Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monte_RCMS said:
The Wisconsin glacier that covered a huge amount of the United States and North America, melted 10,000 years ago. There was no human involvement.
Click to expand...
It’s false to assume there can be only one cause for an event.

As mentioned above there are many factors that impact climate – the sun (short solar irradiation cycles and long term solar warming), earth’s orbit, earth’s wobble, natural short term fluctuations (el nino, arctic oscillations, etc), and greenhouse gases. Re the latter, these could be emitted by nature – like the extreme Siberian trap volcanic activity that is thought to have started the end-Permian great warming hysteresis; or as feedbacks as when warming melts permafrost & ocean hydrates, releasing methane, which causes further warming and further melting, etc; or when the warming melts ice and snow, revealing darker land and ocean, which absorb more heat and cause more melting, causing more heat, etc. – or they could be emitted by humans as they burn coal and oil, etc.

The earth systems were probably about at a plateau of interglacial warming during the Holocene (past 12,000 years), and it seems likely to assume that within some 1000s of years we may have been headed slowly slowly toward another ice age. That has now been canceled by the warming we have caused by our GHG emissions, which will very likely push the earth systems into various positive feedback spirals of increased warming. Already methane is being emitted from permafrost and hydrates, and the reduced albedo (whiteness) from diminishing ice & snow cover is contributing to further warming.

It’s sort of like we are jabbing a sleeping dragon that will wake up and really do damage.

I say let sleeping dragons sleep. Why rush forward with profligate, wasteful, inefficient, economically and life harmful lifestyles, when we could live better and reduce this threat of climate change. It just doen’t make moral or economic sense or cents.
 
lynnvinc said:
1880-2009:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...-records/HADCRUT3_1880-2009.png/image_preview

On this last graph, eyeball the 1880 through 1940s temps and guesstimate an average horizontal line for that period and draw it out to the end. See how many of the temps after the 1940s are above that line, even the relative cooler 2008 temp.

There are high odds that something is driving the climate to become warmer – it is very unlikely temps in the recent decades are just natural fluctuations.
Click to expand...
What are your error bars?

What does Mr Hansen and Mr Reto say about the error bars? It took FOIA requests to get it ]
He [McCyntire] concentrates on the US time series which (US covering less than 2% of the world) is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point.
Click to expand...
The US has the most complete coverage and the most accurate sensors out there, and it is too noisy to make any historic conclusions from?
“In response to a freedom of information request, NASA’s GISS was required to produce a series of emails, which in turn revealed that (a) NASA admits the current warm period is not historically different from the period around 1921-1950, and (b) that there has been no sign of global warming in North America or the US.
Click to expand...
Page 36
judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf

“In fact, NASA GISS is on record noting that the ten warmest years are spread throughout the last century and are all statistically tied for warmest year. Because of the margin of error in global indexes, there is no way to determine which of the following years are warmer than the others.

“For the earlier period these are the warmest years in the top ten: 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939 – 5 all told. For the latter it is: 1990, 1998, 1999, 2006 – which is 4. And then there is the outlier 1953. These all have a temperature index that is statistically the same – and it proves there is not ‘significant’ warming, which blows the AGW theory right out of the water.”

With a standard deviation of 0.47 how do you measure a warming trend at 0.8?



How is global warming possible when it is not ‘global’?”
lynnvinc said:
There are high odds that something is driving the climate to become warmer – it is very unlikely temps in the recent decades are just natural fluctuations.
Click to expand...
ONLY if you dismiss coming out of the Little Ice Age and PDO and AMO.

IT is ONLY when we ignore these NATURAL causes…that we see the unproven hypothesis of CO2 Driving temperatures.

During the past century, global climates have consisted of two cool periods (1880-1915 and 1945 to 1977) and two warm periods (1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998). In 1977, the PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation] switched abruptly from its cool mode, where it had been since about 1945, into its warm mode and global climate shifted from cool to warm.

This rapid switch from cool to warm has become known as “The Great Pacific Climatic Shift” (Figure 1). Atmospheric CO2 showed no unusual changes across this sudden climate shift and was clearly not responsible for it. Similarly, the global warming from ~1915 to ~1945 could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2 because that time preceded the rapid rise of CO2, and when CO2 began to increase rapidly after 1945, 30 years of global cooling occurred (1945-1977).

Only one global warming period in 500 years matches rising CO2

“Only one out of all of the global warming periods in the past 500 years occurred at the same time as rising CO2 (1977–1998). About 96% of the warm periods in the past 500 years could not possibly have been caused by rise of CO2. The inescapable conclusion of this is that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

Two ocean oscillations drive climate shifts

“The PDO leads the way [in climate shifts] and its effect is later amplified by the AMO [Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation). Each time this has occurred in the past century, global temperatures have remained cool for about 30 years. Thus, the current sea surface temperatures not only explain why we have had global cooling for the past 10 years, but also assure that cool temperatures will continue for several more decades.

“The cool phase of the PDO is now entrenched and ‘global warming’ (the term used for warming from 1977 to 1998) is over.”

Te great problem with using HADCRUT or GISS…is as you can see from the post below - unnecessary / unaccountable adjustments. With HADCRUT we don’t even know what adjustments were done.

URL]
 
lynnvinc said:
NOTE: I quote the famous Ch. 10 Asia of the 4AR IPCC WGII Impacts (Cruz, et al.). Since I had given the paper as a conference presentation years ago, I read about the 2035 glacier melt date (p. 493), and greatly suspected it was wrong, bec of what I knew from climate scientists, and tracked it to a non-peer-reviewed source. So I did not include that date in my paper.
Click to expand...
There is much more to that story.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
Most climate scientists work on WGI “science” chapters, not these WGII impact chapters, so it was sometime later that a glaciologist discovered the error.
Click to expand...
No it was included …KNOWN to be false.
But even before the 2007 report was published, it now emerges, the offending claim was challenged, not least by a leading Austrian glaciologist, Dr Georg Kaser, a lead author on the 2007 report. He described Dr Hasnain’s prediction of glaciers disappearing by 2035 as “so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing”.
Click to expand...
 
On Misconceptions on Glaciers.

Glacier melt totals 3-4% of river, such as the Ganges, totals.

This:

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/himilayan_glacier.jpg

Does NOT cause



It is snow-melt and monsoons that supply drinking - irrigation water.

Temperatures aren’t causing the glaciers retreat in the Himalayas. It is soot used by INDIA and CHINA…It is Regional.
The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that the glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about Greenland’s ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers’ demise are a bit premature.
Click to expand...
According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina’s nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC’s take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”
Click to expand...
theresilientearth.com/files/images/himilayan_glacier.jpg

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5955/924
 
lynnvinc said:
It’s false to assume there can be only one cause for an event.

As mentioned above there are many factors that impact climate – the sun (short solar irradiation cycles and long term solar warming), earth’s orbit, earth’s wobble, natural short term fluctuations (el nino, arctic oscillations, etc), and greenhouse gases. Re the latter, these could be emitted by nature – like the extreme Siberian trap volcanic activity that is thought to have started the end-Permian great warming hysteresis; or as feedbacks as when warming melts permafrost & ocean hydrates, releasing methane, which causes further warming and further melting, etc; or when the warming melts ice and snow, revealing darker land and ocean, which absorb more heat and cause more melting, causing more heat, etc. – or they could be emitted by humans as they burn coal and oil, etc.
Click to expand...
Since methane hydrate decomposition is an endothermic reaction absorbing heat ] it is self-quenching. This should have been a question that was asked and answered when it was first proposed. It’s a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the AGW’ ers bring to the discussion.
 
On food / grain production it is O3 pollution…that I see as the future problem in grain yields.

It certainly isn’t CO2.

Plant producers have added CO2 to enclosed growing environments for 100 years to enhance growth. Extensive research shows the beneficial effects including a significant increase in biomass including roots, size of the plant and yields. Another benefit is a reduction in the amount of water used. As CO2 levels increase, the stomata (pores on the leaf) partially close – thus, moisture loss (transpiration) is reduced. The current atmospheric CO2 level is reportedly 380 ppm. Plant growth slows at 220 ppm and stops at 150 ppm. Most plants grow 2 to 3 times faster in 1200 to 1500 ppm, but the optimum range is 800 to 1000 ppm. This means plants are malnourished under current conditions. Reduce CO2 further and the plants suffer, but so do fauna as there is less oxygen.


nass.usda.gov/

There can be no better LAB than to be IN the fields;

Sarkar et al. suggest that we focus on “engineering crops for future high O3,” concentrating on maintaining “effective stomatal conductance of plants which can avoid O3 entry but not hamper their productivity.” We agree. But not knowing to what extent we will be successful in this endeavor, we need to do something else that we know will work; and that is to allow the air’s CO2 content to rise, unimpeded by the misguided efforts of climate alarmists who would curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the guise of fighting what they claim is anthropogenic-induced global warming. This contention is largely theoretical and wholly unproven; but we know that atmospheric CO2 enrichment nearly always acts to increase both the productivity and water use efficiency of nearly all plants, as a result of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of real-world experiments, while it often more than compensates for the negative effects of O3 pollution.

Sarkar, A., Rakwal, R., Agrawal, S.B., Shibato, J., Ogawa, Y., Yoshida, Y., Agrawal, G.K. and Agrawal, M. 2010. Investigating the impact of elevated levels of ozone on tropical wheat using integrated phenotypical, physiological, biochemical, and proteomics approaches. Journal of Proteome Research 9: 4565-4584.
 
Mr Hansen’s Model



A “Business as usual” = Solid line
B “Reduced emissions” = Bolded Broken Line
C “Drastic reductions 0 ] emissions” = faint broken line

In July 2011 The GISS July anomaly went up to 0.60C, which places it squarely on top of Mr. Hansen’s scenario C – i.e. zero emissions after the year 2000.

THIS IS THE MODEL THAT STARTED IT ALL 🙂

This may be the most accurate projection of future global temperatures I have ever seen. This says categorically that the climate is behaving as if CO2 is NOT a major factor in any way! It reflects zero effective emissions.
 
kimmielittle said:
Here are the graphs LynnV
Click to expand...
So? Seems pretty much to prove that various factors can cause the climate to get warmer and cooler, which all the climate scientists know.

In the past GHGs may have been more a feedback/forcing, than solely a forcing as they are in this current time. For instance, something else caused the initial warmings (orbit, wobble, solar activity, etc), and the warming thus caused lead nature to release GHGs, which caused further warming. This is actually something I’ve been honing in on – that our initial warming (by digging up fossil fuels and burning them) could cause nature to emit vast quantitities of GHGs trapped in ice…

Furthermore, the earlier centuries of that 1st graph (where it shows the medieval warming – which BTW only looks about 1C to 1.5C warmer), if I recall, seems to reflect only the temps in Europe (for which there were better data) and not the entire earth (which tends to look more like the famed hockey stick…or at least a wobbly snake with a upturn at the end. GW is about the average warming around the entire earth.

There is nothing wrong with “smoothing” the curve with a moving average; that’s a technique in statistics to make the data more understandable and “visible.” If you take a course in stats, the text will likely teach you how to do that.

Furthermore there was even much higher warming millions of years past (like 251 mya & 55 mya), 251 mya some 6C warmer nearly all life on earth died. So it is not unheard of to have climate “hysteresis.” That should actually be a cause of concern for us, because we would not want to now push the system into such a deadly phase with our initial warming.

I read the linked Washington Post article which appears to claim that Mann said the proxy data ended by 1980, tho it is unclear he said that and could also refer to the fact that he ended use of the proxy data after 1980 (which he did), since he had real data from thermometers. Why would one use rough proxy data, if they have better, more acurate data? However that statement was not in directly quotes and it looks like the reporter misunderstood what he said (if one were to imply that it meant there was no proxy data after 1980) – see washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-nation . (It has happened to me – reporters saying I said one thing, when I had said another…they have their own mindset and fit the facts, sometimes distorting them, into their mindsets.)

At any rate it seems the proxy tree ring data starts diverging a lot from the real temp data around that time, showing a downward trend in temps. Maybe this is due to the increasing greenhouse effect, in which the nights are warming faster than the days, which is harmful to plants (and us); while warmer day temps by themselves and up to a point tend to be beneficial to plants…which would account for the tree ring data more accurately reflecting the earlier temps when the greenhouse effect was less and warming was due to other factors – see Welch 2010 & Freeman 2011.

The way proxies work (one can read about this in some research methods and stats textbooks), is that they compare proxy data (like tree rings) to real data (like temps from thermometers) for a certain period (or place) and if there is a good match, then they use them for periods and places where the real data is lacking. The tree ring data matched the real temperature data fairly well (at least up to 1980), so they have used it to shoot back to the earlier periods before Mr. Fahrenheit was born, and for other places. BTW, there are now many other good proxies that both compare fairly well to the real temp data and among themselves, including the tree ring proxies, so Mann’s tree-ring based hockey stick is well and robustly supported (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate ). IOW we could dispense with the tree ring data and still it would show a hockey stick.

Now re the “hide the decline,” that actually refers to hiding the decline after 1980 in the tree ring proxy data, NOT in the actual temp data, and to splicing the two datasets together (the proxy and real temp datasets). I don’t see anything too wrong in that, and if it were not a topic some people hate (like some old boring science thing unrelated to people), then nothing would have been made of it.

I think the scientists are doing a great job figuring things out, using whatever they can to do so. Instead of attacking them, we should be praising them for their arduous and meticulous work.

We shouldn’t be shooting the messenger bec we don’t like the message. That’s just plain wrong. Rail against the tough situation we find ourselves in of building up the most prosperous civilization in the world, only to find its very prosperity has a downside (sort of like THE JERK where the character found out his new invention had a downside). Then after a brief dark night of the soul, let’s roll up our sleeves and start solving this problem in the best way we can with least harm to people and God’s creation, with justice and fairness, picking the low-hanging fruits of cost-effective and/or inexpensive methods first, while technology keeps coming up with low-hanging fruits.

Let’s roll.
REFERENCES
Freeman, A. 2011. “Hot Nights and High Humidity Set This Heat Wave Apart.” ClimateCentral.org, 7/20/11. climatecentral.org/blogs/hot-nights-and-high-humidity-set-this-heat-wave-apart/

Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33):14562-14567.
 
kimmielittle said:
Since methane hydrate decomposition is an endothermic reaction absorbing heat ] it is self-quenching. This should have been a question that was asked and answered when it was first proposed. It’s a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the AGW’ ers bring to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Melting ice/snow also absorbs heat/energy, but eventually the dark land & sea it reveals will absorb more heat and contribute to the warming.

RE CH4 the molecules that make it to the atmosphere will go on warming for about 10 years (23 times more warming power than CO2), after which it degrades to CO2 +, and continues to cause warming. A portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.

I’ll run your idea past some scientists to see what they say (I’m not a climate scientist). As it is, even the deniers have been using nature’s GHG emissions in this way to claim that our human emissions are nothing by comparison. Seems like the deniers want to have it both ways.
 
kimmielittle said:
Since methane hydrate decomposition is an endothermic reaction absorbing heat ] it is self-quenching. This should have been a question that was asked and answered when it was first proposed. It’s a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the AGW’ ers bring to the discussion.
Click to expand...
Here’s the answer to that from Gavin Schmidt and Jim Bouldin.

[Response: Complete nonsense. The role of methane being discussed here is as a greenhouse gas, nothing to do with the heat generated or used in chemical reactions. It is in fact a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the skeptics bring to the discussion. - gavin]

[Response:I presumed the person was arguing that the heat absorbed in the dehydration would be a negative feedback to that process, thereby preventing or slowing down CH4 release. The second sentence is the giveaway that an agenda drives the argument.–Jim]

There is, however, a recent RealClimate post here by David Archer about methane not being so bad, which should warm the hearts of denialists, and give a tiny relief sigh to GW accepters re immiment (within a couple 100 years) CH4(methane)-based runaway warming.

So, I was wrong to think the CH4 danger was as imminent or as dangerous as I thought, but right to point out how it still contributes through its degradation to atmospheric CO2, and thereby to GW.
 
kimmielittle said:
Mr Hansen’s Model

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/paintimage3119.jpg

A “Business as usual” = Solid line
B “Reduced emissions” = Bolded Broken Line
C “Drastic reductions 0 ] emissions” = faint broken line

In July 2011 The GISS July anomaly went up to 0.60C, which places it squarely on top of Mr. Hansen’s scenario C – i.e. zero emissions after the year 2000.

THIS IS THE MODEL THAT STARTED IT ALL 🙂

This may be the most accurate projection of future global temperatures I have ever seen. This says categorically that the climate is behaving as if CO2 is NOT a major factor in any way! It reflects zero effective emissions.
Click to expand...
Again like others out to give wrong representations and attack scientists (instead of attacking the problem of GW) you are giving Hansen’s 1980s high end projection, not his most likely projection re climate change (which is very close to what panned out in succeeding decades). His most likely projection is just a tad above reality, and pretty good for a projection made way back in the 1980s, when they didn’t have such good computer power or models, which nowadays include many more factors, including coupled ocean-atmospheric dynamics. The scientists are constantly tweaking their models and projections based on most recent data, theory, and technological aids. It’s not like that old 80s chart (with the most likely and low end projections purposely edited out) represents something carved in stone for all time. Science advances.

And that 80s projection was really good enough back then (even the purposely omitted most likely and low-end projections) to have warned people that this is a serious problem. But what did the people do – they increased their GHG emissions through inefficiency and profligacy. I think people were thinking, party’s over, let’s live it up as much as possible, and the devil take us and our children.

So it really doesn’t matter what the truth is, people are just not going to do the right thing, even if it means destroying their children’s future. People are so utterly selfish and even self-destructive. But we already knew that, didn’t we.

What the scientists really failed to project in their utter naivete was that simply telling people about a serious problem would fail to get people to address it. In that they were bumbling idiots.

One behavioral science study shows that confronted with a serious problem involving death and destruction people are even less likely to address it, especially those who have ego-problems. Go figure.

And BTW, I presume the blue line represents the actual global average temps – if so, then follow that horizontal line at 0 (which seems close to the average temps for the 60s & 70s) all the way through to the present. If there are more temps above that zero line than below it for the temps after the 70s, then that indicates warming, not “no change” or cooling.
 
lynnvinc said:
A portion of CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.
Click to expand...
Your knowledge of CO2 is flawed.
You keep repeating this claim - I keep asking you for your evidence.

Even the IPCC doesn’t make this, unbelievably ignorant of scientific evidence, claim.
A portion of CO2
Click to expand...
CO2 is CO2… because it is 1 part Carbon and 2 parts Oxygen - there isn’t a “portion” to it. Take the O2 away and you aren’t talking of CO2 but of Heavy Carbon - Take the Carbon C ] Away and it’s Oxygen.
CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.
Click to expand...
Physically impossible in Earths constraints!

CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere. CO2 is much heavier than Methane.
CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years.

Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years.

Why does methane CH4 ] stay in the stratosphere longer? Why does a bowling ball CO2 ] take more energy to 'lift" and stay air-born than a ping-pong ball Methane ]? Inertia vs gravity.

Earth’s Standard gravity is g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 All things in a vacuum… fall at the same rate.

Diffusion earths warmth and air currants ] is the kinetic energy inertia ] that makes CO2 rise. Otherwise it would stay as fog like dry ice CO2 ] does in a vacuum ] on the surface.

Why does simple example ] if all things fall at the same rate gravity - g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 ] do heavier objects say, in a tornado, fall sooner than lighter objects? It takes much more energy inertia ] for the heavier object to deify gravity.

Atmospheric Methane CH4 ] and CO2 share the same space, the stratosphere. Both subject to the same inertia. Inertia is blind to the object - It is the objects mass weight - surface ] that reacts to the inertia.

With CO2 the heavier, the inertia would have to be stronger directed, at about 3 times, to CO2 … than Methane, the lighter less energy needed to defy gravity ], to stay longer in the atmosphere than Methane.

Your repeated claim of: “CO2 can remain in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.” shows your lack of knowledge in science or logic IMO. Your failure to explore this ignorant claim repeated by AGW’ers shows scientific laziness IMO.
As it is, even the **deniers **have been using nature’s GHG emissions in this way to claim that our human emissions are nothing by comparison. Seems like the deniers want to have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist on being insulting? 😦

How would you respond if I called you an AGW or eco freak?
 
kimmielittle said:
Your knowledge of CO2 is flawed.
You keep repeating this claim - I keep asking you for your evidence.
Click to expand...
I thought I might have provided it. Here are some of David Archer’s articles, his post, and book on it. I didn’t just make it up; I got it from a real climate scientist who specializes in GHGs:
RE the term “Denialist,” I would use the word “skeptic” for those who simply think they do not have enough evidence re climate change or anthropogenic climate change to accept it, but would accept it, if they get enough evidence to convince them (very few of these left…mostly people who have not closely been following the science). However, there should be another term to distinguish skeptics from those who continue to deny something no matter what evidence is presented to them…and they disrespect what the scientists who are actually studying it say (choosing to impugn the scientists rather than to accept the results and conclusions of their studies), but do accept what non-climate scientists say, as long as it is a denial of climate change or ACC.

I don’t think “denialist” is a mean word – I could think of worse terms – but If you have a kinder euphemism for such people, let me know.

Now, I assume you yourself are a skeptic who has just been bamboozled by denialists, since you do ask for evidence, and I am sorry if I have called you a denialist. I wouldn’t be wasting my time here if I really thought you were a denialist.
 
kimmielittle said:
CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere. CO2 is much heavier than Methane.
CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years.

Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting point, but I’m thinking it is not the weight, but the fact that CH4 is less stable and degrades for why it stays in the atmosphere a much shorter time than CO2.

I’ll ask David Archer about this for you.
 
Even the IPCC mocks your 100,000 year claim

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11496

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11495

However deep inside the IPCC
The IPCC First 1990 Climate Change Report where, in the opening policymakers summary of the report, the RT is stated to be in the range of 50−200 years, and (largely) on the basis of that, it was also concluded in the report and from subsequent related studies that the current rising level of CO2 was due to combustion of fossil fuels, thus carrying the, now widely accepted, rider that CO2 emissions from combustion should therefore be curbed.** However, the actual data in the text of the IPCC report separately states a value of 4 years.** The differential of these two times is then clearly identified in the relevant supporting documents of the report as being, separately (1) a long-term (100 years) adjustment or response time to accommodate imbalance increases in CO2 emissions from all sources and (2)** the actual RT in the atmosphere of 4 years.**
Click to expand...
climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/
 
kimmielittle said:
Even the IPCC mocks your 100,000 year claim
Click to expand...
Whoever said the IPCC was up to snuff. It is exceedingly conservative and averse to making claims. It didn’t even guessimate the searise well, leaving out glacier and icesheet collapse mechanics and dynamics (because these are difficult to predict and quantify, tho they are certainly happening), and only considered seawater expansion from the warming. Single scientific studies are conservative in their striving to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims, which makes the IPCC (based on many such studies) conservative squared or conservative to some exponential factor.

I haven’t heard from David Archer yet, but another blogger at RealClimate, who seems to know what he’s talking about, writes about the CO2 issue:

Carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere (with a mixing time of about 2+ years between the northern and southern hemisphere). In other words, even carbon dioxide is sufficiently light that a combination of Brownian motion, turbulence and simple convection keeps it aloft and well, but not perfectly, mixed.

Furthermore, at water surfaces it quickly equalizes the partial pressures of dissolved in the water and free in the air. So while a tracked molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will eventually dissolve in watr another molecule will ‘evaporate’ to replace it.

David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” has rest of the carbonate story; its not such easy chemistry.

I hope this helps you understand it better. You can always get some books and find out more about it.

Before I read David’s RealClimate.org original post on it in 2005, I had learned that CO2 remains in the atmosphere about 100 years. So it is somewhere between 100 to 100,000 years, not 5 years. And David is only claiming that a small portion of these CO2 molecules can stay in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years.

It should be pointed out (from what I learned some time back) that about half of our CO2 emissions are reabsorbed, taken in by plants, but that this is reducing. I suppose because there’s a limit to how much plants can gluttonize on CO2, and the warming is beginning to harm plants (it only helps them up to a point, then it starts harming them, esp night temps, which are increasing faster than the day temps – as I mentioned that earlier, giving a reference); also the warming dessicates plants, leading to more wild fires, which then releases that CO2 back again.

Some CO2 is also absorbed in the ocean, making it more acidic; and it is very slowly drawn down in weathering (dashing against rocks), turning into calcium carbonate (but this is too slow a process to be of any help with our very rapid CO2 emissions). Nevertheless, there is still plenty of CO2 that stays in the atmosphere to cause the warming we see, and projected to cause much greater warming as earth systems catch up with our CO2 loading.
Back to the thread topic here. There is some idea that GW is also contributing to more frequent negative arctic oscillations (nothing scientifically established at the .05 on the null at this point, just some theorizing). What this means is that during winter the killing freezes would be coming more frequently in subtropical areas, like my place and northern Mexico, and what’s happening now in Florida, killing winter crops. It’s so hot here, we don’t grow many crops in the summer, but depend on winter crops. A couple of years ago N. Mexico lost over 1 billion in winter crops due to such a freeze. It’s already a poor country, so I’m sure that would have pushed the people further into poverty and desperation.

See:
If this is so, that would be a fine how-do-you-do. 😦

And we are not only pushing women in to prostitution (as this thread suggests), but also abortion. I read about a woman during the Pakistani flood who had an abortion due to desperation and the need to be there for her other small children, to save them.

You may not feel these things on your conscience (nearly no one does), but I feel them on mine.
 
Kimmie,

Since you say you are a kid, shouldn’t you be getting some sleep- it’s 4:30 in the morning! I mean school should be starting in like four hours.
 
kimmielittle said:
…CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere. CO2 is much heavier than Methane. CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years. Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years.
Click to expand...
David Archer’s answer:
He thinks that gases settle out of the atmosphere, so heavy ones have a shorter lifetime than light ones? That’s a new one. The five year lifetime for CO2 he quotes could be an exchange time scale, how long an individual CO2 molecule stays in the air before it moves into a plant or the ocean. But exchange fluxes don’t affect atmospheric CO2, only net uptake fluxes. David
Hope that helps.

A blogger wrote:
I see that David has given a very good straightforward answer. I want to add: Your knowledge of co2 is not flawed. It may be limited but that’s a different thing. The other party’s knowledge is flawed, or in other words the problem is what he knows that isn’t so. Is he really one oft those people who thinks co2 falls out of the sky because of it’s molecular weight?

Anyway, you might want to read:
skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=mackieOAposts

CO2 Rising by Tyler Volk
or
The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer.

Those are both short books. Archer’s is more technical.

Finally, the evidence that when the CO2 fraction is elevated, it stays elevated for a long time comes from paleo-studies of CO2 concentration. Ask your “skeptic” what takes CO2 out of the air.
Hope that also helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top