 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 570/600) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 30, 10:56 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect of CO2 within an environment similar to our atmosphere? |
|
Published on Feb 27, 2015
These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows C02 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of C02 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to C02 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity.
The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect
February 25, 2015
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.
The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.
The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
Phys(.org)
http://phys.org/news/2015-0...eenhouse-effect.htmlClick to show
Greenhouse Effect Is Witnessed…and Getting Worse
February 25, 2015
The climate-changing greenhouse effect exists and has been directly measured in the United States, a new study reports.
The results confirm what scientists had already proved through models and laboratory experiments: Pumping carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere is warming the Earth's surface.
"We're actually measuring the fact that rising carbon dioxide concentrations are leading to the greenhouse effect," said lead study author Dan Feldman, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. "This is clear observational evidence that when we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it will push the system to a warmer place."
Report continues at LiveScience:
http://www.livescience.com/...ect-measured-us.htmlClick to show
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
published in the journal Nature; March 19, 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.Click to show
Complete report is available to subscribers of the journal Nature and other "paying customers"
http://www.nature.com/natur...ull/nature14240.html[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-30-2016).]
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
MAY 03, 09:33 PM
|
|
The Science is Settled: Global Warming is a Crock
http://www.rockit.news/2015...lobal-warming-crock/
"Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs."
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 08, 06:09 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by avengador1:
The Science is Settled: Global Warming is a Crock
http://www.rockit.news/2015...lobal-warming-crock/
"Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs." |
|
It seems very true, that if China AND India do not scale down some big plans that are on their drawing boards for many additional (and large) coal-fired power plants, then anything that is attempted by the U.S. and all the other nations would be ineffectual in terms of reigning in human CO2 emissions.
It's also true that if the U.S. does not move to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the fifty states (and U.S. territories), that would give China and India the perfect "out" to ignore any more suggestions from "us" about reducing their CO2 emissions.
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect of CO2 within an environment similar to our atmosphere? |
|
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post?
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
MAY 08, 07:14 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
It seems very true, that if China AND India do not scale down some big plans that are on their drawing boards for many additional (and large) coal-fired power plants, then anything that is attempted by the U.S. and all the other nations would be ineffectual in terms of reigning in human CO2 emissions.
It's also true that if the U.S. does not move to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the fifty states (and U.S. territories), that would give China and India the perfect "out" to ignore any more suggestions from "us" about reducing their CO2 emissions.
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post? |
|
If you think China is going to do one thing towards hurting their economy, you have no idea how their government operates. They are capitalism on steroids. The government does anything and everything to promote their business and job growth. There is no "playing fair". It's all for China and the world be damned. They manipulate their currency, their court system, internet access and content, and everything else. They allow copying of any product without consequence. They do not take "suggestions" from us.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 08, 07:30 AM
|
|
They can't build more coal-fired power plants if they're no longer alive. And if they don't have H2O, they cannot keep on living.
Report Ties Coal Plants to Water Shortage in Northern China
Edward Wong; March 22, 2016 in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016...tage-greenpeace.html
"Nature Bats Last"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2016).]
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
MAY 08, 07:56 AM
|
|
You still don't get it. They will not stop. Water shortage? Then move where there is water. Die? Make more Chinese. There are 1.4 BILLION of them. What is a few hundred million less?
You know that up to 30 million deaths a year are attributed to their pollution? You think that makes a difference? The country is already top heavy with older folks due to the one child policy. If they can kill off an extra 30 million old folks with early deaths it's a win/win (for them).
I'm cynical for sure but I'm not naive.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 08, 06:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post? |
|
Carbon dioxide - PDF Page30
Carbon dioxide gas is produced in quantity in the
silage fermentation process. It is odorless, colorless,
and tasteless, and heavier than air. Carbon dioxide is
non-toxic, but displaces the air and lowers the oxygen
level potentially to the point that respiratory distress
can occur. Strong concentrations of CO2 can cause
rapid asphyxiation due to oxygen insufficiency.
.
I've asked about -
Weight of CO2?
No matter how CO2 mixes into our atmosphere, "CO2"
sinks to the lowest level. Even if air carries it up, it's own
weight brings it back down.
Concentrations of CO2?
I honestly only have a suspicion that colder dry areas
without much plant life would be higher ( but I can't find
anything to back it up) other than to say that that atmosphere
doesn't have much plant life or water.
Behavior of CO2?
in nature it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form(state)
other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us
to control temperature and pressure.
I feel that your responses have been more of a redirect than a simple
answer. I see more information from sources who simply cite their own
conclusion to data they produced.
Example:
Does CO2 cause an increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?
