Well, that will be a shock to all the students who have demonstrated the Greenhouse Effect thousands of times in high school labs across the country..
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Well, that will be a shock to all the students who have demonstrated the Greenhouse Effect thousands of times in high school labs across the country..
Sure it does based on the seasonal variations in vegetation, mostly in the Northern hemisphere, but it's a persistent gas that evenly mixes over time. So the CO2 emitted from a smokestack today in China is going to become part of the overall content of atmospheric carbon dioxide that will last for decades into centuries.
We're rapidly jacking up the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which has the effect of slowing outgoing longwave EM and therefore raising the global average temperature. The evidence supports this, and so do the models based on the physical properties involved.
The good news is that seawater sequesters CO2.
The bad news is that it turns it into carbonic acid and acidifies the oceans at a rate not seen in over 50 million years.
You're new here, so you may be unfamiliar with the dim rodents brand of investigation. According to the stuff he reads and posts here, wrapping yourself in a blanket to stay warm is impossible because of thermodynamics, hell even the insulation in your walls apparently is not effective at stopping the loss of heat, and is impossible because of...thermodynamics! Seriously! :lol:
About half the CO2 emitted by humans is taken up by the oceans, but as they warm they lose their capacity to hold the gas in suspension. In the same way that soda water can hold more CO2 when it's cold compared to when it's warm.
Well people can believe what tehy want to believe. Even scientists have their articles of faith, whether or not they admit it. The entire edifice of logic is a castle built in thin air. Thermo is tough. I have several post-graduate courses in thermodynamics and it gets to be pretty mind-bending stuff. Especially the Second Law (also, incidentally, the name of the latest Muse album--very good). It's very easy to get it all mixed up.
Which is all fine. I only get irritated when people start to refer to scientists as liars, mostly because I'm a scientist and don't consider myself a liar.
In the scientific world, you are frankly better off taking a run at gravity or relativity than the Laws of Thermodynamics.
How does something (temperature increase) that is "happening at an exponential rate" hit a brick wall when the CO2 input is still growing exponentially?
What brick wall? There's a slowing of the rate of warming. That doesn't mean that warming slowed or stopped.
Ya well complain to NASA about it. The greenhouse effect theory has been debunked soundly for years already. Look for the papers man the net is full of them. Or are you religious about your science? I'm pissed as well man, I was sucked in too, where are the palm trees and the balmy winds I was promised. Do the experiment again this time in the ionosphere.
Exponential dosn't really mean much if the exponent is less than 1. The relationship between CO2 and temperature (ignoring climate sensitivity, which is essentially the complex feedback mechanisms of the ecosystem). For every doubling of CO2 the temperature (in theory, according to the greenhouse effect) goes up by about 1 deg C.
So we were at, I think, 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. We're at about 390 ppm now I think. It's going up by about 2 ppm/year.
So we can expect a 1 deg increase at 560 ppm and another a 1 deg increase at 1120 ppm, globally. 1120 is very high. Even if we accelerate burning of fossil fules now, we still would reach that concentration in a hundred years. Two degrees is considered the critical effects threshold--the line we don't want to cross if we want to avoid Really Bad Effects.
That's based on radiation physics alone. Then you have to factor in positive feedbacks (warming melts snow, resulting in less refelcted sunlight from the white surface of teh snow, resulting in more warming) and negative feedback efefcts (radiation to space increases with the fourth power of the temperature). They factor in all those and come up with a number called the "climate sensitivity." It's greater than 1 if the ecosystem's response to warming is encourage more warming. It's less than 1 if the the response is to push the system back to the temperature it was previously at.
So, the IPCC came up with a pretty high sensitivity factor (concluding that the ecosystem response to CO2 was to amplify warming). According to the IPCC you get an increase of 3 deg C for every doubling of CO2 (as opposed to the just 1 deg, based on radiation physics alone). So now, it's a lot easier to cross that 2 deg "nastiness threshold."
I'm not overly convinced of the IPCC climate sensitivity to tell you the truth. First of all it's my experience that systems try to maintain their equilibrium or homeostasis. If they cannot maintain an equilibrium under continual forcing, they will shift--normally very quickly--to a new equilibrium. Lakes do this all the time--the sudden flip from oligotrophic to eutrophic. Also, the warming to date indicates a climate sensitivity of around 0.8, I think (very slightly negative).
CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas
Posted on June 29, 2008 by Louis Hissink
Most geologists reject the hypothesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas based on measurement, especially from ice core data. For CO2 to be considered a greenhouse has, it must precede all temperature rises. The following graph derived from the raw … Continue reading →
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
Posted on May 11, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the … Continue reading →
Earth Greenhouse Gas Fallacy
Posted on April 24, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer V.A. FIRSOFF’S OBJECTIONS Let us examine several other interesting problems with Sagan’s greenhouse theory. V.A.Firsoff, the British astronomer, raised the following objection to Sagan’s hypothesis:“Increasing the mass of the atmosphere (Venus has 91 Earth atmospheres) may intensifythe greenhouse effect, … Continue reading →
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/
As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect
Posted on May 28, 2010 by Louis Hissink
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts? As per my article this week, … Continue reading →
Greenhouse Gases
Posted on December 17, 2009 by Louis Hissink
Greenhouse gases? There aren’t any. No gas, let alone solid matter, stores energy. The gases that film our planet with a whisper thin coating of air that we, as a carbon based life form live under, do not protect us … Continue reading →
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com...nhouse-gas-let-along-a-greenhouse-gas-effect/
“You know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers, based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
Posted on June 29, 2008 by Louis Hissink
Most geologists reject the hypothesis that CO2 is a greenhouse gas based on measurement, especially from ice core data. For CO2 to be considered a greenhouse has, it must precede all temperature rises. The following graph derived from the raw … Continue reading →
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
Posted on May 11, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Hilton Ratcliffe (Astronomer Astrophysicist) writes: I had a most amazing, serendipitous meeting with Professor Gert Venter, Agricultural Engineering, University of Pretoria. He is a world authority on hydroponic culture, hydrology, and greenhouses. He acts as a consultant all over the … Continue reading →
Earth Greenhouse Gas Fallacy
Posted on April 24, 2011 by Louis Hissink
Astronomer V.A. FIRSOFF’S OBJECTIONS Let us examine several other interesting problems with Sagan’s greenhouse theory. V.A.Firsoff, the British astronomer, raised the following objection to Sagan’s hypothesis:“Increasing the mass of the atmosphere (Venus has 91 Earth atmospheres) may intensifythe greenhouse effect, … Continue reading →
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/
As I said previously, there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, let along a greenhouse gas effect
Posted on May 28, 2010 by Louis Hissink
NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts? As per my article this week, … Continue reading →
Greenhouse Gases
Posted on December 17, 2009 by Louis Hissink
Greenhouse gases? There aren’t any. No gas, let alone solid matter, stores energy. The gases that film our planet with a whisper thin coating of air that we, as a carbon based life form live under, do not protect us … Continue reading →
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com...nhouse-gas-let-along-a-greenhouse-gas-effect/
“You know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers, based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
It didn't hit a brick wall, we've had some of the warmest years on record in the last ten years during a period of record solar inactivity. Instead of significant cooling we're still seeing ongoing warming and melting of the cryosphere, how much additional energy does it take to melt cubic kilometers of ice?
Here's one: Z. I have no idea how that helps you, though.
lol You post someone's opinion to enforce your opinion? Funny.
The data doesn't agree.
No, there are a number of logical fallacies in that paper. Ice core data, for starters, is irrelvant. For a substance to be a greenhouse gas, it has to abosrb and emit radiation in the infrared spectrum.
Several more fallacies here. The one that floored me was the assertion that "no gas molecule can store energy." I really don't know where to begin wiht that one. First off, I guess, mass is energy and a gas molecule has mass. Greenhouses work by preventing the formation of convection cells. The greenhouse gas theory is poorly named, because it's processes are concerned with radiation, not convection. But just because it got a bad name doesn't mean the physics nehind it isn't sound. Also, the writer refers to someone who has experimental evidence that teh Greenhouse Effect is backwards (that CO2 causes cooling) but presents no modle for this basis and no paper to support his conjecture.
I'm not sure about Venus, but on Earth the atmosphere is farily transparent in the visible light spectrum. That's why we can see stars at night. However, due to water vapour, CO2 and other GHGs it is muc more opaque in the infrared spectrum. Since most incoming sunlight is in the visible spectrum, and since CO2 is transparent in that spectrum, increasing CO2 does not appreciably reduce insolent solar radiation. I'm not sure who Louis Hissink is, but you should do yourself a favour and skip that blog. He really does not have much clue what he's talking about.
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/
Tehre's the bit about matter not storing energy again. So my question to you then is: When our half of the planet is facing away from teh Sun, why is the temperature not the same as the surrounding space (about 3 deg above absolute zero)?
http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com...nhouse-gas-let-along-a-greenhouse-gas-effect/
“You know, that’s why all I can do is laugh when these global warming monkeys tell me that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is not, and I have live, precise experimental situations in over 30 sites around the world that prove that it is not. These guys create a model in their computers, based on arbitrary assumptions, and then ignore all the experimental evidence to the contrary. My experiments show that INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS CORRELLATED WITH A DECREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE in my agricultural environments.”
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas[/QUOTE]
lol Welcome to the psychodelic "reality" of the dim rodent, Zipper.
It's just sad that stuff like that is out there.