|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 15, 2010 23:59:01 GMT
your site lags credibility, we cant rely on CO2 samples from Haiwaii.
CO2 samples took at Haiwaii are Volcano produced CO2 , the warming is probably related with increased volcanic activity.
We know for a fact that CO2 gravity dont reach Greenhouse altitude.
Greenhouse effect is not yet proven beyond reasonable doubts, all the skeptics(CO2 cultists) here cant prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 16, 2010 0:26:53 GMT
I have found an astonishing fast link between CO2 and global temperature. And it is definitely temperature driving CO2, and not the other way round. It is clear that some living organism /s must be envolved. I should like to hear what other members think about this. what-climate.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-climate.htmlYou need to think about what the graph is saying. You are plotting (comparing) GROWTH RATE and temperature. This just tells us that the increase is greater in warm years than it is in cold years. Thanks - we know that. CO2 levels are still increasing even in the cold years just not as quickly. |
|
maxi
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by maxi on May 16, 2010 17:30:13 GMT
To Goldbuster1
I don*t agree that CO2 measurements on Mauloa are affected of the volcano. This can be seen of the close relationship between CO2 and global mean temperature. It is not temperatures measured on Mauloa.
|
|
maxi
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by maxi on May 16, 2010 17:31:28 GMT
To ULC
You are right that the CO2 content is constant rising. The same is the global mean temperature. The slopes of the curves are equal. And....the negative temps. -is the result of an arbitrary chosen zero point
|
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 16, 2010 23:47:39 GMT
To Goldbuster1 I don*t agree that CO2 measurements on Mauloa are affected of the volcano. This can be seen of the close relationship between CO2 and global mean temperature. It is not temperatures measured on Mauloa. Go see on Google Earth, the lab is at 3400meters just bellow the 4000meters crater of the volcano in a old lava flow path. We still can see the lava flow marks where the samples were taken. They build it there to monitor volcanic activity. You dont agree? You must be totally naive or worst... |
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 17, 2010 11:11:26 GMT
I have found an astonishing fast link between CO2 and global temperature. And it is definitely temperature driving CO2, and not the other way round. It is clear that some living organism /s must be envolved. I should like to hear what other members think about this. what-climate.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-climate.htmlHard to tell from that Graph Maxi. Resolution too coarse but here's one that clinches it. If you understand ENSO and I'm sure you do. During ElNino years the oceans give up vast amounts of heat and during LaNina years they absorb it. This graph showing CO2 and Temp with the ElNino and LaNina years also shown makes it absolutely clear that the heat given up by the oceans warms the surface and drives the CO2. In LaNina tears the oppostie happens. This is hard to argue against.  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 17, 2010 11:21:49 GMT
I have found an astonishing fast link between CO2 and global temperature. And it is definitely temperature driving CO2, and not the other way round. It is clear that some living organism /s must be envolved. I should like to hear what other members think about this. what-climate.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-climate.htmlHard to tell from that Graph Maxi. Resolution too coarse but here's one that clinches it. If you understand ENSO and I'm sure you do. During ElNino years the oceans give up vast amounts of heat and during LaNina years they absorb it. This graph showing CO2 and Temp with the ElNino and LaNina years also shown makes it absolutely clear that the heat given up by the oceans warms the surface and drives the CO2. In LaNina tears the oppostie happens. This is hard to argue against. And to link to my comments on Sig's thread this makes it look even more that Henry's law should be considered as there is a balance of CO 2 vapor pressure and in solution in the oceans which is governed by the water temperature. The indication that this hypothesis is correct would be that if the ocean surface temperatures start to drop, then CO 2 rate of increase should reduce and eventually start to drop. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 17, 2010 12:29:58 GMT
Warmer years see a larger rise in co2 than colder years. I wonder if it's possible to derive a global temperature record just from the carbon cycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldbuster1 on May 17, 2010 13:22:55 GMT
Warmer years see a larger rise in co2 than colder years. I wonder if it's possible to derive a global temperature record just from the carbon cycle. Maybe your Volcano was more active that year, if the sources are not credible, the results share the same fate. Samples sites were closed after 1 year, others kept running for 3-4-5 years until they shown a decline and were closed. Fudged data, volcanic man-made CO2, when are you gonna let it go? |
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 17, 2010 21:47:42 GMT
And to link to my comments on Sig's thread this makes it look even more that Henry's law should be considered as there is a balance of CO 2 vapor pressure and in solution in the oceans which is governed by the water temperature. The indication that this hypothesis is correct would be that if the ocean surface temperatures start to drop, then CO 2 rate of increase should reduce and eventually start to drop. Absolutely correct. Also interesting that looking back at the graph, the mean annual CO2 level fell with temperature during the year of the Mt Pinatubo eruption, inferring that the temperature fall had a greater effect on atmospheric CO2 than the erupting Pinatubo. Which would have exceeded human CO2 contributions many times over. Maybe other variables about which I know absolutely nothing involved here too. Lag time appears to be very small for the minor pertubations in levels. Possibly outgassing from ocean surface can quickly restore vapour pressure equlibrium whereas in bigger changes CO2 from ocean depths become involved, a much slower process. |
|
maxi
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by maxi on May 18, 2010 20:49:31 GMT
Warmer years see a larger rise in co2 than colder years. I wonder if it's possible to derive a global temperature record just from the carbon cycle. It will not be possible. Firstly I don’t think that the CO2 content in the atmosphere only is governed by the temperature. Beside there is definitely different time constants. The biospheres respond quickly and the deep water content will slowly be released. |
|
|
|
Post by dogsbody on May 18, 2010 21:48:41 GMT
Warmer years see a larger rise in co2 than colder years. I wonder if it's possible to derive a global temperature record just from the carbon cycle. It will not be possible. Firstly I don’t think that the CO2 content in the atmosphere only is governed by the temperature. Beside there is definitely different time constants. The biospheres respond quickly and the deep water content will slowly be released. The only references that we have at the moment, at least as far as I know are the ice core data. WE know that the changes in atmospheric CO2 are taken up very quickly. The CO2 residence time from the mean of 35 studies is just 7 years. Not including the IPCC study (100 years) that is at variance with all the other published peer review literature. See: www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.phpThe PDF is available free online. Also see "Segalstad" An in depth study with 2 PDF's availbale online, part 1 and part 2. Too big for me to attach. I guess we have to assume that the small permutations would be ironed out even more quickly if it wasn't for such extensive deforestation' |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 18, 2010 22:33:49 GMT
co2science are confusing residence time with average lifetime of a molecule in the atmosphere. An easy mistake to make, but a very odd error for a site claiming expertize on co2 to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 19, 2010 2:41:53 GMT
co2science are confusing residence time with average lifetime of a molecule in the atmosphere. An easy mistake to make, but a very odd error for a site claiming expertize on co2 to make. Oh of course socold. Everyone is wrong except IPCC, and you. There is Solomon's 1000 year Reich nonsense too. Why was it again there is no necessity for the tropical troposphere "hot spot" despite all GCM's predicting it? Please, no barf mulch from ReinventedClimate. And why isn't the stratosphere cooling as advertised it should? Is there anything at all that is falsifiable?  |
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 19, 2010 8:23:41 GMT
co2science are confusing residence time with average lifetime of a molecule in the atmosphere. An easy mistake to make, but a very odd error for a site claiming expertize on co2 to make. Oh of course socold. Everyone is wrong except IPCC, and you. There is Solomon's 1000 year Reich nonsense too. Why was it again there is no necessity for the tropical troposphere "hot spot" despite all GCM's predicting it? Please, no barf mulch from ReinventedClimate. And why isn't the stratosphere cooling as advertised it should? Is there anything at all that is falsifiable? You need to be careful here. I'd like to know eactly what those studies say. Socold's right there is a lot of confusion about this issue. There is a big difference between the turnover time and the time taken to remove 'excess' CO2 from the atmosphere. The turnover time or average life time of a CO2 molecule is ~5 years. This is easy enough to demonstrate. The atmosphere holds about 750 GtC (gigatons of carbon). During the annual cycle ~150 GtC is removed from the atmosphere but ~150 GtC is added. It should be reasonably obvious to see that a CO2 molecule spends, on average, ~5 years in the atmosphere. This is not the same as the time taken to remove an 'impulse' of CO2 from the atmosphere. I posted details of a very rough but very simple model on this blog some time back. Peter Dietze( a sceptic) has produced a more sophisticated model which is described in a paper on the John Daly site here www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm Dietze says Multiplication of T by ln(2) yields a half-life time of about 38 years. So any CO2 impulse injected into the atmosphere will take about 38 years to be reduced to half the original valueIf I remember rightly this is about the same as I got. Basically Dietze is saying that, if we stopped emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning now, it will take ~38 years to remove 50 ppm of the 100 ppm that has been added since ~1850. The rate of decay does get slower, i.e. it is not a linear, so you cannot assume the 'excess' will be gone in 76 years for example. |
|
