Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

[Zipperfish]

Very interesting, could you link us to the 4% global emissions please. Most increased emissions are very probably natural post LIAs.

Well, I just did the simple analysis showing that it is certainly reasonable that anthrpogenic emissions can measurably impact global CO2 concentrations. So your assertion that rises in CO2 are "very probably natural post LIAs" needs some evidentiary support in light of that. That is to say, if manmade CO2 emissions are not changing the concentration of the atmosphere, why aren't they? Where are those CO2 molecules going, if not to the atmosphere?

There is evidence that the carbon recently added to the atmosphere is biogenic (i.e. from either plants or oil but not released fromt he ocean) due to relative concentration of C13 and C14 carbon isotopes. That's not conclusive, but would seem to point to the carbon rise being due to fossil fuel combustion as opposed to being due to post-LIA temperature rise (in which case you probably wouldn't see that biogenic signature).

Oh--a math error in the last post. 8O It should be a rise of 1 ppm in atmospheric CO2 is equal to just over 2 Gt of carbon (not CO2, carbon dioxide). 2 Gt carbon is around 7.5 Gt CO2.

The truth is there was never any warming in the first place.. just a normal cycle of regional climate variants. There was no 'slowdown'.. there is only a never was.. of an exposed fraud... perpetrated for money and for a rampant and radical environmental philosophy and quasi 'religion' that is deeply antipathetic to the human cause.. masquerading as a pseudo science. None of this was ever based on real science..

It's OK to say that, but you're not really backing anything up. From a scientific perspetcive, adding "The truth is..." on to the start of a sentence does not increase its evidentiary worth. :lol:

Normal can mean a lot of things. Avoiding that word, there is a lot of evidence that the current rate of rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is very unusual, even o a geological time scale.

There is a lot of misinformation perpetrated by vested interests, as you say; I would argue its not exclusively confined to the proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory. As for the anti-human business, I'm not really convinced that's the case either. Most Greenpeacers I talk to seem more stunned than evil. :lol:

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

If CO2 was an issue. What happened? The CO2 got wet and hasn't been insulating over the past 16 years?

You need to explain that one.

CO2 is a persistent greenhouse gas that works by absorbing and re-radiating outgoing longwave EM radiation that would otherwise be emitted into space. It works by slowing down the rate of emission of energy while the incoming solar radiation is largely unaffected. So the incoming rate is the same but the outgoing rate is slowed, which means the overall atmosphere must warm up to return itself into a radiative balance.

It's pretty clear that CO2 in the atmosphere plays an important role in moderating the Earth's average temperature.

The truth is there was never any warming in the first place.. just a normal cycle of regional climate variants. There was no 'slowdown'.. there is only a never was.. of an exposed fraud... perpetrated for money and for a rampant and radical environmental philosophy and quasi 'religion' that is deeply antipathetic to the human cause.. masquerading as a pseudo science. None of this was ever based on real science..

Yah, I seriously question that, the melting of ice worldwide is one indicator, as well as average temperature recordings which have been going up for decades, thermal expansion of the oceans, timing of the seasons, worldwide changes in extreme weather events and more.

It's clear that something substantial is going on and considering that back in 1896 a Swedish scientist calculated what would happen if you doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and modern observations are consistent with his work, then it's probable that climate change has a major human component.

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[6] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today.

 

[petros]

Well, I just did the simple analysis showing that it is certainly reasonable that anthrpogenic emissions can measurably impact global CO2 concentrations. So your assertion that rises in CO2 are "very probably natural post LIAs" needs some evidentiary support in light of that. That is to say, if manmade CO2 emissions are not changing the concentration of the atmosphere, why aren't they? Where are those CO2 molecules going, if not to the atmosphere?

Pleistocene ice cores have shown that CO2 and O2 has varied alongside temperature swings.

This is straight up fact but there is no way of knowing if atmosphere composition is the causation for the paleo warming and cooling trends or a reaction to another force.

The CO2 modeling is based on paleo-atmospheric conditions and the assumption there is a correlation between paleo-climate swings and paleo-atmospheric conditions.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Pleistocene ice cores have shown that CO2 and O2 has varied alongside temperature swings.

This is straight up fact but there is no way of knowing if atmosphere composition is the causation for the paleo warming and cooling trends or a reaction to another force.

The CO2 modeling is based on paleo-atmospheric conditions and the assumption there is a correlation between paleo-climate swings and paleo-atmospheric conditions.

The role greenhouse gases have played in recent(during the glacial and interglaicial periods of the last several million years) is fairly well understood.

And initial change in insolation(how much sunlight reaches the Earth's surface) as a result of the Milankovitch Cycles results in a buildup of continental ice in the Northern Heemisphere which reflects more sunlight back into space resulting in further cooling. As it cools the atmosphere it also means there's less water vapour in the air and there is more uptake of carbon dioxide as reservoirs like tundra and the oceans cool, creating further feedbacks. The initial cooling may be from small changes in insolation, but the major changes that occur during ice ages are largely the result of reductions of the amount of water vapour and CO2 in the atmosphere. As CO2 is a persistent greenhouse gas, it's concentration in the atmosphere is a very important factor in climate change.

 

[petros]

The role greenhouse gases have played in recent(during the glacial and interglaicial periods of the last several million years) is fairly well understood.

Are they? They give a good regional assesment of the gasses in the upper latitude/high altitude regions but aren't so good for the lower latitudes or elevations.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Are they? They give a good regional assesment of the gasses in the upper latitude/high altitude regions but aren't so good for the lower latitudes or elevations.

Carbon dioxide is a persistent component in the atmosphere and becomes evenly mixed, meaning there is very little regional variations. Water vapour on the other hand is dependent on temperature, meaning there will be large regional variations due to local weather conditions. This is why CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas, it persists for decades and even centuries.

 

[petros]

That depends on whether you are asking about a relative concentration such as ppmv (parts per million by volume), which is the norm, or are asking about an absolute concentration (grams per cubic meter).

In both cases, the concentration of CO2 decreases as the elevation increases, but not nearly so fast for the relative concentration. The relative concentration drops because CO2 has a molecular weight of 44 while air has a molecular weight of only 29. Thus, CO2 is heavier than air, and tends to concentrate a little at the lower altitudes.

The absolute concentration drops primarily because the pressure drops as the elevation increases. In this case the concentration drops exponentially to the elevation, and directly proportionally to the pressure, more or less. This assumes that the relative CO2 concentration is constant. That is not quite true. So, the CO2 concentration actually drops a little faster.

 

[coldstream]

.. by zipperfish..

Yah, I seriously question that, the melting of ice worldwide is one
indicator, as well as average temperature recordings which have been going up
for decades, thermal expansion of the oceans, timing of the seasons, worldwide
changes in extreme weather events and more.

It's clear that something
substantial is going on and considering that back in 1896 a Swedish scientist
calculated what would happen if you doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
and modern observations are consistent with his work, then it's probable that
climate change has a major human component.

This is part of the everchanging shell game of AGW. In fact the antarctic ice sheets have been advancing for a decade. The normal cycle of arctic ice melt is completely consistent with a 150 year cycle.

There is no science to AGW.. it is driven by appeals to fear or mauldin sentiment (of environmentalism).. The human component to suspended carbon in the atmosphere is so negligible that it is almost unmeasurable.

ALL of AGW is based on these 'computer models'.. limited to one input alone.. no iteration.. no consideration of the myriad of other variants.. most especially that of solar radiation... measuring an everchanging and subjectively chosen determination of 'effects'.

It's an affront to the scientific method.. it pure pagan magic . complete with mystical shayman as 'seers and prophets'.. posing as science.

 

[darkbeaver]

The CO2 scam is terrorism.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/node/234127
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere


A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.
NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

 

[taxslave]

The short answer to all this is that the wannabe scientists used computer models to make their wild predictions. Instead of doing any real research

 

[Walter]

The short answer to all this is that the wannabe scientists used computer models to make their wild predictions. Instead of doing any real research

But...but...Al Gore...Skuzookee...Obama.

 

[petros]

But...but...Al Gore...Skuzookee...Obama.

$$$$$ Nobody is immune to it's clutches.

 

[darkbeaver]

Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
Over at Principia Scientific International (PSI) greenhouse gas effect (GHE) critic, Alan Siddons is hailing the findings. Siddons and his colleagues have been winning support from hundreds of independent scientists for their GHE studies carried out over the last seven years. PSI has proved that the numbers fed into computer models by Hansen and others were based on a faulty interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics. PSI also recently uncovered long overlooked evidence from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) that shows it was widely known the GHE was discredited prior to 1951. [2]
Pointedly, a much-trumpeted new book released this month by Rupert Darwall claims to help expose the back story of how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time. [3]

(There has been a great deal of money spent by our corrupt democratic governments to sell this lemon theory. A great many fraudsters need to be dragged before a judge.)DB

 

[EagleSmack]

The unusually cold temps continue unabated.

 

[Walter]

The unusually cold temps continue unabated.

You're just in denial; Skuzookee said so.

 

[darkbeaver]

De Nile never freezes.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

That depends on whether you are asking about a relative concentration such as ppmv (parts per million by volume), which is the norm, or are asking about an absolute concentration (grams per cubic meter).

In both cases, the concentration of CO2 decreases as the elevation increases, but not nearly so fast for the relative concentration. The relative concentration drops because CO2 has a molecular weight of 44 while air has a molecular weight of only 29. Thus, CO2 is heavier than air, and tends to concentrate a little at the lower altitudes.

The absolute concentration drops primarily because the pressure drops as the elevation increases. In this case the concentration drops exponentially to the elevation, and directly proportionally to the pressure, more or less. This assumes that the relative CO2 concentration is constant. That is not quite true. So, the CO2 concentration actually drops a little faster.

It's still evenly mixed across the Earth's surface and is persistent in terms of centuries. As the overall concentration increases the overall rate of emission of heat from the Earth into space decreases. This has the effect of warming the overall atmosphere.

C02 also becomes a more effective greenhouse gas at higher altitudes as the drop in pressure and temperature causes absorption bands to become more clearly defined lines. So the higher you go the more effective CO2 is at trapping outgoing longwave EM radiation.

It's been well established since the mid 1800s that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[darkbeaver]

how the junk GHE theory was conveniently resuscitated in the 1980's by James Hansen and others to serve an environmental policy agenda at that time.

 

[Zipperfish]

This is part of the everchanging shell game of AGW. In fact the antarctic ice sheets have been advancing for a decade. The normal cycle of arctic ice melt is completely consistent with a 150 year cycle.

There is no science to AGW.. it is driven by appeals to fear or mauldin sentiment (of environmentalism).. The human component to suspended carbon in the atmosphere is so negligible that it is almost unmeasurable.

ALL of AGW is based on these 'computer models'.. limited to one input alone.. no iteration.. no consideration of the myriad of other variants.. most especially that of solar radiation... measuring an everchanging and subjectively chosen determination of 'effects'.

It's an affront to the scientific method.. it pure pagan magic . complete with mystical shayman as 'seers and prophets'.. posing as science.

First off, if climate science is a joke, then where did you get your 150-cycle theory? Were you around to see it?

Secondly, it's carbon dioxide, not suspended carbon. If you really want to be taken seriously, you really should endeavour to wrap your head around the very basics of the issue, so you don't come off looking completely ignorant. Also, if you look back a few posts, you can perhaps tell me where my calculation--demonstrating a potenially measurable inut of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through anthrpogenic emissions--is in error.

Thirdly, the idea that the computer mpodels are limited to one input is hogwash and balderdash. The models aren't running on an Excel spreadsheet.

 

[petros]

It's still evenly mixed across the Earth's surface and is persistent in terms of centuries. As the overall concentration increases the overall rate of emission of heat from the Earth into space decreases. This has the effect of warming the overall atmosphere.

C02 also becomes a more effective greenhouse gas at higher altitudes as the drop in pressure and temperature causes absorption bands to become more clearly defined lines. So the higher you go the more effective CO2 is at trapping outgoing longwave EM radiation.

It's been well established since the mid 1800s that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Nope. It even varies from season to seaon and from hemisphere to hemispehere.