Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 the Magic Gas!


CO2 the Magic Gas!10-02-2016 13:53
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Most of the argument on this site seems to revolve around whether or not there is something special about "greenhouse gases" and CO2 in particular. It all gets very confusing so can I phrase a simple question for both sides to answer:
If the energy input from the sun is considered a constant and CO2 absorbes radiation at a certain wavelength and re-raidiates that energy in all directions so that a percentage of that emision is sent back down to earth! Then if you increase the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, shouldn't more energy be re-radiated down to earth? so if the suns input is constant totatl net effect of an increasing CO2 level should be more energy radiating down to earth?
10-02-2016 14:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
In a nutshell: Yes.
10-02-2016 15:18
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I too have been trying for some time to understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature rise but I'm afraid I haven't got there yet!
Whilst what you say is correct I understand the amount of warming due to this gas is very small due to the limited waveband that is affected, i.e. not all energy from the sun is affected.
In the models used by IPCC it appears the much bigger impact is from water vapour and it is here that there are hugely differing views as to how much the overall impact is. To make matters worse, it depends if the water vapour is in the form of humidity or clouds as they have different effects.
I've had a go at reading a number of scientific papers but it seems to me the conclusions reached depend on the political leaning of the authors rather than pure science so I'm finding it difficult to come to some conclusion myself.
10-02-2016 15:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It's true that, aside from the fundamental warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouses gases, it is very difficult to accurately predict the extent and rate of future warming from theory alone. You're quite right in mentioning clouds as a particular source of uncertainty. It's hard to know whether cloudiness will increase or decrease in a warming world, and it's also uncertain which effect would predominate in a cloudier world: positive feedback due to absorption and re-emission of IR from the ground or negative feedback due to reflection of solar radiation.

However, palaeoclimatology does offer some hints. Analysis of bubble of ancient air trapped in Antarctic and Greenland ice bubbles does indicate a close relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature, with global temperature increasing by about 6 C for every 100 ppm CO2, though this relationship may not remain linear at higher concentrations of CO2.
10-02-2016 16:22
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I have also looked at some articles on the ice core measurements but again with what appears to be uncertainty around O2 isotopes and whether or not CO2 lags or leads temperature I was again left in a bit of no mans land. I also read that the first 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is critical but increases beyond that have diminishing effect, although I just can't get my head around that one!
10-02-2016 16:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record. It's thought that cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit caused small changes in the Earth's temperature, which then caused changes in the CO2 concentration, which then further changed the temperature, and so on. CO2 effectively acted as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying the initial small changes in temperature.
10-02-2016 16:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Surface Detail wrote: CO2 effectively acted as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying the initial small changes in temperature.

Aaah, more of that good old-time "feedback loop" religion. This one "amplifies" temperature changes...without changing the amount of energy, correct?

The science denial is overwhelming.


.


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
10-02-2016 18:53
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: CO2 effectively acted as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying the initial small changes in temperature.

Aaah, more of that good old-time "feedback loop" religion. This one "amplifies" temperature changes...without changing the amount of energy, correct?

The science denial is overwhelming.


.

Exactly! but if the energy input remains the same but more is now absorbed and re-radiated in all directions (and hence more back to earth than before), because there is more of the magic gas, surely you will end up with a net gain?

What else could happen?
10-02-2016 18:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
MK001 wrote:Exactly! but if the energy input remains the same but more is now absorbed and re-radiated in all directions (and hence more back to earth than before), because there is more of the magic gas, surely you will end up with a net gain?

What else could happen?


If it's just more CO2, then more CO2 causes warming. The problem is, burning fossil fuels produces H2O which form more clouds and that causes a cooling effect.
10-02-2016 19:00
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Clearly MK001 but I think the point here is that the feedback is currently unknown and subject to disagreement amongst scientists and can seemingly range from negative to positive with IPCC favouring a high positive. I'm just struggling to understand the differing viewpoints as it seems one of the most critical aspects of the guess as to what happens in the future to the temperature.
Edited on 10-02-2016 19:01
10-02-2016 19:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Gogsy wrote:
Clearly MK001 but I think the point here is that the feedback is currently unknown and subject to disagreement amongst scientists and can seemingly range from negative to positive with IPCC favouring a high positive. I'm just struggling to understand the differing viewpoints as it seems one of the most critical aspects of the guess as to what happens in the future to the temperature.


IPCC is definitely pro CAGW. It is not unbiased. I wouldn't trust IPCC's viewpoint if my life depended on it
10-02-2016 19:28
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
The more I look into things the more uncomfortable I am becoming with the whole climate change debate. I have read IPCC and NIPCC reports and many individual articles and papers and my concern is the establishment (read funding bodies) seems to be trying to shut down research which may show results that they don't want.
I started my quest from looking at energy sustainability and progressed to climate change and still have a pretty open mind on it. It is so complex but I can't help but feel it is being made even more complex by the closing down of those who may have differing opinions to the IPCC.
Things like
Impact of water vapour
Use of data which isn't as objective as would be expected from scientists
Meddling with raw data (such as closing down weather stations that show results contrary to those wanted).
Reliance on computer models, a necessity I know but limitations aren't always made clear or are hidden away in weasel words.
Politicisation of the whole process.
10-02-2016 19:34
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Whats to gain by not looking at the data and deciding whther or not it fits what the prediction is? Clearly it does not fit at the moment in atmospheric temperaturre terms. If the energy input / output and increased re-radiated energy follows the rules as described then the net enrgy gain should be evident, if that energy is represented as heat! if its not then what could the increased energy be manifested as?
10-02-2016 19:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Gogsy wrote:
The more I look into things the more uncomfortable I am becoming with the whole climate change debate. I have read IPCC and NIPCC reports and many individual articles and papers and my concern is the establishment (read funding bodies) seems to be trying to shut down research which may show results that they don't want.
I started my quest from looking at energy sustainability and progressed to climate change and still have a pretty open mind on it. It is so complex but I can't help but feel it is being made even more complex by the closing down of those who may have differing opinions to the IPCC.
Things like
Impact of water vapour
Use of data which isn't as objective as would be expected from scientists
Meddling with raw data (such as closing down weather stations that show results contrary to those wanted).
Reliance on computer models, a necessity I know but limitations aren't always made clear or are hidden away in weasel words.
Politicisation of the whole process.

Could you give some specific examples of instances where you feel the above apply? Which research do you think the establishment is trying to shut down?
Edited on 10-02-2016 19:40
10-02-2016 19:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Gogsy wrote:
The more I look into things the more uncomfortable I am becoming with the whole climate change debate. I have read IPCC and NIPCC reports and many individual articles and papers and my concern is the establishment (read funding bodies) seems to be trying to shut down research which may show results that they don't want.
I started my quest from looking at energy sustainability and progressed to climate change and still have a pretty open mind on it. It is so complex but I can't help but feel it is being made even more complex by the closing down of those who may have differing opinions to the IPCC.
Things like
Impact of water vapour
Use of data which isn't as objective as would be expected from scientists
Meddling with raw data (such as closing down weather stations that show results contrary to those wanted).
Reliance on computer models, a necessity I know but limitations aren't always made clear or are hidden away in weasel words.
Politicisation of the whole process.

You are absolutely right to feel this way.

In fact, if you continue to research the topic then you are going to feel very angry, even resentful, when you realize the issue is not complex at all, as you have been led to believe. You will not be appreciative of the fact that everything you were told was intentionally convoluted so as to confuse you. You will realize that the whole thing was just a high-pressure sales pitch. You will realize that naturally the data was fudged and fabricated...by the salesmen.

I'll simplify all of Global Warming for you.

1) "greenhouse gas" causes "greenhouse effect" which increases temperature.

2) This cannot happen except through a violation of physics.


I'll summarize "Climate" change for you.

1) "Climate Change" is intended to mean "Any Change Whatsoever...and any Event Whatsoever."
- 1a) Everything is a result of "Climate Change."
- 1b) "Climate" is the omnipotent deity of the religion

2) "Climate" is not defined in any falsifiable model in the body of science.
- 2a) "Climate" is a word in the language referring informally to conditions in a local area, ergo there is no such thing as a "global climate."
- 2b) There is no such thing as a "global climate system" either.
- 2c) Since there is no "global climate"...it cannot very well change now can it?

3) "Climate" is claimed to be "average weather over time."
- 3a) All weather occurs over time.
- 3b) What is "averaged weather" anyway?
-- 3b1) We know what the weather has been over the previous two years around the globe. What would be an example of all that two-years of global weather "averaged"?


.


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
10-02-2016 20:07
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Surface Detail wrote:
Could you give some specific examples of instances where you feel the above apply? Which research do you think the establishment is trying to shut down?


I'll try to compile some points which made me feel this way but it'll take some time as its been over a few months. I'll respond asap but will be a mixture of press and articles.
10-02-2016 20:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Gogsy wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Could you give some specific examples of instances where you feel the above apply? Which research do you think the establishment is trying to shut down?


I'll try to compile some points which made me feel this way but it'll take some time as its been over a few months. I'll respond asap but will be a mixture of press and articles.

Just a couple will do for now.
10-02-2016 22:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
MK001 wrote: Exactly! but if the energy input remains the same but more is now absorbed and re-radiated in all directions (and hence more back to earth than before), because there is more of the magic gas, surely you will end up with a net gain?

What else could happen?

That's silly, ...with all due respect.

1) If the energy input is constant, and we adhere to the 1st LoT, then it doesn't matter how often energy changes form, none is ever created. It doesn't matter the number of slices into which you cut a pie, nor how many plates on which you serve it, you are not going to realize a net gain of pie.

2) Planck's Law shows us the relationship between temperature and thermal radiation. Temperature is the cause/driver/independent variable while thermal radiation is the effect/result/dependent variable. Temperature drives thermal radiation, not the other way around. If temperature increases then thermal radiation increases. Any assertion that some magical force somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation thus driving a temperature increase is flat out absurd. People like Surface Detail who have sold their souls and their identity to the Global Warming religion refuse to accept Planck's Law or any science that pops their religion bubble.