How should this be answered. If I have read everything correctly that you
have linked to, Yes it does. But what do you say? Does CO2 cause an
increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 08, 07:00 PM
|
|
re: jmclemore
As far as CO2 settling out of the atmosphere as a heavier-than-air gas and collecting as a denser layer of gas at ground level--not happening. That could only happen if the atmosphere were in equilibrium, and the atmosphere is never in equilibrium. There is always some external source of energy that is causing updrafts and mixing throughout the atmosphere. Solar illumination that is converted into heat energy at the surface of the earth. Wind energy related to the earth's diurnal rotation from day to night.
The satellite data that I just referenced (a few posts back) reveals CO2 in significant concentrations at the boundary between the most distant traces of atmosphere and outer space. And there are molecules of greater "weight" than CO2 that also filter upwards to the most distant parts of the atmosphere from ground level. Fluorocarbon refrigerants and spray can propellants. The molecules that were (and still are) causing "holes" in the high altitude ozone layer above the North and South polar regions.
"In nature, it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form (state) other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us to control temperature and pressure."
OK. Is there some conflict here with the way that scientists have explained how AGW "works"..? I'm not seeing your "point".
"Does CO2 cause an increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?"
That is part and parcel of how scientists explain AGW.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2016).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 08, 07:30 PM
|
|
"In nature, it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form (state) other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us to control temperature and pressure."
OK. Is there some conflict here with the way that scientists have explained how AGW "works"..? I'm not seeing your "point".
That is the BIG difference between CO2 and H2O (water, water vapor, ice). There are many more H2O molecules suspended in the atmosphere (as water vapor) than CO2 molecules. So H2O is always the most significant greenhouse gas, in terms of the magnitude of its contribution of heat energy to the total greenhouse warming effect.
But H2O is constantly settling out of the atmosphere as rain, snow, condensation (dew) and sometimes as hail. Winds push the atmosphere around, and when humid air gets pushed upwards and into cooler temperature regimes over rising terrain, or pushed over colder land and sea surface, local equilibrium causes some of the water vapor to precipitate. That is H2O that is removed from the atmosphere.
Water and water vapor are "self-regulating" because of water's propensity for phase changes between its gas, liquid and solid states. H2O doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere
CO2--does not liquefy or freeze as readily as water vapor--so, not nearly as "self-regulating" as water and water vapor. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. This is why CO2 is a "culprit" or "perpetrator" of AGW, and water and water vapor are not.
In other words, the hydrologic cycle that moves water into the atmosphere and removes water from the atmosphere works very rapidly, compared to the slow-moving cycles that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The natural CO2 cycles are not keeping pace with the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
QED..?[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 09, 01:34 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
As far as CO2 settling out of the atmosphere as a heavier-than-air gas and collecting as a denser layer of gas at ground level--not happening. That could only happen if the atmosphere were in equilibrium, and the atmosphere is never in equilibrium. There is always some external source of energy that is causing updrafts and mixing throughout the atmosphere. Solar illumination that is converted into heat energy at the surface of the earth. Wind energy related to the earth's diurnal rotation from day to night.
|
|
Then how does the co2 get from the
atmosphere into the ocean. or to any
other carbon sink for that matter.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
The satellite data that I just referenced (a few posts back) reveals CO2 in significant concentrations at the boundary between the most distant traces of atmosphere and outer space. And there are molecules of greater "weight" than CO2 that also filter upwards to the most distant parts of the atmosphere from ground level. Fluorocarbon refrigerants and spray can propellants. The molecules that were (and still are) causing "holes" in the high altitude ozone layer above the North and South polar regions.
|
|
Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2
in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2
actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
That is the BIG difference between CO2 and H2O (water, water vapor, ice). There are many more H2O molecules suspended in the atmosphere (as water vapor) than CO2 molecules. So water vapor is always the most significant greenhouse gas, in terms of the magnitude of its contribution of heat energy to the total greenhouse warming effect.
But water vapor is constantly settling out of the atmosphere as rain, snow, condensation (dew) and sometimes as hail. Winds push the atmosphere around, and when humid air gets pushed upwards over terrain, or pushed over colder land and sea surface, local equilibrium causes some of the water vapor to precipitate, so that part is removed from the atmosphere.
|
|
too bad all that precipitation can't capture
and carry all that carbon back to the ocean and soil.
So to recap,
- We have CO2 that only moves up until it gets trapped
at all levels of the atmosphere. because there is not pause
or reduction in air current that will allow CO2 to yield to gravity.
- CO2 that can produce radiative heating or cooling
through infrared radiation.
- Water doesn't capture CO2 in the air but does when it
is a lake, river or ocean.
|
|
|
|