Australian Politics Forum - '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21599 Gender:	Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...' Reply #30 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:53pm New paper from Marcott and host. 'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html
Back to top	IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #31 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:58pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 10:41am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases?

Yes. Although the dwpoint is not a constant.

At an altitude of 35,000 to 40,000 feet, the air pressure is about 1/5 of that at sea level. The temperature is typically about -40 to -50 degrees C and the water vapour content under those conditions is usually 2/5 of FA. (Forecast Analysis of course. What did you think I meant?)

At sea level at 100% Relative Humidity and say 20 degrees C, the water content is about 17 grams per cubic metre of air.

At -50 degrees, even at 1 bar, and 100% RH, the water content is 0.038 grams per cubic metre of air. At 0.2 Bar, it's considerably less than that. You are correct. It varies, but on average, it's much less than 0.038g/m3, or < 0.22% of its value at sea level at 1 bar. This is a grossly conservative exaggeration. In practice, there is an adiapatic lapse associated with dew point against altitude (it decreases)

So you can see that as altitude increases, water vapour becomes less important as a greenhouse gas, because the air is extremely dry. Carbon dioxide, methane and all the other fixed gases still have roughly the same concentration in ppm, but their vapour pressure falls in line with barometric pressure. At 50,000 feet, it's roughly 1/5.

So if you look at the absorption spectrum in the Lower Troposphere, the water peaks tend to be broader due to higher concetration. In the lower stratosphere, Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas. (and when it comes to radiation to space, the lower stratosphere/ upper troposphere is where most of the action is. )

Does this still sound like magic, or have you grasped the principle? I'm trying to keep it as non-technical as possible.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:27pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21599 Gender:	Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...' Reply #32 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.
Back to top	IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #33 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:30pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

CO2 is not THE driver it is a driver

And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature.

Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so?

I really do believe that you should apologise to John in writing.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #34 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:03pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature.

Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so?

So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally?

The IPCC says that it wasn't until the 2nd half of the 20th century that CO2 had a measurable affect on temperatures.

Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/updating-the-cru-and-hadcrut-temperature-data/

Note 1920-1940 when CO2 was not supposed to have a measurable effect. Note the slope - rate of change.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2217 Gender:	Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...' Reply #35 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:39pm lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm: The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels. Can you explain what you mean in better English? I'll answer once I'm sure what you're saying.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:50pm by John_Taverner » IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #36 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:41pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature.

Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so?

So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally?

How about being honest and talking about ocean "ingassing" as well? - And while you're at it, flux to forests and plants.

Or are you claiming that the fluxes from the atmosphere are somehow irrelevant?

If you want to treat these natural fluxes as equivalent to fossil fuel burning emissions, where is the balancing flux for fossil fuel burning?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:48pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #37 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:11pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

you can't define "small levels": you pretend the world has never heard of nomenclature and give me your ass on the internet everytime we meet,... and I'm a friggin' spastic so what does that mean you are ?

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #38 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:13pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

New paper from Marcott and host.

'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

Abstract

Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.
<<

Cheesy

..and then?

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #39 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:15pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 10:41am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

So when the CO2 molecules releases a packet of IR, it can do that in any direction, much like the directions of the seeds on the dandelion head.

That's my understanding of downward and upward IR.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases?

Yes.

Although the dwpoint is not a constant.

I think you meant to say NO Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #40 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:15pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

How about being honest and talking about ocean "ingassing" as well? - And while you're at it, flux to forests and plants.

Or are you claiming that the fluxes from the atmosphere are somehow irrelevant?

If you want to treat these natural fluxes as equivalent to fossil fuel burning emissions, where is the balancing flux for fossil fuel burning?

I'm only going on Skeptical Science, They say 29 Gt of CO2 through burning fossil fuel compared to 750 Gt in the carbon cycle. That means 3.8% is anthropogenic. That is the net effect, yes?

So Chimp is arguing 3.8%, others say 3%, is a driver of climate change. But HADCRUt and the IPCC seem to say NO.

The CSIRO tell us of 'Greening of the Deserts', so more natural CO2.

Now when we look at the earth energy budget as per Stevens et al 2012, they show earth's imbalance as 0.6W +/-17W. How's that for uncertainty?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #41 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:19pm

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:33pm:

have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration?

Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion?

Have you worked out why 3% of 4% has such a huge influence?

lol, nice stats!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11941
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #42 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:28pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

you can't define "small levels": you pretend the world has never heard of nomenclature and give me your ass on the internet everytime we meet,... and I'm a friggin' spastic so what does that mean you are ?

My fruit trees, & other plants are gunna love it!!!!

When I first planted my fruit trees the guy said they'd mature in 5 to 8 years.....they only took jus over 3.

The more of them, & the better they grow, we get cleaner more abundant oxygen .....cut Carbon Dioxide, plants go retarded, we get less oxygen, & less whatever the plants produce for the dining table.

God Bless ......... thank You for Your CO2!

Back to top

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21599
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #43 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:51pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

New paper from Marcott and host.

'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

Abstract

Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.
<<

Cheesy

..and then?

Yep. What was it the IPCC said?

'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: '...CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday...'
Reply #44 - Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:18pm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

New paper from Marcott and host.

'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

Abstract

Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.
<<

Cheesy

..and then?

Yep. What was it the IPCC said?

'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Again you misinterpret selective statements to suit some sort of pre-agenda fossilised deranged neurosis.

Notice that the statement says "LONG TERM prediction of FUTURE climate states"?

You cannot use this to justify an uncontrolled increase in CO2 level in the earths atmosphere NOR can you claim that the earth will NOT heat up or that the climate will not change.

It's a specific statement that relates to long term climate states being predicted accurately.

There are also plenty of coupled non-linear chaotic systems in science. And other systems such as asteroid motion and comet behavior as they are nudged out of the Oort Cloud and plunge inward towards the Sun.

Can meteorologists predict the exact weather conditions in a city say in 2 years time? 2 months time? What predictive tools would they deploy and what will be the uncertainty associated with the predictions?

You need to apologise to John in writing as soon as possible lee

Then you will most probably need to implement a self ban period of at least 48 hours.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:32pm by Chimp_Logic »

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged