, sinking to the bottom and locking away excess CO2.  Initially, plankton (chlorophyton) will increase population in response to the amount of new CO2 and will hold it almost in check, but as they are reacting to the situation and not "on standby" there is no way they can keep up with a large continual dump of CO2 into the system.  Sooner or later the water around the most prolific warm and they start dying....accelerating the curve.

[WWhiskey]

Testing within that environment would skew the results. Direct CO2 observation isn't done within those confines, as the proximity of the main producers of carbon are directly within the test area, therefore ruining it's statistical weight.

 this admission of your"s also skews your ice core samples then as they are from the exact same spot for every year of testing yet there is no control of wind current's or sea current's just a random sample, yet you say my samples taken from an exact spot 100 years  apart cant be admitted because they are in an industrial area where the pollution would be constant in every aspect except the amount put out from the result of better emission standards?
or because they don't represent your belief in the outcome?

in order to have a true  comparison you wold have to find actual samples of the air from maybe a thousand different locations around the earth, not ice core samples, then you could go to those places and take current samples,,
 then you could get real air quality readings say from city graveyards were air tight sealed coffins could be found.
 this has been done and the results also don't follow your theory's


as for "Angus" so are you saying that volcano's can't erupt anymore? while there may not have been one in a while no one has yet to predict that they can't happen,, and you didn't answer my question, how many it would take and at what magnitude would they have to be to overreach your man made co 2 emissions? just so we will have an idea !!

[Holden McGroin]

However, when it comes down to governments and scientists from many different fields, there is no particular goal or benefit for studying GW, - well yet there is one. Concern.

When governments do something, it is more likely politics rather than concern that is the driving force.

NASA is based in Houston not because it was judged as the best location for the facility by an impartial panel, but because the Majority leader of the Senate, Lyndon Baines Johnson, wanted it in his state.

 

[MORAY37]

 

in order to have a true  comparison you wold have to find actual samples of the air from maybe a thousand different locations around the earth, not ice core samples, then you could go to those places and take current samples,,
 then you could get real air quality readings say from city graveyards were air tight sealed coffins could be found.
 this has been done and the results also don't follow your theory's


 

Sir, Ice core samples are compared to direct samples to figure out the difference in air content.  I'm not sure you understand this.  The ice core samples have bubbles in them that trap the air from when they formed....be it last week or 500,000 years ago. 

No samples could be taken from a sealed coffin (kind of morbid there, in any case most coffins are not made to be hermetically sealed).... maybe you don't realize that humans are... ahem... carbon based.  It would be kind of pointless to take such a sample.

[Overlag]

the only difference between now, and the last HOT/High CO2 period is that us humans are here destorying the very forests that would be thriving right now due to higher CO2 and more rain.


PPM of CO2 isnt that much different from the other peaks

[WWhiskey]

Sir, Ice core samples are compared to direct samples to figure out the difference in air content.  I'm not sure you understand this.  The ice core samples have bubbles in them that trap the air from when they formed....be it last week or 500,000 years ago. 

No samples could be taken from a sealed coffin (kind of morbid there, in any case most coffins are not made to be hermetically sealed).... maybe you don't realize that humans are... ahem... carbon based.  It would be kind of pointless to take such a sample

but all thru science there has been a control, in order to protect that the outcome will not be skewed. until now!
 with no way of knowing what that ice was exposed to while it was being made, weather patterns or which way the wind was blowing, if it drifted over a co-2 Field or if it was over a field that went dormant for a time ! ice core samples can only give you an example of what they have been exposed to, not a true reading of world wide climate or co-2 levels!

yet samples have been taken from sealed coffins, the make up of the human body is one of the few things we understand in great detail! for instance DNA, carbon makeup, amount of elements, now givin the info on a body ,I.E. size weight, health at time of death thru computers this data can be fed in to remove any outside influence so as to run any test you wanted or if dry tissue was found from the lungs there would be a foot print or trace element of the air he breathed, kind of like a photograph, not the actual air, mind you, unless the coffin were sealed, and this only happened in those places were wealthy people died and could afford the type of sarcophagus that would remain air tight, those people would also have had doctors and probably records of there health to help with the computer models.
 the first time this happened the global warming people were all over this discovery, hoping to prove the air quality was worse now than then by showing a true air sample, they worked up there computer's and got all ready to test,
after running test after test, they did not get the results they wanted, so they blamed the science i remember the word "inconclusive" over and over again, if it does not fit there theory, then it is either wrong or "inconclusive"

[indy007]

Ice cores are inherently invalid because the glaciers they are taken from are an open system. An open system gains and loses gasses over time. There's no way in hell to know if they're accurate. It doesn't help matters that on several tests "scientists" threw out samples with high readings because, obviously, they were "contaminated".

[bozon]

Will you stop it with the CO2 already? Whether or not there is a global warming it has nothing to do with the CO2. Its effect on the "green house" is so tiny, I bet the world is heated by arguing about CO2 more than the by CO2 itself.

Graph correlations is not science. If it was I'd conclude that pollution is great for your health - check the correlation between pollution and life expectancy, baby mortality or any other health indicator and you'll find that the more a country pollute, the healthier are its citizens. What does that tell you?

A big heavy computer software where you crank that handle and get a temperature prediction without understanding how and why is not science either by the way.

Who ever invented this "CO2 causing global warming" theory should be taken out and shot. There is so much time, money and effort spent on rooting out this nonsense, that it leaves little to fight the real problems of pollution and deciding if man is responsible for global warming or if he can do something about it. That Al Gore movie might just go down in history is the worst thing ever to happen to modern science. This is what the "anti-CO2" scientist are trying helplessly to convey - but this thing has became a religion now.

[Angus]

Nonsense?
While I have expressed my opinion that the CO2 is overshadowing equally or even  more important things, it is still a greenhouse gas. There are greenhouse gases, the dynamic is proven and works, and without them we'd be frozen over. With very much of them, the climate will be very violent. And with enough of them, you'll have the planet over the boiling point.
Dead simple.
The Glaciers then, are not much of an open system. And don't think of clinging on them as a single source of data either.
Oh, and Whisky.....it is much more definate that bad air or bad gases will kill you than volcanoes today contributing CO2 above humans as you claimed. Let's say I read your posts from then with quite some...scepticism 

[bozon]

Nonsense?
While I have expressed my opinion that the CO2 is overshadowing equally or even  more important things, it is still a greenhouse gas. There are greenhouse gases, the dynamic is proven and works, and without them we'd be frozen over. With very much of them, the climate will be very violent. And with enough of them, you'll have the planet over the boiling point.
Dead simple.

CO2 is not a very good "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor and methane are far more effective (by about 4 orders of magnitude). The intuition of "more greenhouse gas = better green house" is false. It is not necessarily true.

The "greenhouse effect" is usually described as: sunlight can penetrate but cooling infrared radiation emitted by the earth is blocked. This IS complete nonsense. If it was true the earth would get ever hotter and boil. Since the earth has only minor fluctuations in temperature (near steady state) it REQUIRES that the same amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth to be radiated away from the earth.

Most global weather models treat the atmosphere as a slab and calculate the AVERAGED radiation transfer function (as a function of wavelength). Put aside the wrong atomic physics and atom-photon interaction they use, this is a horrible horrible treatment of radiation transfer. Unlike your real glass greenhouse, the atmosphere is built in layers and each type of absorber tends to sit at a different layer. Keeping a steady state as described above requires that temperature gradients exist as the atmosphere below a certain layer must emit in such wavelength and flux that the net energy through the layer is ZERO. Change something in the middle (like more CO2) and you affect ALL layers below and above it and change the temperature distribution in the atmosphere. This in turn changes the molecular and atomic absorption cross sections (highly dependent on temperature and pressure) and your common averaging approximation is shot to hell. 

What this means is that adding CO2 may heat some part of the atmosphere and cool another. Recent calculations that solved the full radiation transfer problem showed that you can increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by factor of 50 and the effect at low altitude will be less than 0.1 of a degree (centigrade).

The common atmosphere model used by almost all global weather scientists is simply wrong. Everyone was happy with it because it predicted the current earth temperature pretty well. However, when applied to other solar system planets it fails horribly and miserably. It works only on the current earth atmosphere because it was built this way - its power of prediction is nil. This is bad science at its "best" and this is going to backfire against the entire scientific community.

[WWhiskey]

yea what he said