Losing the Fear of Generating CO2

[Loudmouth]

I shouldn't need to say anymore about your misconceptions of the effect of the oceans. Water - IS the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere to begin with.

It isn't the main source of the added 100 ppm that has appeared over the last 100 years.

 

[Chalnoth]

It also has to do with residence time in the atmopshere. The half life of a water molecule in the atmosphere is 1 to 3 weeks. There is simply no way for water to force long term climate trends because it isn't in the atmosphere for long.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has a atmospheric half life measured in decades. Once it is up there, it stays for a while. That is why CO2 can drive climate even though it makes up less of the overall greenhouse effect.

It's somewhat misleading to say that CO2 has a halflife of decades. This post describes the issues:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

The short of it is that the primary way that CO2 gets out of the atmosphere is by dissolving in the oceans, but as the upper layers of the ocean saturate, that process slows. The factor limiting how quickly the oceans absorb CO2 is how rapidly the upper layers of the ocean mix with the lower layers, which has a time scale closer to 500-1000 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you the relevant sources 4 times already, If you never read them then, then what are you doing arguing against something you don't have a clue about???? And just because your too lazy - or too afraid to do any actual research yourself is no excuse - especially when I have posted then 4 times in the last week alone.

Yes, you sort of did. Those sources did not support your claims.

No, CO2 was tied to warming in the past. But if you happened to notice the CO2 on the right no longer corresponds to temperature. That's the only thing that changes on the entire graph. Temperature does not follow CO2 because temperature controls CO2 which is controlled in the majority by the oceans warming or cooling.

The CO2 increases are part of a feedback loop. You need to keep up to date on these things.

No, just the 5 above it that you ignored for the 4th time this week.

And again, those sources did not support you claims. That is why a citation is needed.

Do you just make up stuff on the spur of the moment? They do, and yet temperature today is no higher than in the past - despite your claim we are in serious Global Warming instead of in an interglacial period. It's you that claims man-made global warming during an ice age. It's you that claims man-made global warming despite the other planets also doing the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

"An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age."

So we are at a warmer global average lasting around 50,000 years versus a much cooler global average that lasts 100,000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial#/media/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

You see that 0 degree centigrade line? That is not even the average between the cold and warm periods, The average global mean temperature would be -4. The coldest is -8, the warmest is what 6 for a brief time. And today we are at what 1.8? So since all of the others are higher in the past, your claim for man-made anything is weak. Extremely weak. And then when we factor in the rest of the solar system. It becomes non-existent.

And your article supported me not you. Or did you miss where it says that we are still in an ice age? Talk about making things up. And yes, it has been warmer in the past, so what? It is the rate of current warming and where it will head to that is causing all of the trouble.

Your memory really that bad? How many times have I had to debate with other Christians because as I insist they misinterpret the Hebrew word "hayah" in the second verse of genesis? You really do make stuff up on the spot don't you.

Sorry, you creationists should make up a program, like they have for baseball players, so we will know what unscientific beliefs that you have.

Fail.....

I've supplied those links 4 times to you this week alone, go reread the post and start reading references and you won't need to keep asking for them. At least do me the courtesy I do for you. Of course I just use your own links to show your wrong, so that's probably why you never include any.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR. So that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it back into cooler space first of all. I will even use a global warming site for you.

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

Now on to what they ignore. The laws of thermodynamics has shown over and over warmer things radiate their energy to cooler things. Your stove or fireplace works by these laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Yet now I am to ignore the laws of thermodynamics so that CO2 doesn't re-emit the IR absorbed to cooler regions that you think passes through it unscathed, as we have known since the first fire ever seen? You see, you treat CO2 as a one way mirror, but it absorbs more IR and re-emits it back into cooler space before it even reaches the ground with higher concentrations of CO2.

Wrong again, you may have supplied links but you misunderstood them. As I pointed you have no idea how CO2 works. Yes, it will emit IR in all directions uniformly. What you conveniently ignore is that it lets higher energy light pass through. Incoming light is of higher energy. It passes through the atmosphere and warms the Earth and is reradiated as lower frequency IR light. That light hits the CO2 in our atmosphere and instead of radiating out into space it sticks around longer. The heat is temporarily stuck here warming the Earth. How the green house effect works has been known for well over one hundred years. It is not controversial in the least. And every scientist will admit that more CO2 means a stronger greenhouse effect. If you don't admit to that you are not even in agreement with the few scientists that will support your nonsense.

And lo and behold - this interglacial warming period is cooler than any of the others. Just science and common sense instead of political "global warming" gibberish.

Right, tell us another one. You don't even understand what the concerns are, I don't see how you can think that you can refute this.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, CO2 was tied to warming in the past. But if you happened to notice the CO2 on the right no longer corresponds to temperature. That's the only thing that changes on the entire graph. Temperature does not follow CO2 because temperature controls CO2 which is controlled in the majority by the oceans warming or cooling.

This is not at all true. If anything, the recent warming has followed the CO2 trend more closely than in the past (because before about 1970 or so, the CO2 changes in the atmosphere were small enough that their impact was swamped by other factors).

I'm aware that there have been some sources that have lied to try to make it seem as if this is the case, but it really isn't: the recent warming is right in line with what you'd expect from simple analyses of how CO2 impacts warming.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR. So that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR radiation and re-emits it back into cooler space first of all. I will even use a global warming site for you.

True. But it doesn't re-emit all of the radiation in the same direction that it absorbed it from. Some of it is re-emitted back towards the ground. This has the net effect of slowing the rate at which outgoing photons leave, which increases the difference in temperature between the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere.

Now on to what they ignore. The laws of thermodynamics has shown over and over warmer things radiate their energy to cooler things. Your stove or fireplace works by these laws.

Right....

Yet now I am to ignore the laws of thermodynamics so that CO2 doesn't re-emit the IR absorbed to cooler regions that you think passes through it unscathed, as we have known since the first fire ever seen? You see, you treat CO2 as a one way mirror, but it absorbs more IR and re-emits it back into cooler space before it even reaches the ground with higher concentrations of CO2.

You're mistaking the net behavior of lots of microscopic actions (thermodynamics) with the individual microscopic actions themselves. Yes, it's very true that on average, the warmer lower atmosphere emits radiation to the cooler upper atmosphere. But this is only on average: individual photons are going up and down all the time. It's just that more of them are going up*. The atoms or molecules themselves have no notion of temperature whatsoever: they just behave in a random fashion. The net impact of those random actions is what makes thermodynamics work.

* If you want to get technical, each molecule is just as likely to emit a photon up as down. But the warmer, lower atmosphere is brighter than the cooler upper atmosphere, so more photons leave the brighter lower atmosphere than leave the dimmer upper atmosphere, leading to a net upward emission of heat.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It isn't the main source of the added 100 ppm that has appeared over the last 100 years.

I've already agreed to that - it's the rest you ignore: and yet the temperature is no higher than it was in the past when the CO2 was in step with temperature. In fact it's lower. I'll repeat it again. We have broken that correlation between CO2 and temperature - because CO2 followed temperature, by the oceans temperature and decay rates (temperature). Since we added CO2 and broke that correlation, it just makes CO2 useless anymore as a temperature gauge. That's why CO2 is way up - and yet temperatures are below any of the past temperatures. Because the science told us all that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR radiation. Thermodynamics told us all that heat radiates from the warmest to the coolest. So now less IR makes it to the surface to warm the planet and reflect as heat back to the CO2 for some to reflect back to us. And so what we see in ice cores merely confirms that this indeed happens, since the global temperatures now are less than at any time in the past when CO2 was in step with that temperature.

Get the politics out of the science.

 

[Chalnoth]

I've already agreed to that - it's the rest you ignore: and yet the temperature is no higher than it was in the past when the CO2 was in step with temperature. In fact it's lower.

Wait, what? Lower than when, specifically? What past are you referring to?

I'll repeat it again. We have broken that correlation between CO2 and temperature - because CO2 followed temperature, by the oceans temperature and decay rates (temperature).

Because on long time scales, CO2 is also a feedback. In particular, a warmer ocean doesn't dissolve CO2 as readily, so if something else, like the Sun, changes the temperature of the Earth, then the oceans slowly emit a lot of CO2 over hundreds of years.

That's why CO2 is way up - and yet temperatures are below any of the past temperatures.

Huh? The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily from human emissions. This is proven because of its radioactive profile: carbon in the ground has a different radioactive profile than carbon emitted by living organisms.

Because the science told us all that CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR radiation. Thermodynamics told us all that heat radiates from the warmest to the coolest. So now less IR makes it to the surface to warm the planet and reflect as heat back to the CO2 for some to reflect back to us. And so what we see in ice cores merely confirms that this indeed happens, since the global temperatures now are less than at any time in the past when CO2 was in step with that temperature.

