Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The "little ice age" was just 50 years of colder than normal winters in Europe. I'm talking about the ice ages that lasted for thousands of years and had 2 mile thick ice sheets over a lot of North America and Eurasia.

---

are you suggesting that the ice ages were related to greenhouse gases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

are you suggesting that the ice ages were related to greenhouse gases?

---

Not the ice ages themselves but greenhouse gases play a role in prolonging the length of the interglacial periods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Not the ice ages themselves but greenhouse gases play a role in prolonging the length of the interglacial periods.

---

how so and by what evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

how so and by what evidence?

---

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

---

Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Do you?

---

I'm not a climate scientist but I do think that if you cross-examined several experts in that area under oath that a judge would find that the Greenland ice cores do present a scientifically valid record of past CO2 levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I'm not a climate scientist but I do think that if you cross-examined several experts in that area under oath that a judge would find that the Greenland ice cores do present a scientifically valid record of past CO2 levels.

---

It only provides evidence if you model it correctly. If your model does not account for physical transport of CO2 away from where it was "captured" there will appear to be less CO2 than there actually was for older time periods. This is because some of the "captured" CO2 has escaped via diffusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It only provides evidence if you model it correctly. If your model does not account for physical transport of CO2 away from where it was "captured" there will appear to be less CO2 than there actually was for older time periods. This is because some of the "captured" CO2 has escaped via diffusion.

---

so I guess that means that you think that the Greenland ice cores CO2 readings are not reliable. I wonder what arkansasbob thinks about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

so I guess that means that you think that the Greenland ice cores CO2 readings are not reliable. I wonder what arkansasbob thinks about it.

---

What do you think? Do you not agree that more CO2 will have diffused out of older ice than newer ice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What do you think? Do you not agree that more CO2 will have diffused out of older ice than newer ice?

---

I don't know that much about ice cubes, let alone ice cores. I'm not saying that you're wrong but I have to wonder why so many climate scientists think the ice cores give good data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I don't know that much about ice cubes, let alone ice cores. I'm not saying that you're wrong but I have to wonder why so many climate scientists think the ice cores give good data.

---

What type of coursework does one have to do to hold oneself out as a "climate scientist"?

As promised:


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...ncdcstats.html

NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eight Warmest on Record

January 14, 2009
The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.

Quote:

---

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

---

Everytime I read something from that site I am amazed at the confidence they have in themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What type of coursework does one have to do to hold oneself out as a "climate scientist"?

---

I would think the best criteria would be a scientist that works as a climate scientist, like these guys.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

---

for the sake of argument, let's say that i do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I would think the best criteria would be a scientist that works as a climate scientist, like these guys.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

---

It seems to me, that in order to choose to work in the field of "climate science", you would have to first believe that there would be something useful to gain from work in this field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

for the sake of argument, let's say that i do.

---

Well, it's really kind of simple. Co2 levels don't start to rise during the interglacial period for about 800 to 1000 years after temperatures start to rise and CO2 levels continue to rise even after the peak of the interglacial period has been reach thereby prolonging temperatures during the last the last half of the interglacial period.

Sorry for the long sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It seems to me, that in order to choose to work in the field of "climate science", you would have to first believe that there would be something useful to gain from work in this field.

---

Like a paycheck?:icon_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Well, it's really kind of simple. Co2 levels don't start to rise during the interglacial period for about 800 to 1000 years after temperatures start to rise and CO2 levels continue to rise even after the peak of the interglacial period has been reach thereby prolonging temperatures during the last the last half of the interglacial period.

Sorry for the long sentence.

---

you still haven't shown any relationship. what evidence is there that the co2 levels influence temperatures in any way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

you still haven't shown any relationship. what evidence is there that the co2 levels influence temperatures in any way?

---

Of course, atmospheric co2 levels don't affect surface temperatures. That's why the average global temperature is a cozy 12F and most of the surface Of Earth is covered in ice.:bigcry::o:icon_roll::angry::laugh::D:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I'm not a climate scientist but I do think that if you cross-examined several experts in that area under oath that a judge would find that the Greenland ice cores do present a scientifically valid record of past CO2 levels.

---

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Of course, atmospheric co2 levels don't affect surface temperatures. That's why the average global temperature is a cozy 12F and most of the surface Of Earth is covered in ice.:bigcry::o:icon_roll::angry::laugh::D:)

---

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

and third, your sarcasm shows you have no answer to my question. to put it more specifically, what evidence do you have that temperatures were affected by co2 in the way you claim they were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

I have no real scientific background...

But wouldn't that actually be quite correct if the poles were -70+?
Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

first, what makes you think you know what global temperatures would be like without the effects of co2? second, what is the average global temperature?

---

Ask randerizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

---

Interesting. Good to see you back, randerizer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Interesting. Good to see you back, randerizer.

---

I have been following the board, just not much time to post... Staying busy with home renovations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Ask randerizer.

---

I said an expert in coring and core analysis practices. Not climate science. :o But my area of expertise makes me significantly more qualified to assess the quality of data collected from ice cores than climate scientists...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

I am now an expert of sorts in coring processes, and I would characterize the current use of ice cores as an appropriate measure of past CO2 levels as flawed. Principally, the two arguments I would outline are:

1) the measurements do not reflect the transport of CO2 into and out of the ice cores. Do not give me this crap about ice not being permeable -- it just isn't true. It also doesn't account for any freeze-thaw cycles or sub-surface water flow. Basically, the history associated with the ice core is not correctly reflected in the calculations. Correct history would require in-depth modeling of thermal and flow conditions -- not something that the "climate scientists" are in any way trained to do correctly (I've learned this first-hand was well). That thermal/flow model should have multiple sources of independent data to feed into it as well, in order to properly "history-match" the ice core in question. I doubt that a historymatched would be "unique" anyway -- so basically the true solution to the historical CO2 levels based on even well-modeled data would likely not be the right solution.

2) the process of coring and extracting cores seriously calls into question the results, particularly for accurately determining a GAS concentration in a sample. My strong suspicion is that historical values are underestimated (and increasingly so with increasing depth) because they do not account for pressure differences during the coring/extraction process. Basically -- by the time you get it to the surface, or even when you dislodge it from the ice sheet, you've likely lost a bunch of gas by expansion and pressure drop.

BOTH of these flaws would lead one to believe that CO2 levels collected in older ice core samples UNDERESTIMATE the actual levels at those times.

---

randerizer, I requested Gavin A. Schmidt to give his expert opinion on your post.

His response is as follows:
"Nonsense I’m afraid. CO2, CH4, and CFC and N2O gas concentrations from ice cores have been replicated against ice cores in vastly different accumulation environments (temperatures/snow depths), against the instrumental record, with cores from Greenland and Antarctica. There is no depth affect visible in the results, and there has been plenty of modelling of the important processes (firnification, gas age/ice age differences etc). Vague doubts based on no information do not stack up against the actual science."

Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.

Gavin Schmidt is a dishonest tool and an alarmist hack. His response doesn't even address the mechanisms mentioned by Randerizer. What about diffusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Gavin Schmidt is a dishonest tool and an alarmist hack. His response doesn't even address the mechanisms mentioned by Randerizer. What about diffusion?

---

Sorry, Guiss, but your emotional reaction is interfering with your objectivity.

You have any scientific evidence that diffusion plays a role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sorry, Guiss, but your emotional reaction is interfering with your objectivity.

You have any scientific evidence that diffusion plays a role?

---

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

---

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

---

I just gave you scientific evidence (reread my post, research diffusion). RealClimate is a joke - look behind the curtain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Ask randerizer.

---

good answer.

so in other words, if it's not spelled out specifically in scientific american, you have no clue. that's ok. most people don't have a scientific background and therefore don't have the tools to critically evaluate the claims of climate scientists. there's nothing wrong with that. however, taking things at face value from "experts" is often a foolish thing to do, and regurgitating what the "experts" say as if it were firsthand knowledge is doubly foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Whatever. Schmidt's allegience to the Cult of Global Warming interferes with his objectivity.

Of course diffusion plays a role! It is a scientific law, and it always applies when you have a concentration difference between fluidly connected bodies. It is also a function of time. The more time that passes, the more diffusion.

---

by the way, diffusion really IS a law (there are actually multiple laws involved) unlike the "well known fact" that atmospheric co2 concentrations play a major role in global temperatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Best of luck in coming up with some scientific evidence. Actually, should be a piece of cake.

Wait a second, I forgot. It's a conspiracy involving the leading universities and scientists around the world. They've all signed a Blood Oath to promote the Global Warming hoax. Naturally, they have destroyed all the records/articles that prove CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

---

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

CO2 samples from ice cores are not reliable because of diffusion.

Do you realize how absurd you sound?

---

That is not what I said. It MAY be reliable evidence. But there is a difference between the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. If the model (the interpretation) does not account for diffusion, it is the MODEL that is not reliable, not the sample.

If you take the time to research diffusion you will understand this: a person correlating ice core data to atmospheric CO2 levels may feel good about their model because it correlates well with measured data (data with high confidence) for the past 50 to 100 years. The data MAY show that diffusion over a 50 year period is neglible (or at least already accounted for) in their model. However, because diffusion is time dependent, its effect is greater over the long-term. The short-term confidence of the model does not hold true for the long-term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

:laugh:

---

All this scientific talk must be hurting your brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

All this scientific talk must be hurting your brain.

---

Perhaps, much like all the facts and indisputable figures from NOAA hurting your pride and credibility. Month after month, year after year.

My father(Summa Cum-Laude from Tech, Mathematics AND Physics) was telling us a story the other day about some of his Tech prof's saying, "this or that couldnt have happened, thats impossible, etc... Then, a few years later.....OOPS! Wrong.

Way above my head, of course..probably yours too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altadawg

Perhaps, much like all the facts and indisputable figures from NOAA hurting your pride and credibility. Month after month, year after year.

My father(Summa Cum-Laude from Tech, Mathematics AND Physics) was telling us a story the other day about some of his Tech prof's saying, "this or that couldnt have happened, thats impossible, etc... Then, a few years later.....OOPS! Wrong.

Way above my head, of course..probably yours too.

---

I graduated summa in chemical engineering, and Randerizer graduated with a 4.0 in chemical engineering. All of us chemEs - including arkansasbob and DogtorEvil - have studied transport phenomenon and understand the principles of diffusion very well. Randerizer has taken advanced transport classes. Modelling is what engineers do, and chemEs are trained to think about things in terms of processes, open and closed thermodynamic systems, balancing mass and energy. That is why so many of us look at the case for AGW and still have strong doubts. It is easy and natural for us to see the weak assumptions that this case is based on. If a practicing professional engineer made the type of assumptions that these hacks do when practicing in their profession, they would not last very long. This stuff only has a place in academia where you can discuss theory that has no solid basis, but it does not belong in the real world - certainly not a part of government policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

good answer.

so in other words, if it's not spelled out specifically in scientific american, you have no clue. that's ok. most people don't have a scientific background and therefore don't have the tools to critically evaluate the claims of climate scientists. there's nothing wrong with that. however, taking things at face value from "experts" is often a foolish thing to do, and regurgitating what the "experts" say as if it were firsthand knowledge is doubly foolish.

---

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I graduated summa in chemical engineering, and Randerizer graduated with a 4.0 in chemical engineering. All of us chemEs - including arkansasbob and DogtorEvil - have studied transport phenomenon and understand the principles of diffusion very well. Randerizer has taken advanced transport classes. Modelling is what engineers do, and chemEs are trained to think about things in terms of processes, open and closed thermodynamic systems, balancing mass and energy. That is why so many of us look at the case for AGW and still have strong doubts. It is easy and natural for us to see the weak assumptions that this case is based on. If a practicing professional engineer made the type of assumptions that these hacks do when practicing in their profession, they would not last very long. This stuff only has a place in academia where you can discuss theory that has no solid basis, but it does not belong in the real world - certainly not a part of government policy.

---

Looks like a lot of scientists are studying these ice cores from every which way.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm0...m05_PP33C.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

---

please explain the reason for your question. i was asking you how you could know what effect co2 has on global temperatures. now do you know or don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You have a degree in chemical engineering. Does atmospheric CO2 play a role in trapping radiant heat near the planet's surface or doesn't it? Please explain your answer.

---

Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for approximately 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect". 3.5% of that greenhouse effect would be present even if fossil-fuel burning, tree cutting humans never walked on the face of the Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

please explain the reason for your question. i was asking you how you could know what effect co2 has on global temperatures. now do you know or don't you?

---

And now I'm asking you if you have an opinion as a chemical engineer on that question. Not only that, but to explain your answer.

Like you said, I would tell you what the conventional wisdom is per scientists who study the atmosphere. It's obvious that I think CO2 plays a role in keeping the Earth warm per their statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Yes, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that atmospheric CO2 is responsible for approximately 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect". 3.5% of that greenhouse effect would be present even if fossil-fuel burning, tree cutting humans never walked on the face of the Earth.

---

You think that arkansasbob will agree with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You think that arkansasbob will agree with you?

---

There is not a scientific law that says what I said is true. It is just what some human-created models predict. There are scientific laws that relate to radiation, which is form of heat transfer, and define the parameters for how much heat will transfer via radiation between two objects. You cannot analytically (do you know what this means?) derive an equation for surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmoshpheric CO2 from scientific laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/...winter_weather

:icon_roll:

He likes it -> :santa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

There is not a scientific law that says what I said is true. It is just what some human-created models predict. There are scientific laws that relate to radiation, which is form of heat transfer, and define the parameters for how much heat will transfer via radiation between two objects. You cannot analytically (do you know what this means?) derive an equation for surface temperature of the Earth as a function of atmoshpheric CO2 from scientific laws.

---

I see what you are saying. I take that to mean the atmosphere is a complex system so it is impossible to figure it down to the millionth decimal point the temperature of the surface even assuming a constant solar input. Is that close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/...winter_weather

:icon_roll:

He likes it -> :santa:

---

January heat wave hits California. Santa is wearing a t-shirt and cut-off jeans.


http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/...s-los-angeles/

He likes it - > :santa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

I see what you are saying. I take that to mean the atmosphere is a complex system so it is impossible to figure it down to the millionth decimal point the temperature of the surface even assuming a constant solar input. Is that close?

---

Not exactly, but you couldn't calculate the mythical average temperature of the Earth to a single degree even if you knew the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and the day of the year using these people's models. Way too many other factors affect temperature.

My point was that you cannot just start with a formula for radiation (like Stefan-Boltzmann law), and then fold in other physical laws to produce a master equation for Temperature as a function of CO2 concentration (along with other variables). It is not a problem that can be solved analytically. The solution must be empirical (done by statistical correlation), and it cannot be proven algebraically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

And now I'm asking you if you have an opinion as a chemical engineer on that question. Not only that, but to explain your answer.

Like you said, I would tell you what the conventional wisdom is per scientists who study the atmosphere. It's obvious that I think CO2 plays a role in keeping the Earth warm per their statements.

---

i don't have an opinion on the subject as a chemical engineer. as a critical observer with a somewhat scientific background, here are the facts:

- co2 absorbs radiant heat in the form of ir radiation, but not uv or visible light. as a result, it will absorb some energy from the earth as it irradiates heat absorbed from the sun.
- there are many aspects of the atmosphere and universe, including water vapor, clouds, convection, thunderstorms, and changes in the sun that have an impact on climate, local and global, that is easily observable (although the impact of individual factors cannot be easily quantified with much precision because of the overwhelming number of other factors involved).
- i have never heard nor read of any observation of the climate being affected by changes in co2 concentration (other than the claim, "temperatures are rising and so is co2, so they must be related").
- guisslapp says that co2 comprises about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect on the earth's atmosphere. i imagine this is quantified by taking the rate of ir absorption of each known greenhouse gas and multiplying it by the estimated concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. this is probably accurate as far as it goes, but it fails to take into account the greenhouse effect of clouds (they absorb and reflect a large amount of sunlight, but they allow quite a bit through and trap virtually all radiation coming back from the earth). it also tells us nothing of how much effect these combined greenhouse gases have on the climate as a whole.
- many talented scientists (most with a desire to prove the idea of runaway [there's a word we haven't heard in a while...] global warming caused by rising co2) have attmepted to model global temperatures to predict future affects of rising co2. it has been long enough since these models first ran for us to see that they were completely wrong and a total failure at modeling the overall effects of greenhouse gases. my guess is that the margin of error in their assumptions is enough to make their models predict a wide range of outcomes and they simply adjusted their assumptions to give the results they wanted. this is evinced by the fact that many predict a sudden catastrophic cooling rather than runaway warming. funny that none of them predict somewhat normal long-term temperature patterns...

there are other facts that bear on my opinion, but those are the big ones that come to mind. the conclusion i draw is that there is insufficient evidence to claim that co2 has a significant impact on global climate in the concentrations in which it is present, and that there is sufficient evidence that other factors (especially sun spot cycles) have a much more significant effect. it is also reasonable to believe that even if the global climate is significantly effected by co2, it will not be nearly as bad as the alarmists are predicting, and money and research would be better spent detemining a way to adapt and take advantage of the coming climate change rather than crippling an already sick economy by forcing expensive greenhouse emissions limits and controls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

- guisslapp says that co2 comprises about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect on the earth's atmosphere. i imagine this is quantified by taking the rate of ir absorption of each known greenhouse gas and multiplying it by the estimated concentration of that gas in the atmosphere.

---

Yes, that is essentially what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/...winter_weather

:icon_roll:

He likes it -> :santa:

---

Well, what do you expect? It's getting so hot in the arctic that even the cold air wants to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i don't have an opinion on the subject as a chemical engineer. as a critical observer with a somewhat scientific background, here are the facts:

- co2 absorbs radiant heat in the form of ir radiation, but not uv or visible light. as a result, it will absorb some energy from the earth as it irradiates heat absorbed from the sun.
- there are many aspects of the atmosphere and universe, including water vapor, clouds, convection, thunderstorms, and changes in the sun that have an impact on climate, local and global, that is easily observable (although the impact of individual factors cannot be easily quantified with much precision because of the overwhelming number of other factors involved).
- i have never heard nor read of any observation of the climate being affected by changes in co2 concentration (other than the claim, "temperatures are rising and so is co2, so they must be related").
- guisslapp says that co2 comprises about 3.6% of the greenhouse effect on the earth's atmosphere. i imagine this is quantified by taking the rate of ir absorption of each known greenhouse gas and multiplying it by the estimated concentration of that gas in the atmosphere. this is probably accurate as far as it goes, but it fails to take into account the greenhouse effect of clouds (they absorb and reflect a large amount of sunlight, but they allow quite a bit through and trap virtually all radiation coming back from the earth). it also tells us nothing of how much effect these combined greenhouse gases have on the climate as a whole.
- many talented scientists (most with a desire to prove the idea of runaway [there's a word we haven't heard in a while...] global warming caused by rising co2) have attmepted to model global temperatures to predict future affects of rising co2. it has been long enough since these models first ran for us to see that they were completely wrong and a total failure at modeling the overall effects of greenhouse gases. my guess is that the margin of error in their assumptions is enough to make their models predict a wide range of outcomes and they simply adjusted their assumptions to give the results they wanted. this is evinced by the fact that many predict a sudden catastrophic cooling rather than runaway warming. funny that none of them predict somewhat normal long-term temperature patterns...

there are other facts that bear on my opinion, but those are the big ones that come to mind. the conclusion i draw is that there is insufficient evidence to claim that co2 has a significant impact on global climate in the concentrations in which it is present, and that there is sufficient evidence that other factors (especially sun spot cycles) have a much more significant effect. it is also reasonable to believe that even if the global climate is significantly effected by co2, it will not be nearly as bad as the alarmists are predicting, and money and research would be better spent detemining a way to adapt and take advantage of the coming climate change rather than crippling an already sick economy by forcing expensive greenhouse emissions limits and controls.

---

Clearly, at some point in the future, if CO2 is allow to increase at its present rate, the shit will hit the climate fan.

There is plenty of evidence to establish that increasing amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures. The natural greenhouse effect on Earth is well understood and accepted. It also operates on Venus and Mars. Basically, thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in. Do you agree with that? This is important: thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in.

So, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere we are basically reducing the ability of the atmosphere to radiate thermal energy. Consequently, the surface temperature has to increase in order to over come the additional restriction place on the atmosphere to radiate heat because of increased levels of atmospheric co2. As more and more co2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature has to get hotter and hotter in order to maintain the balance between solar radiation coming in and thermal radiation leaving the planet.

BTW, there will never be a "runaway" greenhouse effect here on Earth because the greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water. There is probably some law out there that governs that relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Clearly, at some point in the future, if CO2 is allow to increase at its present rate, the shit will hit the climate fan.

There is plenty of evidence to establish that increasing amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures. The natural greenhouse effect on Earth is well understood and accepted. It also operates on Venus and Mars. Basically, thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in. Do you agree with that? This is important: thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in.

So, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere we are basically reducing the ability of the atmosphere to radiate thermal energy. Consequently, the surface temperature has to increase in order to over come the additional restriction place on the atmosphere to radiate heat because of increased levels of atmospheric co2. As more and more co2 is added to the atmosphere, the surface temperature has to get hotter and hotter in order to maintain the balance between solar radiation coming in and thermal radiation leaving the planet.

---

i'm proud that you seem to understand a simple energy balance (something even texas a&m chemical engineers seem to have trouble with). the problem is that this balance isn't so simple. if co2 was the only factor affecting radiation to and from the earth, then it would be. but it's not. there are scores of other factors that affect the amount of radiation the earth receives, as well as the amount of radiation that escapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

BTW, there will never be a "runaway" greenhouse effect here on Earth because the greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water. There is probably some law out there that governs that relationship.

---

this, you obviously don't understand and would be wise to keep your mouth shut.

Explain about the "runaway" greenhouse effect and how it could occur here on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Explain about the "runaway" greenhouse effect and how it could occur here on Earth.

---

i don't know how it could. i just know that i heard that phrase at least 10 times a week during the 90's and early 00's. i believe the idea was that we create a positive feedback loop where the co2 makes the atmosphere warmer, which melts the polar ice caps, which causes the earth to absorb more solar radiation (due to having less ice reflecting the light back into space), which causes global temperatures to rise, which melts more ice, etc.

this was the source of the original global warming greenhouse gas scare. alarmists have wisely shied away from this notion now that it appears negative feedback confounds the greenhouse effect, moderating temperatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i don't know how it could. i just know that i heard that phrase at least 10 times a week during the 90's and early 00's. i believe the idea was that we create a positive feedback loop where the co2 makes the atmosphere warmer, which melts the polar ice caps, which causes the earth to absorb more solar radiation (due to having less ice reflecting the light back into space), which causes global temperatures to rise, which melts more ice, etc.

this was the source of the original global warming greenhouse gas scare. alarmists have wisely shied away from this notion now that it appears negative feedback confounds the greenhouse effect, moderating temperatures.

---

Probably they were confusing a positive feedback loop with a "runaway" feedback loop. A runaway feedback loop will never occur here on Earth as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned.

Yes, there are both positive and negative feedback loops in regards to global warming. But the basic model of thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in remains intact. Since we don't apparently know what the heck is going to happen with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, are you a little bit concerned about the long-term outcome of this science experiment that will soon get out of our control?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirtydawg

Well, what do you expect? It's getting so hot in the arctic that even the cold air wants to leave.

---

:laugh:

That's as worthy a scientific argument as the GW advocates advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Probably they were confusing a positive feedback loop with a "runaway" feedback loop. A runaway feedback loop will never occur here on Earth as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned.

Yes, there are both positive and negative feedback loops in regards to global warming. But the basic model of thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in remains intact. Since we don't apparently know what the heck is going to happen with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, are you a little bit concerned about the long-term outcome of this science experiment that will soon get out of our control?

---

What is the difference of a positive feedback loop and a "runaway" feedback loop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

What is the difference of a positive feedback loop and a "runaway" feedback loop?

---

The positive feedback loop stops after the first lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The positive feedback loop stops after the first lap.

---

???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Yes, there are both positive and negative feedback loops in regards to global warming. But the basic model of thermal radiation from the planet must equal the solar radiation coming in remains intact. Since we don't apparently know what the heck is going to happen with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, are you a little bit concerned about the long-term outcome of this science experiment that will soon get out of our control?

---

Clouds play a much bigger role on how much radiation is emitted from Earth.

Salty, you might have fun playing with this MODTRAN model -

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/c...radiation.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The positive feedback loop stops after the first lap.

---

Why would a positive feedback loop do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Why would a positive feedback loop do that?

---

Because it's not really a loop. Saltydawg made a mistake when he used that word and is going to be whipped with a wet noodle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Because it's not really a loop. Saltydawg made a mistake when he used that word and is going to be whipped with a wet noodle.

---

if it's not a loop, then what is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

...Saltydawg made a mistake when he used that word and is going to be whipped with a wet noodle.

---

At the Doubletree??? :D :D :D :D

TD :cowboy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

if it's not a loop, then what is it?

---

a postive or negative feedback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

randerizer, I requested Gavin A. Schmidt to give his expert opinion on your post.

His response is as follows:
"Nonsense I’m afraid. CO2, CH4, and CFC and N2O gas concentrations from ice cores have been replicated against ice cores in vastly different accumulation environments (temperatures/snow depths), against the instrumental record, with cores from Greenland and Antarctica. There is no depth affect visible in the results, and there has been plenty of modelling of the important processes (firnification, gas age/ice age differences etc). Vague doubts based on no information do not stack up against the actual science."

---

Except that I have seen coring processes in action, I have had to interpret way more core-based compositional data than Gavin Schmidt has ever seen, and I have seen firsthand the problems (impossibilities) of getting an accurate gas concentration from a sample that is unearthed.

I have also worked extensively on modeling underground phenomena, and I think he is being 100% dishonest to even imply that "plenty of modeling" is sufficient to close the book on other aspects I described.

I'm sorry, but your Gavin Schmidt boy is full of shit here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Except that I have seen coring processes in action, I have had to interpret way more core-based compositional data than Gavin Schmidt has ever seen, and I have seen firsthand the problems (impossibilities) of getting an accurate gas concentration from a sample that is unearthed.

I have also worked extensively on modeling underground phenomena, and I think he is being 100% dishonest to even imply that "plenty of modeling" is sufficient to close the book on other aspects I described.

I'm sorry, but your Gavin Schmidt boy is full of shit here.

---

What kind of material are you coring and how deep is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

What kind of material are you coring and how deep is it?

---

A wide range of rocklike materials at a wide range of fluid compositions (and fluid properties) at a wide range of depths (let's say 50ft-15000ft).

To reiterate, it is my view that the data collected from ice cores is flawed because it doesn't account for:

1) Diffusion
2) Permeability (to gas and water -- in the case of water, this should also be combined with issue 1)
3) Changes in the internal structure and/or ice cores, e.g. by local subsurface river formation, faults, etc. Basically limited geological interpretation around the ice cores and application of those geological interpretations to a reasonable simulation of the various fluid flows/ice changes in the areas including the ice cores
4) Losses of gases from cores associated with unearthing the sample (depressurization).

Not that I necessarily trust wikipedia on this issue, but a selection to reinforce the validity some of my arguments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Coring

Ice relaxation (e.g., depressurization -- which leads to less gas being present in the sample once unearthed)


Deep ice is under great pressure. When brought to the surface, there is a drastic change in pressure. Due to the internal pressure and varying composition, particularly bubbles, sometimes cores are very brittle and can break or shatter during handling. At Dome C, the first 1000 m were brittle ice. Siple dome encountered it from 400 to 1000 m. It has been found that allowing ice cores to rest for some time (sometimes for a year) makes them become much less brittle.
Decompression causes significant volume expansion (called relaxation) due to microcracking and the exsolving of enclathratized gases.[5] Relaxation may last for months.[6] During this time, ice cores are stored below -10 °C to prevent cracking due to expansion at higher temperatures. At drilling sites, a relaxation area is often built within existing ice at a depth which allows ice core storage at temperatures below -20 °C.
It has been observed that the internal structure of ice undergoes distinct changes during relaxation. Changes include much more pronounced cloudy bands and much higher density of "white patches" and bubbles.[7]
================================================== ========
Core contamination

Some contamination has been detected in ice cores. The levels of lead on the outside of ice cores is much higher than on the inside.[12] In ice from the Vostok core (Antarctica), the outer portion of the cores have up to 3 and 2 orders of magnitude higher bacterial density and dissolved organic carbon than the inner portion of the cores, respectively, as a result of drilling and handling.[13]




Core contamination, or specifically the movement of materials from outside the core inwards, which occurs during the drilling process, indicates that:
1) the ice cores in question do exhibit some permeability (which leads to something being able to enter the rock -- also strongly suggests that something can EXIT the core or FLOW THROUGH the core)

2) the composition of materials in the ice core is likely NOT an accurate reflection of the composition within the ice core before extraction.


================================================== ======

Dating cores

"Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and high pressure and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished."

-- I would argue that this hints strongly that subsurface changes are at work that are not correctly accounted for in the analysis... The word "flow" in terms of the subsurface should be a clear signal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

A wide range of rocklike materials at a wide range of fluid compositions (and fluid properties) at a wide range of depths (let's say 50ft-15000ft).

To reiterate, it is my view that the data collected from ice cores is flawed because it doesn't account for:

1) Diffusion
2) Permeability (to gas and water -- in the case of water, this should also be combined with issue 1)
3) Changes in the internal structure and/or ice cores, e.g. by local subsurface river formation, faults, etc. Basically limited geological interpretation around the ice cores and application of those geological interpretations to a reasonable simulation of the various fluid flows/ice changes in the areas including the ice cores
4) Losses of gases from cores associated with unearthing the sample (depressurization).

---

Thanks for your input. While climate scientists like to refer to ice cores when discussing past atmospheric CO2 levels, they really are not necessary to understanding the impact of the current rise of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Thanks for your input. While climate scientists like to refer to ice cores when discussing past atmospheric CO2 levels, they really are not necessary to understanding the impact of the current rise of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

---

Correct -- they have nothing to do with the impact of increased CO2.

But they sure have a lot to do with establishing that fossil fuel burning does ANYTHING to move the atmospheric CO2 dial. If REAL historical CO2 levels are higher than where we are at now, and the cycles are consistent with our current cycles, then human CO2 emissions basically mean jack to the overall temperature cycle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Correct -- they have nothing to do with the impact of increased CO2.

But they sure have a lot to do with establishing that fossil fuel burning does ANYTHING to move the atmospheric CO2 dial. If REAL historical CO2 levels are higher than where we are at now, and the cycles are consistent with our current cycles, then human CO2 emissions basically mean jack to the overall temperature cycle

---

Not really. Carbon isotopes determine the percentage of CO2 in the current atmosphere that comes from burning fossil fuels. And that analysis shows that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels comes from burning fossil fuels. Of course, deforestation plays a role too.

As far as the impact of CO2 on surface temperatures, looking at past cycles doesn't mean much since they were all natural. What we have here is the un-natural dumping of billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a matter of decades in a world that is totally dependent upon the current shoreline and agricultural systems. Who cares if there was massive climate change 500,000 years ago. If we have massive climate change today there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Not really. Carbon isotopes determine the percentage of CO2 in the current atmosphere that comes from burning fossil fuels. And that analysis shows that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels comes from burning fossil fuels. Of course, deforestation plays a role too.

As far as the impact of CO2 on surface temperatures, looking at past cycles doesn't mean much since they were all natural. What we have here is the un-natural dumping of billions and billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a matter of decades in a world that is totally dependent upon the current shoreline and agricultural systems. Who cares if there was massive climate change 500,000 years ago. If we have massive climate change today there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers.

---

Would be interested to know how they tag the carbon in CO2 from fossil fuel sources to distinguish it from other sources. Are you suggesting that CO2 from fossil fuels shows up with a different dating than CO2 from volcanoes, CO2 from exposed reef systems, etc.? Or are you just indicating that CO2 from ALL of these sources is increasing relative to what is already in the atmosphere (i.e., we are seeing a net increase in CO2 in the atmoshpere)?

The latter doesn't tell me anything about fossil fuel use, deforestation, etc., without a bulletproof understanding of the global carbon cycle in the absence of humans. I would suggest that our inability to properly account for highs and lows in historical CO2 levels (or rather our complete dismissal of the real magnitudes of those highs and lows) suggests that we have very little knowledge of the current state of the CO2 cycle.

Look at these numbers.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Houston, we have a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

a postive or negative feedback.

---

Do you understand the difference between positive and negative feedback?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Do you understand the difference between positive and negative feedback?

---

Why don't you explain it?

arkansasbob, remember you promised me that you would explain why a runaway greenhouse effect is possible here on Earth. Still waiting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

arkansasbob, remember you promised me that you would explain why a runaway greenhouse effect is possible here on Earth. Still waiting.

---

quit waiting and start reading. plus, i don't remember making any promises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i don't know how it could. i just know that i heard that phrase at least 10 times a week during the 90's and early 00's. i believe the idea was that we create a positive feedback loop where the co2 makes the atmosphere warmer, which melts the polar ice caps, which causes the earth to absorb more solar radiation (due to having less ice reflecting the light back into space), which causes global temperatures to rise, which melts more ice, etc.

this was the source of the original global warming greenhouse gas scare. alarmists have wisely shied away from this notion now that it appears negative feedback confounds the greenhouse effect, moderating temperatures.

---

if it has positive feedback, then it can run away. unless there is negative feedback to counterbalance it. there IS negative feedback to counterbalance it, which is why there is no reason to run around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Why don't you explain it?

---

You say I suck at science. Why your hesitation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You say I suck at science. Why your hesitation?

---

Because I am working, and you could easily learn for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Because I am working, and you could easily learn for yourself.

---

Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

quit waiting and start reading. plus, i don't remember making any promises.


if it has positive feedback, then it can run away. unless there is negative feedback to counterbalance it. there IS negative feedback to counterbalance it, which is why there is no reason to run around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling.

---

You are the one that said that I should shut my mouth about a runaway greenhouse effect.

Anyway, go back and read my first post about this. It is correct. The runaway greenhouse effect can't happen here on Earth, not because of any negative or positive feedback, but because of the planet's distance from the Sun and the amount of water on the planet. The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere never becomes saturated with water vapor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Look at these numbers.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Houston, we have a problem.

---

And you are glossing over my argument, mr. gore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

And you are glossing over my argument, mr. gore.

---

Perhaps you should present your argument again. I understand your concerns about the ice cores possibly being unable of giving correct readings. But 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere today comes from human activities like burning fossil fuel and deforestation. WE know that by studying the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned during the last 150 years and the amount of land that has been deforested. Those results have been confirmed by isotope ratio between C12 and C13.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Perhaps you should present your argument again. I understand your concerns about the ice cores possibly being unable of giving correct readings. But 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere today comes from human activities like burning fossil fuel and deforestation. WE know that by studying the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned during the last 150 years and the amount of land that has been deforested. Those results have been confirmed by isotope ratio between C12 and C13.

---

How does your carbon dating technique account for CO2 emissions associated with long-trapped CO2 that might not be the result of human emissions? All that carbon dating of atmospheric CO2 proves is that we are on an uptick in the carbon cycle... So, presumably CO2 sources that are cycled on much longer timescales are coming out.

Not a bit of your argument proves ANYTHING about human CO2 effects...

Try again.

My argument is: the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests that there is a significant carbon cycle, much more significant than let on by simple measurements from ice cores (although cycles are even clearly evident in that record). Presumably, there are significant geological causes of the carbon cycle, and we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface on what is involved in it (we certainly aren't doing anything to model our way to a correct "history match" that accounts for obvious cycles -- so I'd surmise that we are nowhere close to understanding the full science).

Cycles on the order of what I am imagining can come in one of two ways -- the processes can speed up, as in feedback mechanisms, or there can be processes that are simply on much longer timescales. I won't discredit the notion of feedback mechanisms, but I'm not sure that I buy that feedback mechanisms could account for the full extent of the cycle. My hypothesis would be that both long-timescale processes and feedback mechanisms account for a large sinusoidal behavior in the global CO2 cycle, with many shorter frequency minor highs and lows.

Long-timescale processes imply that CO2 is trapped for long times, which would be HIGHLY consistent with isotopic CO2 atmosphere data that would show a decrease in C-14, relative to total C, over time.

Without the ice core data, you are hosed... And all this crap about "those results are confirmed..." -- cut the crap. No REASONABLE scientist would claim confirmation of results without a WELL-CONTROLLED test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

How does your carbon dating technique account for CO2 emissions associated with long-trapped CO2 that might not be the result of human emissions? All that carbon dating of atmospheric CO2 proves is that we are on an uptick in the carbon cycle... So, presumably CO2 sources that are cycled on much longer timescales are coming out.

Not a bit of your argument proves ANYTHING about human CO2 effects...

Try again.

My argument is: the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests that there is a significant carbon cycle, much more significant than let on by simple measurements from ice cores (although cycles are even clearly evident in that record). Presumably, there are significant geological causes of the carbon cycle, and we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface on what is involved in it (we certainly aren't doing anything to model our way to a correct "history match" that accounts for obvious cycles -- so I'd surmise that we are nowhere close to understanding the full science).

Cycles on the order of what I am imagining can come in one of two ways -- the processes can speed up, as in feedback mechanisms, or there can be processes that are simply on much longer timescales. I won't discredit the notion of feedback mechanisms, but I'm not sure that I buy that feedback mechanisms could account for the full extent of the cycle. My hypothesis would be that both long-timescale processes and feedback mechanisms account for a large sinusoidal behavior in the global CO2 cycle, with many shorter frequency minor highs and lows.

Long-timescale processes imply that CO2 is trapped for long times, which would be HIGHLY consistent with isotopic CO2 atmosphere data that would show a decrease in C-14, relative to total C, over time.

Without the ice core data, you are hosed... And all this crap about "those results are confirmed..." -- cut the crap. No REASONABLE scientist would claim confirmation of results without a WELL-CONTROLLED test.

---

More of that mystery CO2 that chemical engineers are in love with. What's with you guys? Randerizer, all of the carbon sinks are gaining CO2, not losing. There is no mystery CO2 that's entering the atmosphere. The next time you start your car or turn on your house heater or use some petroleum based product, you have found the culprit for increasing atmospheric levels of CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

You are the one that said that I should shut my mouth about a runaway greenhouse effect.

Anyway, go back and read my first post about this. It is correct. The runaway greenhouse effect can't happen here on Earth, not because of any negative or positive feedback, but because of the planet's distance from the Sun and the amount of water on the planet. The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere never becomes saturated with water vapor.

---

no, i said you should shut your mouth about water vapor and equillibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

no, i said you should shut your mouth about water vapor and equillibrium.

---

Whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

More of that mystery CO2 that chemical engineers are in love with. What's with you guys? Randerizer, all of the carbon sinks are gaining CO2, not losing. There is no mystery CO2 that's entering the atmosphere. The next time you start your car or turn on your house heater or use some petroleum based product, you have found the culprit for increasing atmospheric levels of CO2.

---

Mystery -- not really. I just am a sucker for the scientific method... I see a set of data that is obviously not closed and question it, especially when the results of specific experiments (ice core data, for example) SUGGEST that there is a significant complication not correctly accounted for.

Salty, how can one legitimately argue that all carbon sinks are gaining CO2, if my argument is that the data suggests that we don't even have a clue about some significant CO2 levers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Whatever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

BTW, there will never be a "runaway" greenhouse effect here on Earth because the greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water. There is probably some law out there that governs that relationship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

this, you obviously don't understand and would be wise to keep your mouth shut.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

.

---

The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere ever becomes saturated with water vapor.

You seem intent on continuing the discussion so why don't you add something instead of rehashing old posts. After all, no need to hide your knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Mystery -- not really. I just am a sucker for the scientific method... I see a set of data that is obviously not closed and question it, especially when the results of specific experiments (ice core data, for example) SUGGEST that there is a significant complication not correctly accounted for.

Salty, how can one legitimately argue that all carbon sinks are gaining CO2, if my argument is that the data suggests that we don't even have a clue about some significant CO2 levers.

---

For example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere ever becomes saturated with water vapor.

You seem intent on continuing the discussion so why don't you add something instead of rehashing old posts. After all, no need to hide your knowledge.

---

Wasn't the atmosphere being saturated with water vapor part of the process of the atmosphere becoming breathable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rus-La

Wasn't the atmosphere being saturated with water vapor part of the process of the atmosphere becoming breathable?

---

Isn't that where all the oceans came from? Probably you are right in that it was a temporary condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere ever becomes saturated with water vapor.

You seem intent on continuing the discussion so why don't you add something instead of rehashing old posts. After all, no need to hide your knowledge.

---

that doesn't make any sense at all. that's what i'm talking about. if you don't know, don't act like you do. i don't even know where to start with this. poor understanding of the science, begging the question, non sequitur, ad nauseam. how about a list:

- the atmosphere becomes saturated with water vapor locally all the time.
- what on earth does the distance from the sun have to do with water vapor saturation?
- what on earth does water vapor saturation have to do with runaway global warming due to increased co2 concentration?
- as temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor without becoming saturated.
- ice???


that ought to be good enough for starters.