My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[REASON]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Regarding inaccuracies in the ice core samples, where are these problems documented, and what does anyone have that is better? Specifically, where is there any historic evidence to back up the claims that CO2 has a darn thing to do with how warm the planet is?

Do you deny that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas?

If you agree that it is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't it be common sense to understand that the more of it there is as a percentage of our atmosphere, the greater the greenhouse effect and the more likelyhood there is of retaining radiant heat energy?

We need to stay away from comments like "when the Earth decides to warm up, or cool down." Again, if you don't believe it's CO2, then what is it causing the sharp increase in mean temperature in this, or any other time period?

[goku]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

For an example, spend an evening in south Florida, where with all the humidity there is probably 20000 ppm of water vapor in the air. The sun sets, and the temperature drops very little, just a few degrees. Then go out in the desert at sunset, where water vapor concentrations are 2000 ppm - the temperature drops from 100 degrees to 50 degrees in just a few minutes. CO2 levels are about the same for both places, but they behave vastly different, and are totally correlated to the amount of water vapor in the air.

i agree. that's the kind of evidence evolutionists hate. the kind that can't be dismissed, also known as truth.

i've even heard the weather men say, "the cloud cover will keep it from cooling down too much tonight"

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

i agree. that's the kind of evidence evolutionists hate. the kind that can't be dismissed, also known as truth.

Evolutionists? We're talking climatology here, goku. Get with the program.

There is not a single advocate of the idea that human activities are affecting the climate that denies that water vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. It isn't being dismissed by anyone, even evolutionists.

Are you here to tell us that what the top climate scientists in the world have missed all along is the humidity? Maybe you'd be willing, with all of your advanced down-home knowledge, to explain the way in which water vapor is causing a rapid and steady increase in the mean global temperature instead of just saying CO2 can't be a factor.

Originally Posted by goku

i've even heard the weather men say, "the cloud cover will keep it from cooling down too much tonight"

Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat. This is not at all a shocking statement I'm making here. It is a well known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And, according to the link I provided above, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere responsible for 9 - 26 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Choosing to ignore the importance of CO2 in global warming is foolishness.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by REASON

Do you deny that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas?

If you agree that it is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't it be common sense to understand that the more of it there is as a percentage of our atmosphere, the greater the greenhouse effect and the more likelyhood there is of retaining radiant heat energy?

We need to stay away from comments like "when the Earth decides to warm up, or cool down." Again, if you don't believe it's CO2, then what is it causing the sharp increase in mean temperature in this, or any other time period?

Everyone agrees that CO2 acts as a "Greenhouse Gas". The point I repeatedly try to make is that there is basically no CO2 in out atmosphere, as so its effects are minimal. Yes, it is the second most common "Greenhouse Gas" - but second by an immense amount.

People in favor of AGW argue that CO2 is a "Better Greenhouse gas" than water vapor, and so its effects are more important. The infrared absorption is different for CO2 and water - CO2 absorbs more far-infrared, water absorbs more near infrared. People on both sides of this argument point out why CO2 does or does not theoretically contribute to global warming, but there is much more to the way our climate works that simply looking at infrared absorption.

In the midst of these conflicting arguments, the only impartial evidence we can produce is the actual historic record of climate changes. Everyone agrees, based on the ice core samples, that CO2 follows temperature.
I think I have demonstrated in previous posts that high levels of CO2 do not equal high planetary temperatures. So, what exactly does CO2 do, based on impartial historical evidence? I can't see that it does anything substantial.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by REASON

Evolutionists? We're talking climatology here, goku. Get with the program.

There is not a single advocate of the idea that human activities are affecting the climate that denies that water vapor is the primary factor in the greenhouse effect. It isn't being dismissed by anyone, even evolutionists.

Are you here to tell us that what the top climate scientists in the world have missed all along is the humidity? Maybe you'd be willing, with all of your advanced down-home knowledge, to explain the way in which water vapor is causing a rapid and steady increase in the mean global temperature instead of just saying CO2 can't be a factor.




Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat. This is not at all a shocking statement I'm making here. It is a well known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And, according to the link I provided above, is the second most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere responsible for 9 - 26 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Choosing to ignore the importance of CO2 in global warming is foolishness.

"Here you are describing the greenhouse effect. Yes, the clouds can act like a blanket that retains surface heat. The point is, CO2, like water vapor (clouds) also can act like a blanket that retains heat."

Clouds are not part of the "Greenhouse Effect". Clouds are tiny droplets of condensed water, while water vapor is the invisible gaseous form of water that is naturally present in our lower atmosphere. Clouds are, in fact, a giant unknown regarding global climate - they both reflect solar radiation to space and act as a blanket to slow cooling of the planet. And, there is nothing in the planet's geologic record to show if it was sunnier or cloudier at different times.

[Galapagos]

I found a few interesting blog links for those interested:
ClimateScienceWatch
RealClimate
A Few Things Ill Considered
This list on "A Few Things Ill Considered" is super cool
A Few Things Ill Considered : How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

Contains responses to claims about CO2 levels, clouds present in models, greenhouse gases, etc.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

I found a few interesting blog links for those interested:
ClimateScienceWatch
RealClimate
A Few Things Ill Considered
This list on "A Few Things Ill Considered" is super cool
A Few Things Ill Considered : How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

Contains responses to claims about CO2 levels, clouds present in models, greenhouse gases, etc.

Thanks for the links - but don't you have anything yourself to say?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Clouds are not part of the "Greenhouse Effect". Clouds are tiny droplets of condensed water, while water vapor is the invisible gaseous form of water that is naturally present in our lower atmosphere.

Technically, you are correct. Although clouds are formed from water vapor. My intention was to use the blanket of clouds helping to retain heat concept as an analogy of the greenhouse effect for goku's sake. I've also used the the analogy of the inside of your car getting hot on a sunny afternoon when the windows are rolled up. I should have been more explicit in that regard.

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Clouds are, in fact, a giant unknown regarding global climate - they both reflect solar radiation to space and act as a blanket to slow cooling of the planet. And, there is nothing in the planet's geologic record to show if it was sunnier or cloudier at different times.

This is true, and is one example of why your statements that CO2 and temperature are unrelated based on historical data from ice cores is extremely impercise.

Volcanic activity is known to release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Say, for instance, that there was a period of intense volcanic activity, maybe a supervocanic eruption. The ash and debris spewed into the atmoshere and spread around the globe could block solar radiation causing the surface temperature to cool, while simultaneously increasing the concentration of CO2. In such a condition, it would be easy for someone to point to such a period and suggest that it served as evidence that temperature and CO2 levels are unrelated.

There are so many other combinations such as this at work, including cloud cover. So I ask again, if it is impossible that the highest levels of CO2 concentration in 400,000 years has no effect on the global mean temperature increase because, as you say, the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is still just too small to have a real impact, why is the temperature steadily and rapidly going up? You keep saying CO2 isn't responsible, but offer no better or more reliable explanation for the increase in temperature. Solar activity has already been thoroughly considered by the IPCC, and pretty well debunked in this thread as the primary factor.

If there is no better explanation than CO2, then the naysayers of AGW simply appear to be in denial.

[Zythryn]

CO2 is variable, we can, and are adding more of it to the atmosphere.
Water vapor is not, if we somehow add more, we will get more rain. Typically it will fall out of the atmosphere within days if not hours.
Where CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for decades.
This is part of the reason CO2 is something to worry about.
And yes, by volume, CO2 is much much less abundant in our atmosphere than water vapor. However it is also much more effective as a greenhouse gas.
CO2 is currently estimated to be responsible for 9%-26% of the 'greenhouse affect'.
You may find this paper more detailed
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students...tionBudget.pdf

[Essay]

Being a few days behind, I'll try to catch up real quick.
I did some web surfing last night trying to come up with an argument for Edude; some of which follows...
...but first:

The Flying Binghi... Hi! It's nice to know you're reading closely. Yep, not my best work; sort of an awkward double negative, and with a typo too! I'll get rid of the "t."
Usually I compose offline and then post, but that one was done on the fly; almost as a stream of....
I think the fact that it was posted at around 3:00 am is a better indication of my level of intoxication, but...

Binghi, Nice to see your back....
Any chance I could get you to review post # 864 (and #849, mentioned in 864)?
You had brought up some good points which I tried to "answer." Do you agree with those points of mine,
or do you have more questions?
===

Edude...
OISM! C'mon! As I brought up in my post #934, that's a bad site on which to base decisions. Their conclusions are contrary to the data they present.
Edude, you asked something like 'what does it matter if the data is right?'
What does what matter: Their erroneous conclusions: That others might believe and repeat their wack conclusions?
...or just that their data is right... for us to look at, but ignore their editorializing that is meant to look like well thought-out conclusions (rhetorical question?).

I'm sounding pretty harsh here as I only looked at their first graph...
...but others (Reason & Chris C) seem to validate this view of OISM, I think.
Do you think we're ganging up on that site simply because you like it?
I have 2-3 examples of sites very similar to that one, where they put a lot of effort into looking and sounding very scientific; but when you look closely, they are always some private site with their personal interpretation of part of the data that is out there. I've noticed that they usually have a lot of unrelated stuff that invariably crosses way over the line of pseudo-science, junk science, or even new-wave mysticism. It almost seems as if the GW stuff is added on to a pre-existing, promote-your-own personalized hobby/science website.
...but I'm wandering....
===

Let's leave the stats for a while (though I still think a "correlation coefficient" runs from 0 to 1, and what you have is some sort of "association test," running from -1 to +1).
...hmmmm, never mind....
Statistics 2 - Correlation Coefficient and Coefficient of Determination
...I was thinking of r squared....
===

So leaving statistics for a while, you wrote:
"No need to wonder - we did this experiment. Current CO2 is 375, 40% above the last half-million year highs.
Net effect, nothing." -Edude

Nothing!?!? (...hey, give it a few decades, or a century)

...and, if you don't count an ice-free Arctic Ocean.
Do you think it is only a solar effect that is warming the Arctic so much more rapidly than the rest of the planet?

Originally Posted by nap.edu

The role of the Arctic Ocean for the immediate pre-Pleistocene world climate is fairly well understood. Probably, the Arctic Ocean became ice covered in the middle Cenozoic and together with the Antarctic icecap provided significant areas of net heat loss to propel the atmospheric circulation that has led to modern climates.
...
Although the time of development of the pack ice for the central Arctic Ocean is unknown, to date there is no evidence that precludes a Miocene origin (15 Mya).
...
Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics

I would point out that the last time we had very high CO2 levels was back before the Arctic froze over (...a bit of an exaggeration, but look at the records).


Hey, check out this site!!! It looks like it has lots of good background info.
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Paleoclimate
...but (they cite) leads to geocraft; so be careful....

maybe try:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...rScience01.pdf
"The first-order agreement between the CO2 record and continental glaciation continues to support the conclusion that CO2 has played an important role in long-term climate change. The Veizer et al. data, if correct, could be considered a Phanerozoic extension of a possible dilemma long known for the early and mid-Cenozoic.
To weigh the merits of the CO2 paradigm, it may be necessary to expand the scope of climate modeling. For factors responsible for the presence or absence of continental ice, the CO2 model works very well. In contrast, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of how climate models distribute heat on the planet in response to CO2 changes on tectonic time scales."

...clear as mud, right? Well, looks like the site has loads of great links.

...ooohhh! Here's a good one:
Climate Forcing - Obtaining and Contributing Data

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...on2000_co2.txt
"Since the early Miocene (about 24Myr ago), atmospheric CO2 concentrations appear to have remained below 500 p.p.m. and were more stable than before, although transient intervals of CO2 reduction may have occurred during periods of rapid cooling approximately 15 and 3 Myr ago."

...and to repeat from above:
"Although the time of development of the pack ice for the central Arctic Ocean is unknown, to date there is no evidence that precludes a Miocene origin (15 Mya)."

...see, we're heading for CO2 levels not seen since the continents settled and the mountains and grasses arose.
...and you think after a century or two of that, that something's not gonna give?
===

...and let me add an intuitive perspective (creative writing?) on the big picture:
All this stuff about humidity in Florida, clouds, percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2, etc. are (too limited in spatial and temporal scope) so unrelated to the (as you realize) very complex atmosphere....
...which channels heat up to the poles where most of the excess escapes.

You mentioned the v. long wavelength IR which CO2 retards as the IR is trying to escape Earth.
That v. long IR is very cold temperature trying to escape from the poles, not the heat we experience here in Florida or Arizona. It is hotter here because the heat escaping from the poles is being restricted. Heat flow is backing up from the tops of the atmosphere and the planet.

(down here, CO2 also acts as a flux, increasing heat flow and transfer, as well as back-scatter (local heating); and serves to reduce the unique variability in microclimates which would help moderate our weather)
===

...bbl,
...so much for a bito' Lunchtime Little Theatre....

~