The President's Commision on Global Warming | Page 8 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Is the composition of the atmosphere the main factor that determines average global temperatures?
Your claim. Let's go with it. Knowing that CO2 has changed from (roughly) 0.0310% to 0.0387% (a change of 0.007%) since 1960, do you think it's having an effect of our weather?



This post was edited on 2/12 at 9:06 pm


Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


Given the chart NC_Tigah posted, why would you ever...
quote:

Assum[e] CO2 concentration would remain relatively stable without humans contributing,






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You claimed that radiation from the atmosphere was equal in all directions.

I said radiation from an individual molecule is equal in all directions. Most of that goes into space, some goes back towards the earth. That was my only intended claim in that regard.
quote:

Your second misconception is assuming that "equilibirum" means static and stable. It means neither.

My use of the term equilibrium was in the context of heat input from the sun is in equilibrium with the radiation output from the earth. You agree that with no atmosphere, earth would be much colder. Since there is an atmosphere that apparently limits the flow of radiation from earth to space, earth must heat up in order to radiate more energy to balance that energy budget.
quote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Gases in the atmosphere ARE NOT A SOURCE OF HEAT. PERIOD.

You keep saying this, so let me be more clear. I do not think that gases in the atmosphere are a source of heat. Rather, they cause the surface of earth to be warmer than it would with no atmosphere.

Throughout this whole sidetracked conversation, my only point is that the atmosphere, and what it is composed of, essentially determine the temperature of the surface of earth. IF we contribute as much to ONE of those gases as much as it appears we do, how can you say what the effects should be?






Back to top
CptBengal
USA Fan
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
40911 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I do not think that gases in the atmosphere are a source of heat. Rather, they cause the surface of earth to be warmer than it would with no atmosphere.


warmer when? ill direct you to look at temperatures on the moon during the day and at night.

the atmosphere is a buffer between the surface area of two spheres.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

You agree that with no atmosphere, earth would be much colder.
No. It would be hotter during the day, and colder at night. Just like the moon. LINK It still doesn't quantify anything about the relative effect of CO2.

quote:

You keep saying this, so let me be more clear. I do not think that gases in the atmosphere are a source of heat. Rather, they cause the surface of earth to be warmer than it would with no atmosphere.
I can prove water is wet and women lie. Does that mean AGW is true?

quote:

my only point is that the atmosphere, and what it is composed of, essentially determine the temperature of the surface of earth.
I don't even know where to start with this. A generic control volume on an elemental grid of the atmosphere will contain atleast 30 variables. Per face. Distilling the source of all climatic changes down to a single variable is a simpleton's fallacy. Otherwise, we could simulate the entire climate with one dependent variable. Do you think that's realistic?



This post was edited on 2/12 at 9:37 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I understand that your main argument is that the correlation between historic temperatures and CO2 does not imply causation,

Has a change in CO2 ever happened without a corresponding change in temperature?
You keep asking that. Why?

Some studies claim little correlation . . .

Do you believe them?
quote:

IF we are unnaturally raising CO2, how can you say with certainty that the temperature won't continue to rise with it?
Because were CO2 a major greenhouse gas, we would not be here. Simple as that.
If CO2 was a major greenhouse gas, as the oceans warmed releasing more and more CO2, there would be no off switch.

That's why.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Your claim. Let's go with it. Knowing that CO2 has changed from (roughly) 0.0310% to 0.0387% (a change of 0.007%) since 1960, do you think it's having an effect of our weather?

I'm not sure about your math (it looks like a 25% increase to me), and I'm not sure of the effect on weather, but it seems possible. If instead of weather we think about climate, then I think it's very likely.

Here are my assumptions, tear them apart as you will. I'm pretty exhausted with all this.

1. I take it as a given that humans are the main cause of the current rise of CO2. The estimations of natural output, human output, and natural consumption align very well with the rate of increase we measure. Couple this with the fact that it appears (sorry, I have to go with proxy records, flawed as they may be) that the CO2 increase we see today is happening almost 10 times faster than it has in warming periods before human intervention, and it looks like pretty solid evidence that we are the cause of increased CO2.

2. As far as I know, we have no proxy records of a substantial rise in either temperature or CO2 without a rise in the other. There is (obviously?) a correlation, but causation is subject to debate. (Or not, according to you guys). It seems possible to me that they feed one another. If our current warming trend is natural, why risk exacerbating the problem by adding to an apparent feedback mechanism?






Back to top
CptBengal
USA Fan
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
40911 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

me), and I'm not sure of the effect on weather, but it seems possible. If instead of weather we think about climate, then I think it's very likely.


so you dont think it would have effect on an alread volatile system...but it would on the significantly more stable long term climate?

lol.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I take it as a given that humans are the main cause of the current rise of CO2



quote:

I take it as a given that humans are the main cause of the current rise of CO2








Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I'm not sure about your math (it looks like a 25% increase to me)
I was hoping you'd learn some thermo. Looks like you need to start with math.

quote:

but it seems possible
based upon what?

quote:

Here are my assumptions
Assumptions are not knowledge.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Some studies claim little correlation . . .

Do you believe them?

From a single region? I know it's simple to find conflicting information. Haven't very simple experiments shown that a vessel containing co2 gets warmer than a vessel containing normal air? Isn't the only question what concentration is required to have that effect on a large scale, long term climate?

quote:

Because were CO2 a major greenhouse gas, we would not be here. Simple as that.
If CO2 was a major greenhouse gas, as the oceans warmed releasing more and more CO2, there would be no off switch.

That's why.

No amount of increased vegetation that would result could be that off switch? Is it not at all possible that if temperature and CO2 rose slowly, that plants could grow faster and spread and eventually catch up to compensate for it and absorb the excess CO2? No chance at all?

What is the off switch for the effects of water vapor? Or for whatever you think is the root cause of natural warming trends? Is it just that climate is always in flux, and it sort of oscillates about an extremely long term temperature trend? If so, how can we modify ANY of the potential variables in this giant equation WITHOUT having some effect?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

NC_Tigah

Instead of shaking your head, show me where the math is wrong in my post pertaining to that chart.






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

I was hoping you'd learn some thermo. Looks like you need to start with math

quote:

Knowing that CO2 has changed from (roughly) 0.0310% to 0.0387% (a change of 0.007%)

0.0310% is 310 parts per million, right? How is going from 310 to 387ppm a 0.007% increase?






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


By the way, yes I see your math, I just don't see how it's meaningful. It intentionally obscures the magnitude of the increase.





Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

It intentionally obscures the magnitude of the increase.
No. It doesn't. Your's does. however. I'm comparing the fraction of air to CO2 at Time 1 to the fraction of air to CO2 at Time 2.

I mean using your method, a change from 1ppm to 2ppm is a 100% increase. WOW! THAT SOUNDS LIKE SUCH A HUGE CHANGE. But the fraction of the total is still insignificant in both cases. Which would be obvious by comparing them to a like base.




This post was edited on 2/12 at 11:08 pm


Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


Fine, let's talk about actual amounts. Let's say that we are adding 2 billion tons of CO2 to the air each year, which I believe is a very conservative estimate. That is about 4 grams per square meter. Replace that with fine particulate.. Would that not have an effect on the amount of light that reaches the surface? How about 100 years worth, 400 grams per square meter? Can you calculate this? How much difference would there be if the particulate were in a thin layer vs spread 100km vertically? Seriously, can you calculate this and give me an idea of the significance?





Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
54267 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

show me where the math is wrong in my post pertaining to that chart.
3.27% =/= 39.6% . . . . even with new math.






Back to top
Taxing Authority
LSU Fan
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
23359 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Fine, let's talk about actual amounts. Let's say that we are adding 2 billion tons of CO2 to the air each year, which I believe is a very conservative estimate.
Doesn't make it significant.

quote:

That is about 4 grams per square meter. Replace that with fine particulate.. Would that not have an effect on the amount of light that reaches the surface? How about 100 years worth, 400 grams per square meter?
But CO2 isn't a fine particulate. You're felching around for a point that isn't coming.

BTW, AGW theory is that CO2 is heated not by solar energy coming into the atmosphere, but solar energy radiated from the earth surface.

quote:

Can you calculate this?
Not from what you've given. One would need to know what the "fine particulate" was, its irradiance, it's albedo, its IR transmissivity, heat capacity, density, and then make assininely ignorant assumptions like it's evenly distributed, doesn't respond to gravity, has no second-order transient effects, and other stupid oversimplifications that when considered would render any "calculation" useless for skillfully simulating reality with any degree of artful fidelity.

IOW, it would be just like any other climate "model".






Back to top
Korkstand
LSU Fan
Plaquemine, LA
Member since Nov 2003
10272 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

3.27% =/= 39.6%

Huh?

There is a natural cycle of CO2 release and absorption, right? Typically, the amount released is roughly equal to the amount absorbed, in order to maintain a somewhat stable concentration in the atmosphere, right? Are you seriously arguing that increasing the amount released by 3% won't rapidly increase the amount that remains in the atmosphere?

Imagine 100 cars are waiting in line at a crossing guard who lets 1 car per minute pass. All day, 1 additional car per minute arrives at the back of the line. At the end of the day, there are still 100 cars in line.

The next day, 100 cars are again in line to start the day, and the crossing guard still lets only 1 car pass per minute. This day, though, instead of 100 new cars at the rear in 100 minutes, 103 cars arrive. At the end of a 10 hour day (600 minutes), there will be 118 cars waiting in line. With no adjustment by the crossing guard, a 3% increase results in a 36% increase in queue length in just 2 days.

Surely I have wasted my time typing that, because it is such a simple concept that even I can understand it. So why, then, do disregard the effect of raising CO2 output by only 3%?






Back to top
CptBengal
USA Fan
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
40911 posts

re: The President's Commision on Global Warming


quote:

Let's say that we are adding 2 billion tons of CO2 to the air each year, which I believe is a very conservative estimate.


do you have actual data...or is this another one of your "beliefs", acolyte?






Back to top


Back to top