This doesn't make any sense. Where are you getting this from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A huge part of Justa's problems is that he is focusing only on Antarctic temperatures and treating them as if they were global temperatures. We do have excellent temperature records in the Antarctic, we do not have excellent temperature records that go back that far for the whole Earth. Here is a graph that covers just the warming since the last glaciation ended:

The red is the temperature change at the Antarctic, the blue is the global change in temperature, and the yellow dots are the CO2 levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is a reason that the experts claim that global temperatures lag CO2 levels.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wait, what? Lower than when, specifically? What past are you referring to?

Page before, but you didn't read it then apparently.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...f-generating-co2.7881039/page-4#post-68003811
"No, CO2 was tied to warming in the past......

....But if you happened to notice the CO2 on the right no longer corresponds to temperature. That's the only thing that changes on the entire graph. Temperature does not follow CO2 because temperature controls CO2 which is controlled in the majority by the oceans warming or cooling."

Graph for clarity - Every one of those peaks. In that period of time, that we can according to you clearly define.

Because on long time scales, CO2 is also a feedback. In particular, a warmer ocean doesn't dissolve CO2 as readily, so if something else, like the Sun, changes the temperature of the Earth, then the oceans slowly emit a lot of CO2 over hundreds of years.

Isn't 400,000 years a long enough time for you to realize the repeating pattern that man hasn't affected at all, except to break the temperature CO2 connection? Where is the current temperature more than it was in the past?

Huh? The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is primarily from human emissions.

For the umpteenth time the increase above the temperature correlation is due to man. Quit acting as if anyone believes otherwise. The extra CO2 blocks IR. The current global temperature never reaches past temperatures. Look at the pretty graph global warmers have prepared for us. That is in the link above. This is exactly what the data shows. That a warming period of higher temperatures should have occurred, but the increased CO2 - being an insulator - not a one way mirror - blocks more IR from reaching the ground. Hence temperatures are lower this 125,000 year peak than any of the others where the data is considered reliable enough. Beyond 400,000 there appears to be another cycle with lower temperature durations. As we know the sun goes through cycles of 11, 22, 44 and who knows how many more. Because the galaxies cycles also have an effect.

This is proven because of its radioactive profile: carbon in the ground has a different radioactive profile than carbon emitted by living organisms.

This doesn't make any sense. Where are you getting this from?

Your right - you sure didn't make any sense.

We've caused global warming yet never once reached the temperatures attained in the past when we sure didn't cause it every 125,000 years. We sure didn't cause all the other planets to increase in temperatures along with us. But we sure caused the Co2 to rise. It's only too bad the data shows how politically motivated you are - not concerned with the science.

No one thinks man didn't add more CO2. I am just not ignoring 90% of the solar system, nor the fact that this peaks global temperatures have not even reached past global temperatures, despite man supposing to be making it worse. We are, just not like you think is all.

As a matter of fact it was warmer in the recent past during the middle and Greek ages than it is now. Suppose all their CO2 output caused that too?

 

[Chalnoth]

Page before, but you didn't read it then apparently.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...f-generating-co2.7881039/page-4#post-68003811
"No, CO2 was tied to warming in the past......

....But if you happened to notice the CO2 on the right no longer corresponds to temperature. That's the only thing that changes on the entire graph. Temperature does not follow CO2 because temperature controls CO2 which is controlled in the majority by the oceans warming or cooling."

I believe you meant this post, as that one doesn't talk about the specific time scales at all:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...f-generating-co2.7881039/page-3#post-67998560

The answer here is simple: it takes time for the planet to respond to changes in CO2 concentration. The changes that are highlighted in those plots took millennia. The current warming has only been significant over the past 45 years or so.

So basically what those graphs say is that there's quite a bit more warming to come even if we stop all fossil fuel burning today.

Isn't 400,000 years a long enough time for you to realize the repeating pattern that man hasn't affected at all, except to break the temperature CO2 connection? Where is the current temperature more than it was in the past?

That timescale is precisely the problem. It doesn't make sense to look at correlations that appeared over hundreds to thousands of years and try to apply them to the changes in the last 45 years.

For the umpteenth time the increase above the temperature correlation is due to man. Quit acting as if anyone believes otherwise. The extra CO2 blocks IR. The current global temperature never reaches past temperatures. Look at the pretty graph global warmers have prepared for us. That is in the link above. This is exactly what the data shows. That a warming period of higher temperatures should have occurred, but the increased CO2 - being an insulator - not a one way mirror - blocks more IR from reaching the ground. Hence temperatures are lower this 125,000 year peak than any of the others where the data is considered reliable enough. Beyond 400,000 there appears to be another cycle with lower temperature durations. As we know the sun goes through cycles of 11, 22, 44 and who knows how many more. Because the galaxies cycles also have an effect.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here, but the Sun has been entirely ruled-out as a significant factor in the recent warming.

