Remember me
▼ Content

Differences between the past and the present time


Differences between the past and the present time16-11-2009 16:47
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(31)
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.
09-02-2010 20:07
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.


0.
CO2 rise and temperature rise are connected. But permanent high temperatures are connected to a drop in CO2.

1.
The Climate change is in the humidity and only secondary in temperature.

2.
The reconstruction of the temperature of the past is base on isotopes of oxygen, and they are depend on both temperature and number of mornings where the water/ice had evaporated.

3.
The change of CO2 in the atmosphere have two cause: The supply and attrition of CO2.

3.1
Majority of the supply by CO2 to the atmosphere, is from the oceans, and the oceans have the CO2 from natural oil well on the ocean floor. The CO2 go from the ocean by rise of temperature and by change of currents.

3.2
Majority of the attrition of CO2 to the atmosphere is by the rain. This growing by rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. And grow by the rainfall.
25-12-2010 18:02
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As such it slows the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space. Any doubling of CO2 brings about 3.7W/m^2 of increased downward radiation as measured from the tropopause. It does not matter if the the CO2 increases before or after an initial temperature rise. The effect of the increased CO2 is the same in either case.

If temperature were to rise slightly, say by orbital forcing, this would cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 as warmer sea water would release additional CO2 out of solution. A new equilibrium state having been established, the positive feedback by extra CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas would enhance the initial warming induced by the orbital forcing. This is what to take away from the ice core measurements of CO2 rise following temperature increase in the climate record by some 800 years.

If the CO2 comes before any temperature rise it still nonetheless acts as a greenhouse gas in the same manner. In the case where Man's activities iare adding CO2 to the environment at such a rate that the oceans can not totally absorb it all, the CO2 concentration is building up in the atmosphere and producing the same forcing as would be the case with the CO2 increase following temperate rise. The same forcing at 3.7W/m^2/2xCO2 arises and will be subject to similar positive feedbacks as in water vapor feedback and albedo changes.
25-12-2010 19:01
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
WeatherRusty wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As such it slows the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space.

"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.

Any doubling of CO2 brings about 3.7W/m^2 of increased downward radiation as measured from the tropopause.

You have need to put water vapor with CO2, because they absorb the same light.
28-12-2010 19:40
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.


Do you realize the Earth's surface receives more energy per unit area from it's own atmosphere than it does directly from the Sun? In fact the surface receives nearly double the radiant energy from the atmosphere than from the Sun! "Greenhouses gas" raise the temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above what the Sun alone can do.

While the Sun is a very much hotter radiant body than Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere radiates from 180 angular degrees while the Sun only from 1/2 angular degree. The atmosphere radiates 24 hour per day. The Sun only when above the horizon.
Edited on 28-12-2010 20:11
28-12-2010 21:36
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
WeatherRusty wrote:
"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.


Do you realize the Earth's surface receives more energy per unit area from it's own atmosphere than it does directly from the Sun? In fact the surface receives nearly double the radiant energy from the atmosphere than from the Sun! "Greenhouses gas" raise the temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above what the Sun alone can do.

The temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above an than a similar planet without atmosphere because the atmosphere is the boundary to space. The temperature of the atmospheric surface is about 33C lower than Earth's surface.


While the Sun is a very much hotter radiant body than Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere radiates from 180 angular degrees while the Sun only from 1/2 angular degree. The atmosphere radiates 24 hour per day. The Sun only when above the horizon.

The atmospheric diameter is larger than Earth's diameter. And the light is broken in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight

In a desert temperature drops about 40K in one night. Which may be a reflection of the sun's great power for days.
15-02-2011 22:07
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
The Humidity wrote: "Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy.


In the same sense that sunlight is a fantasy, or gravity is a fancy.

CO2 being a greenhouse gas was demonstrated by C.J. Fox in 1909, A. Angstron in 1918, and Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916, 1917, and 1918. It was known ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO that without water vapor and carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen lifeless chunk of dirt and ice.

"Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

"Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/Data/dataPortal.html

"Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_64/iss_1/33_1.shtml

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

[deleted by admin].
Edited by branner on 15-02-2011 23:01
16-02-2011 02:21
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
[quote]Desertphile wrote:

CO2 being a greenhouse gas was demonstrated by C.J. Fox in 1909, A. Angstron in 1918, and Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916, 1917, and 1918. It was known ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO that without water vapor and carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen lifeless chunk of dirt and ice.


Fortunately, the process of science did not stop in 1909. We now know much more about CO2 radiative forcing, the non-linear relationship between Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures.

We also have considerable doubts about the efficacy of constant fiddling with global surface temperature records, the effects of the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the results of mixing proxy climate records.

The Hockey Stick graph is thoroughly refuted.
12-05-2011 16:37
hotair
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Hayduke: I call bull on what you're saying.

Let me see or provide me with your link to a peer reviewed article saying the Hockey Stick graph is wrong.

I've read the papers the reviewed the Hockey Stick Graphs. Blemishes and all, those papers SUPPORTED it.

I'm really not interested in seeing Exxon funded bloggers and other entertainment sources. Show me something real and tangible.


As for fiddling surface temperatures, again, I call bull. Actual measurements show clearly that global warming is occurring. Specifically, a small rise in temperature should show a massive rise at the poles. This is happening. Correlating to these temperature changes, is the melting of the arctic ice. Even more nifty is that you can see your hockey stick in how the ice melts.

In short ALL the theory is holding fine.


Here's what Environment Canada says about how Canada's climate has changed. Including a massive hot spot over the arctic.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

As you can see here the arctic sea ice extent is reducing hugely.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Finally, you can see your hockey stick... right here.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


If you're feeling curious, you can generate your own graph from Environment Canada here;
http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp

Icegraph 1.03
Canadian Arctic
Plot Trendline
Generate Graphs

Under
Historical Total Accumulated Ice Coverage 1971 - 2010, 0514 - 1015
Pick "Stage of Development"

Its looking pretty hockey stick.
05-05-2014 09:16
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
It is quite true that a doubling of CO2 (by about year 2050) will cause 3.7watts per sq meter increased forcing that equates to a 1C rise, (big deal) that is insignicant compared to natural causes like solar/ocean cycles.
Even if it did cause some marginal outgassing of CO2, we would have to wait until we got to 1100ppm before we get another 1C rise.
09-05-2014 18:52
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
You totally ignore equilibrium climate sensitivity over the Planck responce of 1.2C as a factor, which is estimated to reside somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2 or it's equivalence in radiative forcing.
30-10-2015 15:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.

Branner, aside from our modern understanding that CO2 has no superpowers to defy the laws of physics by magically creating thermal energy, we also have the underlying axiom of science which is that the way nature works now is the way nature worked in the past and is the way nature will work in the future.

If we assume that historical increases in the earth's temperature were followed chronologically by increased levels of atmospheric CO2, then we know that something else caused the temperature increase and that elevated CO2 levels are a subsequent result, not a cause.

Additionally, the primary argument being refuted is that elevated CO2 levels (and magical "greenhouse gases") are somehow the only explanation for the elevated atmospheric temperature. By showing that something other than CO2 caused the temperature increases we have rendered this particular argument false.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Differences between the past and the present time:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS AFFECTING MY LOCAL COMMUNITY IN THE PRESENT DAY AND HOW TO COMBAT THESE PROBLEMS317-01-2018 21:42
there is no proof past climate was significantly warmer when CO2 was much more327-02-2017 03:06
Maybe I'll understand you if we take this topic one question at a time?1505-10-2016 13:32
the world passes 400ppm for the last time1830-09-2016 19:26
Climate scientists don't know anything about the past. They should stop making fools of themselves.305-01-2016 19:14
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact