*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[sigurdur]

Happy Birthday Theodore. May 2010 bring you joys unforseen.

[AstroMet]

Jan 11, 2011 1:08:50 GMT sigurdur said:

Happy Birthday Theodore. May 2010 bring you joys unforseen.

Thank you Sigurdur!

[AstroMet]

Jan 7, 2011 16:49:20 GMT icefisher said:

Jan 7, 2011 16:36:54 GMT AstroMet said:

There's a lot of that going around Icefisher. It's amazing to witness many of the people on weather boards and in climate circles claiming to be able to forecast when all they do is cite papers, and opine on about the climate as if they are able to forecast when they cannot.

We've been living in an age of numb skulls who pretend to be intelligent enough to know the difference between bullshit and the real thing, but often do not.

The weather boards are full of wannbe forecasters who love to play with their models as they chime on and on about short-term weather events while searching endlessly for their golden "product" that will catapult them into the limelight to serve already overblown egos.

But they cannot forecast.

What I find truly amazing as well is the fact that nearly all of these people love to take shortcuts - in effect, they are lazy. That is why they play with computer models.

They do not want to think, nor to work and they do not believe in excellence, so when they see others excelling, they react like the babies they are.

That is why the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced.

You got it Theodore!

A lot of posturing and bluster but when you cut through it there is no substance. Just a lot of people collecting money from the government, phoning in the science.

Its like the grants to CRU that McIntyre discovered to be nothing but simple processing of data that he was able to replicate in a few days of work.

That leaves the millions being paid to CRU to be used not to do science but to influence science.

Yes, and do so badly.

The thing is this: there are many people in meteorology and climate science who simply do not belong here. Period. They've ruined things, and continue to muck up what is basically a forecasting science designed to do just that - forecast.

This means not debating or offering their "opinions" simply because they are interested in the climate.

There are a lot of bozos in this field who cannot forecast next week's weather, much less seasonally. All they do is pine on and on about things that do not have anything to do with forecasting, which, I remind everyone, is what meteorology and climate science is all about.

Here's a good write up on this from Dr. Tim Ball:

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years.

It’s frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found, “Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle - an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change.”The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change.

This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising and caused by three major factors:

(1) A function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism.

(2) The political takeover of climate science

(3) Funding directed to prove the political rather than the scientific agenda.

(4) The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.

We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education.

Because of them, the public is ill informed, don’t understand the problem, and don�t know the questions to ask.

Correcting the education process will take time because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise.

Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and a lack of qualified replacements.

Even if achieved, success is unlikely. There is the massive problem of inadequate data.

Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, lost data by people like Phil Jones, were all done to falsify the results and prevent scrutiny of their work.

This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data.

In his autobiography Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) because 'it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.'

The situation is worse now, sadly due to people at the CRU and government weather agencies.

The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists.

Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem.

They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.

I responded to a newspaper article with a letter pointing out many errors. It elicited an invite from Andrew Weaver IPCC computer modeler.

I entered his office with my backpack and he said, “I hope you don’t have a microphone in that thing do you?” I remarked, “Someone’s paranoia is showing.”

In the next twenty minutes I realized, because of 25 years of teaching, researching and publishing, he knew very little about climate.

He received a phone call and I left his office. A student working outside said he heard my comments about the severe limitations of the computer models and and said he agreed. He simply wanted to get his degree and research money was available.

Weaver claimed to be a climatologist, but removed that from his web page when it was pointed out he was a computer modeler.

Over the years Weaver consistently refused a debate. When a students group arranged one at the University of Victoria he refused to participate with his standard line about only dealing with “working” climatologists.

His students showed up at my presentation and were talking to students outside the door, apparently attempting to deter them from entering.

When they all finally came in they tried to interrupt the proceedings by constantly asking questions. They even had laptops and challenged with Internet sites supposedly contradicting what I said.

It was shameless and not surprisingly their interpretation of events appeared on a smear blog site.

For example, I showed the Milankovitch Effect and said it was not in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models.

One student said he worked with the models and it is included. There’s no doubt it is in some climate models, but not those of the IPCC.

Weaver has announced he will not participate in the next IPCC. He, like so many who got on the bandwagon of politics and funding, is abandoning the sinking ship.

Most of his early funding was from Environment Canada until alternate arrangements were made.

He began withdrawal in January 2010, “Senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.”

He also said, “the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.”

He knew this all along, partly because I told him. The question is what has he taught his students in the meantime?

Judging by his responses to my questions and those asked by his students at my presentation, not much and very biased.

A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science.

Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title “Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years.”

Each year a specific topic was considered and scientists presented material that was published in Syllogeus.

For example, Syllogeus 5 examined Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America.

All the problems that plague climate science such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched.

In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech said, we need to consider carefully and scientifically the claims of global warming.

Environment Canada cut the funding because it challenged the political position that agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it because it was producing useful and non-political science - supposedly Weaver would now approve, but I don’t think he’s qualified to participate.

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years.

They should all read Lamb’s monumental two-volume set:

Lamb, H.H., 1972,"Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now.” Methuen, London and 1977, “Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future”.

They’d learn that all issues now put forward as ‘new’ are not new at all.

They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years.





You see, what we have here is a situation where politicos and those pretending to know something about the Earth's climate, know very very little.

Yet, why do they pretend to know?

That's a good question, because it begs another question:

Why would anyone who doesn't know how to forecast act and behave in the manner that Dr. Ball described above and think that true forecasters wouldn't notice?

Some of it comes down to sickness.

A mental illness called narcissism where people with half-baked ideas and ideology flood into an area of science thinking they know it all when it is easily observed by experts in the field that they know very little - if anything at all - about meteorology, climate science and advanced forecasting.

As a professional astronomic forecaster I know how the climate works and my forecasting over the years has proven that I can forecast advance climate and weather events.

Yet, for years, under the AGW mania, I've encountered the dumbest and rudest people imaginable who think they are in a position to tell me that I am wrong and that man is the cause of global warming, rather than the Sun.

When I correct them, the responses are so immature, so stupid and full of bravado that the explainations used to tell me otherwise is so poor and suspect that the only answer as to why this happens is that the persons are obviously mentally unbalanced.

Over the last three decades, we've witnessed ideologues and careerists, along with their minions go about forecasting a 1,000 years into the future but they cannot forecast next month's weather?

How sick is that?

Even on this pro board, we constantly have to encounter chatter about the climate and weather where those pushing AGW down the public's throats do not prove they can forecast seasonally.

Rather, they think that computer modelers - who are not forecasters - somehow have the holy grail when it comes to telling all of us that the world is forever warming.

Others go on about Co2 but will not acknowledge the mathematical facts that it lags behind temperature and is wholly driven by the Sun, which forces all climate on Earth.

The madness behind all of this proves that those playing games in this critical field of forecasting are about as dumb as the four wall they inhabit and have no place in meteorology or climate science.

The whole point of climate science is forecasting. And the whole point of forecasting is to be prepared.

We cannot control the climate and weather. We cannot "change" the climate, but we can prepare for changes - and that is the role of forecasting.

[glc]

Others go on about Co2 but will not acknowledge the mathematical facts that it lags behind temperature

Up until ~1850 it's true that CO2 was a feedback. Since then, however, the burning of fossil fuels has meant that CO2 concentrations are rising independently of temperature.

and is wholly driven by the Sun, which forces all climate on Earth.

I'll repeat the question I asked on another thread (twice).

Can you explain how the average temperature on earth is ~288K given that the earth only receives ~235 w/m2 of energy from the sun.

There, I've put it in orange to make it easier to see. I do hope you're not avoiding the question. I would hope not being as you're a proper scientist and all that.

I would also like an answer (eventually) to the question about the emission spectrum graph but let's take one thing at a time.

[boxman]

Jan 11, 2011 19:48:32 GMT glc said:

Others go on about Co2 but will not acknowledge the mathematical facts that it lags behind temperature

Up until ~1850 it's true that CO2 was a feedback. Since then, however, the burning of fossil fuels has meant that CO2 concentrations are rising independently of temperature.

I think nearly everyone agrees that there has been some increase in CO2 due to humans. The rising CO2 levels shows nothing when it comes to what controls temperatures.
The temperature and CO2 history suggest that CO2 have little to no effect on global temperatures.
Also if planet would cool significantly then CO2 levels would most likely flat out or even start dropping due to less natural release of CO2.

[AstroMet]

Jan 11, 2011 19:48:32 GMT glc said:

Others go on about Co2 but will not acknowledge the mathematical facts that it lags behind temperature

Up until ~1850 it's true that CO2 was a feedback. Since then, however, the burning of fossil fuels has meant that CO2 concentrations are rising independently of temperature.

and is wholly driven by the Sun, which forces all climate on Earth.

I'll repeat the question I asked on another thread (twice).

Can you explain how the average temperature on earth is ~288K given that the earth only receives ~235 w/m2 of energy from the sun.

There, I've put it in orange to make it easier to see. I do hope you're not avoiding the question. I would hope not being as you're a proper scientist and all that.

I would also like an answer (eventually) to the question about the emission spectrum graph but let's take one thing at a time.

Listen Glc -> I am an expert astronomic forecaster and a scientist.

If you want to ask questions, feel free to do so, but leave out your rude comments, as you're not qualified to tell me who I am.

If you want to be respected, then quit telling people who they are. I know who I am, and do not need you to tell me. Thank you very much.

As for your question: this has been answered many a time by those who know that humanity is not responsible for global warming, climate change, or other term used to blame human beings for what they are not doing.

Rather than your constant cherry-picking on the climate and lack of forecasting ability and knowledge of meteorology and climate science - it is best to put this to bed now with you as it is long past time for you to get the facts on why the Sun forces all the climate on Earth.

That is, and always has been my expert view: that all climate change on Earth is forced by the Sun. I know this because I am a scientist and a forecaster. I know what causes the Earth's climate to change and what produces its weather - and it isn't Man.

Let's crunch some numbers, as scientist Gary Novack has done:

Realistic Numbers

Claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C ***

95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C

1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C ***

8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C ***

3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C ***

5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C ***

Net temperature increase caused by humans is --- 0.0002°C

claimed global warming --- 0.6°C

IPCC Numbers

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C

59% due to various things --- 19.5°C

41% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 13.5°C

53% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 7.2°C

Sometimes 20% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 2.7°C

13.4% of absorption (7.2°C) "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.96°C

claimed global warming --- 0.6°C

These are made up numbers. They don't trace back to anything real for measurements or calculations.

Realistic Numbers Explained

Atmospheric Heat

Scientists have been saying, with no disagreement, that the atmosphere is responsible for heating the globe by 33°C.

Propagandists (promoters of supposed consensus view that humans are the cause of global warming) try to create the impression for the public that all 33 degrees is caused by "greenhouse gasses."

It's not true.

The 33°C comes from the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. There is an average of 235 W/m2 energy leaving the earth.

The Stephan-Boltzmann constant says that an object at -19°C emits 235 W/m2 black body radiation.

But the average earth surface temperature is 15°C. So the earth's surface is 15 + 19 = 34 (rounded to 33) degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.

The atmosphere supposedly keeps the earth's surface warm.

I'll use the 33°C for this criticism, but in fact greenhouse gasses add no heat to the atmosphere, because heat as radiation cools the planet by going around them, not through them.

The atmosphere does not need greenhouse gasses to absorb and hold heat.

Furthermore, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is inappropriate for the atmosphere, because it only applies to two dimensional surfaces.

Applying it to the three dimensional atmosphere is so preposterous that it shows what an arrogant mockery is being perpetrated as authoritative science.

On top of that, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is absurdly high. With a corrected Stephan-Boltzmann constant, the surface of the earth without an atmosphere would emit 235 W/m2 at a temperature of something like 50°C, not -19°C.

With an atmosphere, the surface average is 15°C. The atmosphere cools, as it should, because it is like a heat sink.

This means the atmosphere picks up energy through conduction and convection, which removes heat much faster than radiation alone. Heat sinks (usually made of aluminum) are used for this reason throughout electronics to speed cooling.

Infrared radiation is 1-5% of heat leaving the earth's surface

The atmosphere acquires heat in a variety of ways, and very little through radiation.

Here's how it works:

The atmosphere is transparent to most of the sun's radiation. This means that much of the radiant energy from the sun goes through the atmosphere without heating it, and then it is absorbed by the earth's surface, where it is converted into heat.

There are various exceptions which are not relevant to global warming from carbon dioxide. For example, water in the air absorbs some of the solar energy, and ozone absorbs a little.

The important point is that radiation from the sun is too high of a frequency to be absorbed by carbon dioxide, which only absorbs infrared radiation.

Something as hot as the sun cannot emit low frequency radiation.

Conduction & Convection

Most of the heat leaves the earth's surface through conduction, convection and evaporation (about 95-99%), while very little leaves as infrared radiation (about 1-5%).

(You might notice that promoters of the propaganda sometimes imply that heat leaves the earth's surface through radiation only and that CO2 is the only thing holding heat in the atmosphere.)

Nowadays there is a good indication that very little radiation is given of by the earth's surface or the atmosphere, and it is night vision equipment (as sometimes seen on TV). At 80°F, or 27°C, (typical temperatures) there is very little radiation picked up by night vision equipment.

I do a lot of electronic work with heat measuring and controlling devices for mushroom research, where experience shows that very little heat leaves surfaces as radiation, even at moderately hot temperatures.

I therefore estimate that 95-99% of the heat on the earth's surface enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection or evaporation, while about 1-5% gets there by radiation emitted from the earth's surface.

This means, of the 33°C which the atmosphere is said to add to the globe's temperature, about 1.65°C is due to radiation which can be absorbed by the "greenhouse gasses".

Promoters of global warming hype try to balloon infrared radiation out of proportions, sometimes claiming that it may be as much or more than the sun's energy.

That claim is incredibly absurd. Night vision equipment shows that matter at normal temperatures gives off very little infrared radiation.

The NASA web site says 41% of the energy which leaves the earth's surface is in the form of radiation, which is absurd. The IPCC probably uses the same number.

The rationalizers pick numbers with no relationship to reality. If that number is used, the breakdown is this:

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
59% due to various things --- 19.5°C
41% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 13.5°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 1.1°C

This is the maximum heat carbon dioxide can add to the atmosphere— 1.1°C.

It means that increasing the CO2 could never produce a larger total.

Even if humans are responsible for 30% of it, which is absurd, the "anthropogenic global warming" would be 0.33°C.

Also, they claim 49% of the heat gets into the atmosphere directly from the sun's energy being absorbed by such things as water vapor and ozone, which is absurd; but if true, the total would need to be reduced by another 51%.

In other words, they can't get numbers which add up even after ballooning them out of proportions.

Computer models take care of the discrepancies.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs only 8% of Radiation

When radiation is emitted from the earth's surface, it is picked up by gasses in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide has three narrow bands of absorption, and water vapor has several bands.

Measurements show that 8% of the radiation will strike carbon dioxide due to its narrow absorption bands.

The other 92% of the radiation goes around the CO2 bands and strikes the water vapor, methane or other substances in the air.

This means, of the 1.65°C that radiation heats the atmosphere, at most 0.13°C could be attributed to CO2.

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay and respiration.

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere, which is a human addition of about 1% of what is already there.

All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.

The hypothetical problem is that humans might double their production of CO2 over the next century. Doubling would mean adding 3% to whatever CO2 does.

A 3% increase in what CO2 does would mean increasing the 0.13°C by another 0.0039°C.

This is the maximum amount of heating of the atmosphere humans would do by doubling their production of CO2—0.0039°C—until taking into account the next factor.

The claim that humans caused a 30% increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is phonier than a three dollar bill.

The actual increase was due to warmer oceans releasing more; but it was less increase than claimed, because numbers for earlier times are based on ice core measurements, which are dubious and not comparable to present measurements in the air.

Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air. If not, nothing would control the amount of CO2 in the air, and there would be so much, life would be impossible. claiming that the 3% which humans add multiplies to 30%, while the 97% which nature adds does not multiply is unscientific.

Saturation Pertains to about 5% of the Absorption Peaks

Supposedly, the all-important effect occurs high in the atmosphere where the absorption peaks are not saturated.

In the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders on the peaks shrink and do not overlap with the peaks for water vapor.

The shoulders on the absorption peaks are very small—at most 5% of the absorption. This means the quantities above need to be multiplied by 5%. Then the effects of saturation result in, at most, 5% times 0.0039°C, which is 0.0002°C.

Apparently, not all climatologists are aware of this effect, where shoulder absorption is used to salvage the hype.

If not, they are ignoring the fact that more CO2 only shortens the distance without adding more heat.

There is no Mechanism

These are hard numbers which can be estimated without much error.

So propagandists need some way to explain how the heat is being produced. They claim the earth has already been heated 0.6°C by carbon dioxide, and 1-6°C more heating is expected in the future.

To salvage the global warming hype, "consensus" scientists pretend that there is an esoteric mechanism farther up in the atmosphere doing some vague thing to produce the heat. But they can't explain a mechanism.

There's no such mechanism.

After the heat enters the atmosphere, the same dynamics of distribution exist: Convectional currents stir the air for about a month, while small amounts of radiation compete with convection for moving heat around.

And then near the outer edges of the atmosphere, the energy escapes into space through radiation. Before it escapes, it doesn't matter whether the energy is in contact with CO2, water vapor or nitrogen.

These minuscule numbers show that there is no real mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming."

Got that Glc? Here: I will put it in orange for you so it will be easier for you to see:

Please, bury your AGW propaganda and cover it over so you never return to it - ever again. Back away... far, far away and return to your senses. The SUN is the reason for all climate change on Earth.

[steve]

astromet

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay and respiration.

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere, which is a human addition of about 1% of what is already there.

All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.

You do realise you've missed an absolutely massive number out of your reckoning!

Or is there a giant billion gigatonne mushroom somewhere that has been gradually decaying for the last 100 years?

[AstroMet]

Jan 11, 2011 21:44:36 GMT steve said:

astromet

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay and respiration.

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere, which is a human addition of about 1% of what is already there.

All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.

You do realise you've missed an absolutely massive number out of your reckoning!

Or is there a giant billion gigatonne mushroom somewhere that has been gradually decaying for the last 100 years?

Then why don't you enlighten all of us Steve with your "absolutely massive number?"

[socold]

Nowadays there is a good indication that very little radiation is given of by the earth's surface or the atmosphere, and it is night vision equipment (as sometimes seen on TV). At 80°F, or 27°C, (typical temperatures) there is very little radiation picked up by night vision equipment.

There's a good reason I can think for that. Heat vision cameras are designed to highlight hot objects in cooler surroundings. So that the ground doesn't glow bright green in night vision equipment is probably because bright green is reserved for object hotter than 30C. That scientists have measured the actual power output of radiation emission from the ground in units, I take as a given. Hence I buy the NASA figure.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.

So if each year they add 1% to what is already in the air, after 30 years they must have caused CO2 to increase by about 30% right?

Or another way of looking at it:

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere

So if humans are adding about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year, then over 30 years they will have added about 258 GTC. Which is about 32% of the 800 GTC in the atmosphere. So humans would have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 30% right?

So:

The claim that humans caused a 30% increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is phonier than a three dollar bill.

Huh?

[AstroMet]

Jan 11, 2011 22:32:27 GMT socold said:

Nowadays there is a good indication that very little radiation is given of by the earth's surface or the atmosphere, and it is night vision equipment (as sometimes seen on TV). At 80°F, or 27°C, (typical temperatures) there is very little radiation picked up by night vision equipment.

There's a good reason I can think for that. Heat vision cameras are designed to highlight hot objects in cooler surroundings. So that the ground doesn't glow bright green in night vision equipment is probably because bright green is reserved for object hotter than 30C. That scientists have measured the actual power output of radiation emission from the ground in units, I take as a given. Hence I buy the NASA figure.



So if each year they add 1% to what is already in the air, after 30 years they must have caused CO2 to increase by about 30% right?

Or another way of looking at it:



So if humans are adding about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year, then over 30 years they will have added about 258 GTC. Which is about 32% of the 800 GTC in the atmosphere. So humans would have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 30% right?

So:

The claim that humans caused a 30% increase in CO2 over the past 150 years is phonier than a three dollar bill.

Huh?

Try getting this: The Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth.

Also, I responded on another thread about CO2: the Earth's oceans take out any anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3. This forms as solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically.

The CaCO3 is precipitating and does not dissolve during this process, because buffering in the oceans maintains a stable pH around 8. We also know that CO2 reacts very quickly with water.

The IPCC says that it takes 50 - 200 years for this to happen.

[socold]

Jan 11, 2011 22:38:01 GMT AstroMet said:

Jan 11, 2011 22:32:27 GMT socold said:

There's a good reason I can think for that. Heat vision cameras are designed to highlight hot objects in cooler surroundings. So that the ground doesn't glow bright green in night vision equipment is probably because bright green is reserved for object hotter than 30C. That scientists have measured the actual power output of radiation emission from the ground in units, I take as a given. Hence I buy the NASA figure.



So if each year they add 1% to what is already in the air, after 30 years they must have caused CO2 to increase by about 30% right?

Or another way of looking at it:



So if humans are adding about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year, then over 30 years they will have added about 258 GTC. Which is about 32% of the 800 GTC in the atmosphere. So humans would have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 30% right?

So:



Huh?

Try getting this: The Sun is the cause of all climate change on Earth.

Also, I responded on another thread about CO2: the Earth's oceans take out any anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3. This forms as solid calcium carbonate either organically in calcareous organisms or precipitates inorganically.

The CaCO3 is precipitating and does not dissolve during this process, because buffering in the oceans maintains a stable pH around 8. We also know that CO2 reacts very quickly with water.

The IPCC says that it takes 50 - 200 years for this to happen.

You claim: "the Earth's oceans take out any anthropogenic CO2 gas by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3"

Now I am sure you aren't claiming that this process can distinguish between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2. So the oceans must be taking out any natural CO2 by quickly dissolving it as bicarbonate HCO3 as well.

In which case how do you explain CO2 rise if any CO2 added just gets dissolved in the oceans?

Your earlier figures neglected to factor in what you are claiming now.

For example you claimed: "All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere"

But you assumed this 270 GTC was a final contribution. You didn't explain how much of that was quickly absorbed by the oceans.

So how much of the 270 GTC added by respiration is removed by the oceans?

If it's all 270 GTC then of course natural hasn't added anything to the atmosphere afterall.

[steve]

Jan 11, 2011 21:56:26 GMT AstroMet said:

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay and respiration.

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere, which is a human addition of about 1% of what is already there.

All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.

Jan 11, 2011 21:44:36 GMT steve said:

astromet



You do realise you've missed an absolutely massive number out of your reckoning!

Or is there a giant billion gigatonne mushroom somewhere that has been gradually decaying for the last 100 years?

Then why don't you enlighten all of us Steve with your "absolutely massive number?"

[/quote]

Before 270 gigatonnes of decay occurs 270 gigatonnes of growth must occur. The seasonal cycle and the cycle of life involves absorbing CO2 in the spring of youth and releasing it in the autumn of decay. Much of the decay is balanced by growth, which makes the apparently small 3% of fossil fuel emissions more significant.

I suggest you stay well away from this Gary Novak person who is appears to be utterly clueless about basic science and the scientific claims regarding the warming effect of more CO2.

[glc]

Astromet

Re: #902

Well you have answered one question. We can now say with some certainty that you're not a scientist.

What, for example, is this supposed to mean

95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C

What "various things"? Also this

1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C

Astromet, the average temperature of the earth's surface is ~288K. This is the resultant temperature AFTER the effects of conduction, convection and evaporation. At this temperature ~390 w/m2 is emitted to the atmosphere (by S-B Law). However only ~235 w/m2 is eventually emitted to space from the TOA. This balances the incoming solar (~235 w/m2) to give the earth a relatively stable average temperature (despite the large regional fluctuations).

The difference between energy emitted from the surface (~390 w/m2) and energy emitted to space (~235 w/m2) is due to the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect. A simple, single layer model can show how this works in principle.

Any increase in the "greenhouse" effect (e.g. by increasing CO2 concentrations) will reduce the flow of outgoing IR to space whcih will cause an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, i.e. incoming will be > outgoing and so the surface and lower atmosphere will warm until incoming/outgoing balamce is restored. We can crunch the numbers later.

With respect to your comments about the carbon cycle. It appears you completely misunderstand the relative contributions. Over thousands of years(since the last ice age), atmospheric CO2 concentrations established a rough balance whereby the annual absorptions by the oceans and plant life were in equilibrium with the release of CO2 by the oceans, decaying vegetation etc. Apart from some small fluctuations of a few ppm due to ENSO (warmer/cooler SST) and volcanic eruptions (cooler SST) concentrations remained fairly steady at around 280 ppm. This is equivalent to ~600 GtC.

Around a fifth of this would be exchanged between the atmosphere and biosphere each year. This meant that a CO2 molecule, on average, spent about 5 years in the atmosphere. This should not, though, be confused with the decay rate of an 'impulse' of CO2 concentrations - similar to that seen in the last ~150 years.

Since ~1850 fossil fuel burning has introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere and while these emissions are relatively small compared to the annual cycle they have created an imbalance which has caused CO2 to accumulate - slowly at first - but faster more recently (~2 ppm per year). The concentration of CO2 is now ~390 ppm.

You quote an IPCC figure of 50-200 years for CO2 removal (again without understanding what this means). The IPCC is probably about right on this. However, you need to understand what is being said. The "50-200 years" refers to the time taken for CO2 levels to return to 280 ppm if all human CO2 emissions were stopped to-day. However, this is not a linear process and about half of the 'excess' CO2 would be gone within ~38 years. About 37% of the excess would remain after 55 years. In theory, some of the excess may still be in the atmosphere after 150 or so years but, in practice, we'd be back to pre-industrial levels long before then.

You have much to learn, Astromet, and I'm not sure I have enough time but I'll have a go if we can deal with one issue at a time.

PS I'm interested in your comment about the S-B constant being "absurdly high".

[AstroMet]

Jan 12, 2011 10:23:37 GMT steve said:

Jan 11, 2011 21:56:26 GMT AstroMet said:

Humans put 3% of the CO2 in the Air

Humans are said to put 3% of the CO2 in the air, while the rest of the CO2 is due mostly to biological decay and respiration.

The official numbers from the government and most agreed upon are that humans add about 8.6 giga tons carbon per year to the atmosphere, while there is about 800 GTC in the atmosphere, which is a human addition of about 1% of what is already there.

All other sources (most respiration including decay) add about 270 GTC per year to the atmosphere.

So humans are responsible for 3% of the CO2 going into the air, and each year they add 1% of what is already in the air.



Then why don't you enlighten all of us Steve with your "absolutely massive number?"

Before 270 gigatonnes of decay occurs 270 gigatonnes of growth must occur. The seasonal cycle and the cycle of life involves absorbing CO2 in the spring of youth and releasing it in the autumn of decay. Much of the decay is balanced by growth, which makes the apparently small 3% of fossil fuel emissions more significant.

I suggest you stay well away from this Gary Novak person who is appears to be utterly clueless about basic science and the scientific claims regarding the warming effect of more CO2.[/quote]

You've got to be kidding, right? And you've done any better?

Not even anywhere in the same league pal. I suggest you get all 52 cards in your deck Steve, because you, like Glc, haven't got the faintest clue - not even one - about the climate, much less the mechanisms you think produce global warming.

Go away. You're too silly.

[AstroMet]

Jan 12, 2011 11:09:33 GMT glc said:

Astromet

Re: #902

Well you have answered one question. We can now say with some certainty that you're not a scientist.

What, for example, is this supposed to mean

95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C

What "various things"? Also this

1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C

Astromet, the average temperature of the earth's surface is ~288K. This is the resultant temperature AFTER the effects of conduction, convection and evaporation. At this temperature ~390 w/m2 is emitted to the atmosphere (by S-B Law). However only ~235 w/m2 is eventually emitted to space from the TOA. This balances the incoming solar (~235 w/m2) to give the earth a relatively stable average temperature (despite the large regional fluctuations).

The difference between energy emitted from the surface (~390 w/m2) and energy emitted to space (~235 w/m2) is due to the atmospheric "greenhouse" effect. A simple, single layer model can show how this works in principle.

Any increase in the "greenhouse" effect (e.g. by increasing CO2 concentrations) will reduce the flow of outgoing IR to space whcih will cause an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, i.e. incoming will be > outgoing and so the surface and lower atmosphere will warm until incoming/outgoing balamce is restored. We can crunch the numbers later.

With respect to your comments about the carbon cycle. It appears you completely misunderstand the relative contributions. Over thousands of years(since the last ice age), atmospheric CO2 concentrations established a rough balance whereby the annual absorptions by the oceans and plant life were in equilibrium with the release of CO2 by the oceans, decaying vegetation etc. Apart from some small fluctuations of a few ppm due to ENSO (warmer/cooler SST) and volcanic eruptions (cooler SST) concentrations remained fairly steady at around 280 ppm. This is equivalent to ~600 GtC.

Around a fifth of this would be exchanged between the atmosphere and biosphere each year. This meant that a CO2 molecule, on average, spent about 5 years in the atmosphere. This should not, though, be confused with the decay rate of an 'impulse' of CO2 concentrations - similar to that seen in the last ~150 years.

Since ~1850 fossil fuel burning has introduced more CO2 into the atmosphere and while these emissions are relatively small compared to the annual cycle they have created an imbalance which has caused CO2 to accumulate - slowly at first - but faster more recently (~2 ppm per year). The concentration of CO2 is now ~390 ppm.

You quote an IPCC figure of 50-200 years for CO2 removal (again without understanding what this means). The IPCC is probably about right on this. However, you need to understand what is being said. The "50-200 years" refers to the time taken for CO2 levels to return to 280 ppm if all human CO2 emissions were stopped to-day. However, this is not a linear process and about half of the 'excess' CO2 would be gone within ~38 years. About 37% of the excess would remain after 55 years. In theory, some of the excess may still be in the atmosphere after 150 or so years but, in practice, we'd be back to pre-industrial levels long before then.

You have much to learn, Astromet, and I'm not sure I have enough time but I'll have a go if we can deal with one issue at a time.

PS I'm interested in your comment about the S-B constant being "absurdly high".

Glc, nearly every person on this pro board - Magellan, Sigurdur, myself and others who've discussed and debated the facts and physics of the Earth's climate with you and Steve have provided you fellows with MORE than enough proof that AGW claims are totally false.

I've said many times that, in fact, what you fellow claim is mathematically impossible to occur on Earth.

That means it cannot happen because the laws of physics says it cannot.

Why don't you guys stop playing with models and come correct in the real world of climate science?

You are in the minority as any real scientist knows man-made global warming is a total joke - and a sick one at that - and also a BIG HUGE LIE.

It always has been, so you'd better check on your own math buddy because it is more than suspect - its plain weird because it cannot occur on Earth.

At this late stage (2011) - especially after the debacle of Climategate - for you, Socold, Matt and Steve to have the balls to actually continue with this silliness says a ton about what you guys lack - and that's common sense and a basic understanding of how the climate works on Earth.

The only thing that is "absurd" is your claim that man is the cause of global warming.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep hawking the same sad AGW tale playing funny money with the numbers like those fellows at State College and East Anglia?

You might think the Sun has little effect on the Earth - but I tell you one thing: if the Sun went away tomorrow - your last worry in the world would be anthropogenic global warming.

You'd have much bigger worries than that - and it would be how to live and feed yourself on a planet frozen solid to its very core. That's the extreme cold of outer space saying "hello."