Your right - you sure didn't make any sense.

We've caused global warming yet never once reached the temperatures attained in the past when we sure didn't cause it every 125,000 years. We sure didn't cause all the other planets to increase in temperatures along with us. But we sure caused the Co2 to rise.

All the other planets are not warming, though. And those that are are doing so for very different reasons. This has already been pointed out to you. Why have you refused to acknowledge it?

As a matter of fact it was warmer in the recent past during the middle and Greek ages than it is now. Suppose all their CO2 output caused that too?

No, it really wasn't. This is the warmest it's been for at least 4,000 years:
http://io9.com/5989440/report-global-temps-are-the-highest-theyve-been-in-4000-years

 

[juvenissun]

The total greenhouse effect from water is a good deal larger than that from CO2. However, the amount of water in the atmosphere is almost entirely set by temperature. The small radiative forcing from water is from the little bit of difference due to human activity (e.g. building lots and lots of pools in a desert increases the humidity in the area).

The water in the atmosphere that comes from temperature directly is not counted in that chart at all, and it's huge. But there's a reason for that: because the water in the atmosphere is mostly a function of temperature, for the most part it doesn't count as a forcing. Instead, it's a feedback. That is, if you change the temperature by some other mechanism, then the amount of water in the atmosphere responds (e.g. by more evaporation of the oceans).

Higher temperature causes more evaporation leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. Because water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, this further amplifies the greenhouse effect. In practical terms, this effect approximately doubles the impact of climate forcings (whether we're talking about changes in solar irradiance or CO2 emissions or a large volcanic eruption), and is a big reason why we have to worry about CO2 in the first place.

Very true. We have water on the earth, which is a big greenhouse engine which enhances itself in the warming effect. On the side, there is a little guy CO2 which is doing "a little" help on that. Whatever CO2 helped, it would promote the big water engine to do a little more warming. So, how important is the CO2 effect? We have to express that in quantity to evaluate whether it is worthwhile to suppress that by making significant economic sacrifice.

So far, I am not convinced that it is a worthwhile effort.

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you think this? What about the Earth do you think gives it its temperature?

The vertical opacity is given by the opacity per molecule of CO2 times the number of CO2 molecules per unit area in a column of air.

[/QUOTE]

How do you explain those constants by what you said?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very true. We have water on the earth, which is a big greenhouse engine which enhances itself in the warming effect. On the side, there is a little guy CO2 which is doing "a little" help on that. Whatever CO2 helped, it would promote the big water engine to do a little more warming. So, how important is the CO2 effect? We have to express that in quantity to evaluate whether it is worthwhile to suppress that by making significant economic sacrifice.

So far, I am not convinced that it is a worthwhile effort.

This is merely an argument from ignorance on your part. But at least you are better than most deniers. You can see that increasing CO2 will increase warming slightly and that will increase water vapor in the atmosphere which will further enhance warming. Your question is merely how much?


On the short term the warming could even do some good. Usually there are far more deaths from cold rather than there are from heat. But a warmer atmosphere will mean stronger storm systems, and that could quickly balance things out. Of more concern are civilizations in low lying areas and the effects on nature.

 

[juvenissun]

A huge part of Justa's problems is that he is focusing only on Antarctic temperatures and treating them as if they were global temperatures. We do have excellent temperature records in the Antarctic, we do not have excellent temperature records that go back that far for the whole Earth. Here is a graph that covers just the warming since the last glaciation ended:

The red is the temperature change at the Antarctic, the blue is the global change in temperature, and the yellow dots are the CO2 levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is a reason that the experts claim that global temperatures lag CO2 levels.

This is a good figure. What caused the fast rising of CO2 during 18 Ka to 14 Ka?

How could anyone know that the rising of CO2 is not the cause, but the consequence of rising temperature? I can easily list a few reasons which support that when the earth is warming up, the CO2 content MUST also rise.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's somewhat misleading to say that CO2 has a halflife of decades. This post describes the issues:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

The short of it is that the primary way that CO2 gets out of the atmosphere is by dissolving in the oceans, but as the upper layers of the ocean saturate, that process slows. The factor limiting how quickly the oceans absorb CO2 is how rapidly the upper layers of the ocean mix with the lower layers, which has a time scale closer to 500-1000 years.

I was going from memory from stuff I had read before. You are quite right, it isn't as simple as a straight half-life. It might be fairer to describe how long the CO2 released today will have effects in the atmosphere, and that figure is measured in decades.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've already agreed to that -

Then why are you trying to use semantics to cover it up? We are arguing that the recent warming is man made due to the burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, what caused the sudden rise in CO2 is the important bit, not the previous amount that was already there before we started burning fossil fuels.

and yet the temperature is no higher than it was in the past when the CO2 was in step with temperature.

That's because the current increase is not being caused by orbital forcings which cause CO2 and temperature to move in lockstep. As orbital forcing warms the Earth it causes the oceans to release more CO2 which then warm the planet a bit more. What we are seeing now is CO2 increasing without orbital forcings which means there may not always be a 1:1 correlation between the two.

We have broken that correlation between CO2 and temperature - because CO2 followed temperature, by the oceans temperature and decay rates (temperature). Since we added CO2 and broke that correlation, it just makes CO2 useless anymore as a temperature gauge.

You should really rethink that statement. You get a lot wrong.

Until you incorporate orbital forcings and the Milankovitch cycles into your understanding of paleoclimates, you will continue to get many things wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a good figure. What caused the fast rising of CO2 during 18 Ka to 14 Ka?

Warming of the oceans due to orbital forcings.

"Orbital forcing is the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm−2 at latitudes of 60 degrees)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

How could anyone know that the rising of CO2 is not the cause, but the consequence of rising temperature?

In the past, it was. Orbital forcings warmed the oceans which caused them to release CO2. This added CO2 warmed the planet a bit more. What we have done in recent times is increase CO2 independent of orbital forcings, something that never happened over the last several glaciation cycles that we have ice core records for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a good figure. What caused the fast rising of CO2 during 18 Ka to 14 Ka?

How could anyone know that the rising of CO2 is not the cause, but the consequence of rising temperature? I can easily list a few reasons which support that when the earth is warming up, the CO2 content MUST also rise.

Yes, it is a feedback loop. The oceans will hold less CO2 when heated. It is not instantaneous and is highly dependent upon ocean circulation. The end of the ice ages were started by a warming event and then this fed on itself. The history of the Earth shows that these "tipping points" exist. We don't want to tip one that will bring us back to Cretaceous levels of heat.

 

[[serious]]

I gave you the relevant sources 4 times already, If you never read them then, then what are you doing arguing against something you don't have a clue about???? And just because your too lazy - or too afraid to do any actual research yourself is no excuse - especially when I have posted then 4 times in the last week alone.

You've provided no source I've seen for the claim: "the entire solar system was increasing in temperature during this same time frame"

Please support or retract that specific claim

 

[Chalnoth]

Very true. We have water on the earth, which is a big greenhouse engine which enhances itself in the warming effect. On the side, there is a little guy CO2 which is doing "a little" help on that. Whatever CO2 helped, it would promote the big water engine to do a little more warming. So, how important is the CO2 effect? We have to express that in quantity to evaluate whether it is worthwhile to suppress that by making significant economic sacrifice.

So far, I am not convinced that it is a worthwhile effort.

There isn't a significant economic sacrifice, though. In fact, in the current economic climate the government's finances (in the US and Europe) would be made better-off if they borrowed money to spend on infrastructure (because the extra spending puts people who are currently out of work to work, which increases future tax receipts as being out of work today makes you less employable tomorrow). So there might not be an economic cost at all. There could well be pure gains to be had here, with no drawbacks. It is somewhat implementation-dependent, but even the most pessimistic estimates of the cost of aggressive action to reduce CO2 use show a pretty small cost.

That said, the specific result is that if we don't consider any of the "fast feedbacks" then a doubling of CO2 will result in about 1C of warming. The fast feedbacks (melting of ice, increased water vapor, etc.) triple this value to about 3C. There is a fair amount of uncertainty to this number. Estimates typically range from 2C to 5C. But any sensitivity in the range from 2C to 5C will be very nasty for us if we continue to emit CO2 (the higher range is nasty even if we stop today: it's just worse if we continue).

 

[Heissonear]

A huge part of Justa's problems is that he is focusing only on Antarctic temperatures and treating them as if they were global temperatures. We do have excellent temperature records in the Antarctic, we do not have excellent temperature records that go back that far for the whole Earth. Here is a graph that covers just the warming since the last glaciation ended:

The red is the temperature change at the Antarctic, the blue is the global change in temperature, and the yellow dots are the CO2 levels.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is a reason that the experts claim that global temperatures lag CO2 levels.

Nice try. You have it backwards, atmospheric CO2 change follows Earths temperature.

The SkepticalScience is loaded with disinformation for warmist to spread as their gospel.