Note: Ask Surface Detail directly if he believes earth's temperature increases while its radiance simultaneously decreases. His religious dogma requires him to proudly state "yes!" (which he will) while implicitly denying Planck's Law in the process. If you ask him how he justifies his belief his answer will be that I am a troll.


.


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
10-02-2016 23:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: CO2 effectively acted as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying the initial small changes in temperature.

Aaah, more of that good old-time "feedback loop" religion. This one "amplifies" temperature changes...without changing the amount of energy, correct?

The science denial is overwhelming.


.

Exactly! but if the energy input remains the same but more is now absorbed and re-radiated in all directions (and hence more back to earth than before), because there is more of the magic gas, surely you will end up with a net gain?

What else could happen?

Indeed. What else could happen. This diagram shows the current situation:



Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases has slightly increased the amount of thermal back radiation (342 W/m2) at the expense of thermal outgoing radiation (239 W/m2). This means that more energy is now being absorbed by the surface than it is emitting, and so its temperature is rising.

As the surface temperature rises, it will emit more thermal radiation (currently 398 W/m2) until the outgoing radiation again equals the incoming radiation. The surface temperature will then be stable again.
11-02-2016 09:42
Gogsy
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Surface Detail wrote:
Just a couple will do for now.

OK here are a few areas

The water vapour issue has been known for some time but has not really been made known to the general public, who just hear that CO2 is the responsible agent.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

On the use of the hockey stick graph published in Nature (which still seems to be referenced) it appears that the data and the model are very poor but somehow got through peer reviews. The folks at Nature refused to publish the article by those who found the fault as it wasn't important, which I find astonishing.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

On the effect of those disputing some of the IPCC claims, not disagreeing with the idea of global warming just the extent, it appears their careers can be affected severely, which really concerns me more than most other things. How can Science work if alternative views are shut down?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

I know these are just from the press but there are some references to papers that have been produced and I've tried to show some of the things making me a bit concerned.
Personally I do believe in warming but am far from sure about the extent and predictions.
11-02-2016 11:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Gogsy wrote:
The water vapour issue has been known for some time but has not really been made known to the general public, who just hear that CO2 is the responsible agent.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

I don't have time right now to address all your issues, but I can say a few quick words about this one.

Firstly, I'd dispute the claim that the general public doesn't know that water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. Looking at Wikipedia, for example (the public's main source of knowledge these days), we see under "Greenhouse Gas" the introduction:

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Secondly, Dr. Ball is being disingenuous in his suggestion that water vapour has been left out of the chart of forcing variables as some act of deliberate omission. Water vapour has been left out of the chart of forcing variables because it is not a forcing variable. The amount of water vapour in the air is a function of temperature and changes on a time scale of hours. Because of this, it has the effect of amplifying changes in temperature arising from changes in the concentrations of other GHGs rather than being a cause of temperature change. Water vapour is therefore not a responsible agent.
11-02-2016 11:33
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:The problem is, burning fossil fuels produces H2O which form more clouds and that causes a cooling effect.
Rubbish, mankind produces an inconsequential amount of H2O, approximately 0.001%, leaving Nature to supply 999.9%.

And don't forget that includes evaporation from irrigation, etc.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Edited on 11-02-2016 11:37
11-02-2016 18:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Surface Detail wrote:
CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record. It's thought that cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit caused small changes in the Earth's temperature, which then caused changes in the CO2 concentration, which then further changed the temperature, and so on. CO2 effectively acted as a positive feedback mechanism, amplifying the initial small changes in temperature.

Just to clarify: That 800 year figure came from the Caillon et al 2003 paper:

Caillon, Nicolas, et al. "Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III." Science 299.5613 (2003): 1728-1731.

You can find a full text copy here:

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

The paper has been totally misrepresented by science contrarians and fake 'skeptics' who run around claiming that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years and then go on to claim that CO2 always lags temperature therefore CO2 can't be cause of warming, therefore humans can't be causing the warming. Which is not only wrong, but illogical. It both leads and lags warming.

Even the paper they cherry-picked the 800 year figure from explains that.

eg right in the first paragraph:

"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

There have been a number of studies since then using a much wider range of proxies which show a 'see-saw' effect between the hemispheres/oceans.

Prof Richard Alley presents an overview of the role of CO2 in earth's climate history in this 2015 lecture from the National Academy of Sciences Symposium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg


11-02-2016 20:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote: Even the paper they cherry-picked the 800 year figure from explains that.

Is there anything wrong with cherry-picking? It's the basis for the scientific method. What is it about science that leaves a bad taste in your mouth? The fact that it runs counter to your faith?

Ceist wrote: There have been a number of studies since then using a much wider range of proxies which show a 'see-saw' effect between the hemispheres/oceans.

...but no falsifiable models have thus far been produced that have withstood the scientific method, right? Essentially those "studies" could say anything and they would still be "studies" and not falsifiable science models, right?

Ceist wrote: Prof Richard Alley presents an overview of the role of CO2 in earth's climate history in this 2015 lecture from the National Academy of Sciences Symposium:

Would you mind extracting Prof Alley's working definition of earth's "climate" from that 2015 lecture and posting it here in this thread? I can't seem to find it.


.


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 CO2 the Magic Gas!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact