|
CO2
Feb 10, 2011 17:14:59 GMT 1
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 17:14:59 GMT 1
Actually, the effects of CO2 are pretty well known. It's true that the effect of clouds may not be fully understood yet - but hey, no climate scientist ever said the science is settled (they leave that sort of guff to the politicians) Try reading scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/ for some very useful basics. CO2 and its effect on climateThe index page has: CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part One – introduces several very important concepts in climate. Blackbody radiation and how we can differentiate between energy from the sun and from the earth. What temperature the earth would be without any gases that absorb longwave radiation. And how we can separate out the effects of the different gases. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Two -looked at why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation, and what factors affect the relative importance of water vapor, CO2 and methane. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three -introduced the Beer Lambert model of absorption. along with the very important concept of re-emission of radiation as the atmosphere warms up. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four – explained band models and showed how transmittance (the opposite of absorptance) of CO2 changes as the amount of CO2 increases under “weak” and “strong” conditions. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five – two results from solving the 1-d equations – and how CO2 compares to water vapor. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six – Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation look like at the earth’s surface. Is this the “greenhouse” effect? CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the values of “radiative forcing” from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2. What “radiative forcing” actually is. And where that log relationship comes from that the IPCC quotes. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation – explaining “saturation” in more detail CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems” or responses to the theory and evidence presented The Hoover Incident – what the earth’s climate might be like if all of the gases like CO2 and water vapor were “hoovered up” so that the atmosphere didn’t absorb or emit any radiation CO2 Lags Temperature in the Ice-Core Record. Doesn’t that prove the IPCC wrong? – a quick summary of a commonly misunderstood subject, especially as it had an important role in the John Coleman report. It's really quite enlightening if you start at Part 1 and work your way through.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 10, 2011 18:33:21 GMT 1
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 18:33:21 GMT 1
Just for clarity, the above post was in response to Marchesarosa's point of "The precise effect of atmospheric CO2 is not known" and was originally part of the thread called U.N. Food Agency Issues Warning on China Droug[ht] in the Environment section of the board but if Joanna thinks it is better positioned here then that is fine by me.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 10, 2011 20:45:45 GMT 1
Post by principled on Feb 10, 2011 20:45:45 GMT 1
But that is the whole point. I've been reading a book called Global Warming and all that B.....s". It's about debunking myths from AGW through food to Transport Policy, so it's pretty wide ranging. According to the book, at least 50% (maximum 93%) of the warming of the planet can be attributed to clouds. The problem is that the amount of water vapour varies continuously and so precise calculations are difficult.
So let's face it, any model where at least 50% (or up to 93%) of a "contributory factor" cannot be incorporated is a pretty bad model on which to make policy decisions about anything, don't you think? P
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 10, 2011 22:54:28 GMT 1
Post by louise on Feb 10, 2011 22:54:28 GMT 1
Principled - yes water vapour is a greenhouse gas, I don't think anybody ever said it wasn't, and greenhouse gases keep our planet warm. I think the difficulty is that CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and that we are putting more of this into the atmosphere all the time. It would be a very strange set of affairs if this DIDN'T lead to additional warming. There would have to be a re-examining of what we know of physics.
Clouds on the other hand may have both a positive and negative feedback effect (greenhouse gas vs albedo) and the relative strengths of these two effects may vary with cloud type.
Bottom line is we have the global temperature that we have now because existing greenhouse gases such as water vapour keep us nice and warm. If we add to those greenhouse gases (H2O, CO2, methane), the physics says we'll get warmer.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 11, 2011 9:59:27 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 11, 2011 9:59:27 GMT 1
Louise
But the physics also says that the actual temperature rise will be far smaller that the input change would indicate.
And you really must define what you mean by the 'we'.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 11, 2011 15:24:41 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 11, 2011 15:24:41 GMT 1
tallbloke, on Judith Curry's blog, Climate Etc says: "The match I have found between specific humidity near the tropopause and solar activity levels leads me to believe the water vapour feedback has a lot more to do with the sun than co2. tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png?w=614Since water vapour causes most of the greenhouse effect, I’m not too concerned about trace gas concentration changes. Water vapour concentration changes are the controlling influence on Earth’s internal energy balance, and it looks like solar activity levels are the controlling influence on water vapour concentration changes. Given the deep dive in solar activity levels, it’s not surprising to me that plenty of rain has been falling over the last two years... "
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 20:44:51 GMT 1
Post by Joanne Byers on Feb 12, 2011 20:44:51 GMT 1
Trying to carry out a little consolidation of similar threads. Marchesarosa's thread from 1st Feb. on Environment. Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path by Craig Sherwood Idso(another pair of "deniers" - aka quite renowned climate scientists!) This week we announce the release of our newest major report, Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path. Based on the voluminous periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has come to be viewed as a monumental danger — not only to human society, but to the world of nature as well. But are the horrific “doomsday scenarios” promulgated by the climate alarmists as set-in-stone as the public is led to believe? Do we really know all of the complex and interacting processes that should be included in the models upon which these scenarios are based? And can we properly reduce those processes into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future? At present, the only way to properly answer these questions is to compare climate model projections with real-world observations. Theory is one thing, but empirical reality is quite another. The former may or may not be correct, but the latter is always right. As such, the only truly objective method to evaluate climate model projections is by comparing them with real-world data. In what follows, we conduct just such an appraisal, comparing against real-world observations ten of the more ominous model-based predictions of what will occur in response to continued business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions: (1) unprecedented warming of the planet, (2) more frequent and severe floods and droughts, (3) more numerous and stronger hurricanes, (4) dangerous sea level rise, (5) more frequent and severe storms, (6) increased human mortality, (7) widespread plant and animal extinctions, (8) declining vegetative productivity, (9) deadly coral bleaching, and (10) a decimation of the planet’s marine life due to ocean acidification. And in conjunction with these analyses, we proffer our view of what the future may hold with respect to the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, concluding by providing an assessment of what we feel should be done about the situation. Click on the links below to read the report. www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/execsum.php
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 21:39:48 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 21:39:48 GMT 1
I'd recommend the article to Louise, Helen, Eammon.
Their comments on it would be really interesting.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 21:54:02 GMT 1
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 12, 2011 21:54:02 GMT 1
Nonsense. The warming effect of CO2 was known in the 19th century, based on simple physics. Predicting the effect on extreme weather events is far more complicated. How do you calculate the effect on (6)human mortality, pray tell?
Does anyone seriously believe that the latter is easier to calculate than the former?
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 22:04:42 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 22:04:42 GMT 1
Eammon,
You do it by predicting an increase in extreme weather events given the increase in global air temperature since C19th. And then you need to check your prediction for a period, against the 'actual' for the same period.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 22:16:56 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 12, 2011 22:16:56 GMT 1
I don't think they like reading plain text with no pictures, sim. They'll go to one of their pet ad hominem resource crib sheets, dig up some imagined dirt and try to tarnish the Idsos reputations without ever reading their scholarly review of the climate research literature.
OR they'll just call the Idsos "deniers", fullstop.
They are "deniers" of course, "deniers" of the validity of climate alarmism - just like you and me.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 22:21:46 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 12, 2011 22:21:46 GMT 1
These warmists are far more beguiled by dubious science fiction-style prediction of the future than with actually looking at the known and often recorded history of the planet's climate - that's just not scary enough because history shows that current weather is no more extreme than it ever was in the past.
The weather may be more "threatening" to mankind of course, but that's only because the wealth and population of the planet has grown so rapidly over the last century.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 22:25:25 GMT 1
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 12, 2011 22:25:25 GMT 1
Eammon, You do it by predicting an increase in extreme weather events given the increase in global air temperature since C19th. How? If it is easier than calculating the average temperature increase then it shouldn't be too hard to tell us how it is done.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 22:37:22 GMT 1
Post by eamonnshute on Feb 12, 2011 22:37:22 GMT 1
These warmists are far more beguiled by dubious science fiction-style prediction of the future than with actually looking at the known and often recorded history of the planet's climate - that's just not scary enough because history shows that current weather is no more extreme than it ever was in the past. The weather may be more "threatening" to mankind of course, but that's only because the wealth and population of the planet has grown so rapidly over the last century. These predictions have actually been proved correct, so they are not dubious, they must be faced. Remember that the warming to-date is only a fraction of the expected warming, which could give us a climate that humans have never had to cope with. That will be a problem regardless of how many people there are or how much money they have.
|
|
|
CO2
Feb 12, 2011 23:06:35 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 23:06:35 GMT 1
Eammon,
... In which case we are all in the shit, and there is nothing we can do about the CO2 warming that is in the pipeline from the past naughtinesses of our ancestors ...
So maybe we should accept our foredoomed fate with some grace. I'm not about to curse my or your ancestors for my plight .. which I would remind you is the gift of life which must end in death ...
Are you?
|
|