BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:


are you sure?

I wonder where all this CO2 is coming from?

Sounds very odd to me.

Perhaps the Mini Ice Age can assist with explaining this?

I will need to read some more stuff from Dr Sircus's web site and get back to you

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:


lee you should try to understand what is actually happening with the science and its underlying mechanisms before you repeat AGW denialist spin.

This statement is selective spin.

Your choice of word "precedes" is deliberate in order to imply a causal effect for the current CO2 rise.

This particular observation over long time periods in Earths history, is referred to as a "time lag" between temperature rise and CO2 increase

Do you want me to provide a link for you to read the credible scientific explanation of this "time lag"?

It will provide you will ample opportunity to apologise

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:


Maybe it's the hot spell. People drinking more fizzy drinks. 

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:



At what level does the magic gas take control?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:


I realise that with your grasp of science, it must appear to be magic. This is probably the simplest explanation I can find on the web.  If you don't believe that CO2 absorbs Long Wave Infra Red, then go and argue the point with an Infrared  Spectrophotometer. 

I don't know. Maybe there has been a mass conspiracy ever since the IR spectrophotometer was invented and they just made it appear like CO2 absorbs and re-emits Infrared.

Do you think that could be the reason?


http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:


CO2 absorbs and re-emits LWIR practically instantaneously. How much of a lag do you mean? 

Quote:


What on Earth are you talking about?

Quote:


This is true, except in the upper stratosphere where the water concentration is extremely low.

Now tell me. What is the CO2 concentration in the upper stratosphere? How does this differ from the troposphere?

What's wrong with the diagram on the link I gave you?  It should be obvious if you understand the basics.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:


So do you want to rephrase your question?


Quote:


You haven't answered my questions.  Greenhouse gases have the same properties. Only the concentration varies in some cases.  I'll try to explain anything you want. (Just this once. )

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



CO2 warms the troposphere (tropospheric hotspot) and cools the stratosphere

'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere which is caused by two mechanisms. '

http://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:36pm:


Well, that is true, but it's incidental. I will try to explain that effect  to you  once we get past the basics.

I have more questions after you answer the first two. 

What is wrong with the diagram?  Look at the arrows.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:49pm:


Not quite.

You said something about the saturation effect of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. That's correct, but it's a function of concentration. Do you understand why the bandwidth increases with concentration?

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



Don't worry Chimp - just for now -

the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 -

then it's going to get very hot.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:



It's to do with the decrease in Solar activity & the amount of
volcanic eruptions just like the Maunder minimum.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:


where is the data that supports this?

I'm going to move any off topic posts to your Ice Age trolling thread.  Please keep Ice Age trolling confined to that thread.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:



You still haven't shown me this credible explanation.

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


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.      

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


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.

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


Can you explain what you mean in better English? I'll answer once I'm sure what you're saying.

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

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

I think you meant to say NO 

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

lol, nice stats!

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


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

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:


No.  I think I'll have to take it slower so that you understand.

Lee,

Let's see if you are capable of simple maths.  The Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5.1480 × 10^18  kg.  The current CO2 concentration is about 401ppm volume. I'll make it easy for you. That translates to about 608ppm by mass.

You claim that there is 750 petagrams of Carbon in the atmosphere. That figure is slightly out of date.

What do the updated figures give you in petagrams? (gigatonnes if you prefer)


Also to make it easier for you:
1 petagram of carbon = 3.67 petagrams of CO2.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:


Even if you apologised and self banned, you would not be able to extract yourself from the abyss of ignorance and rational contradiction that you youhave been self-dugged into.

Panther wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Wow, talk about a logic sandwich 

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

Dear sir,

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:


Definitely an impending Ice Age 
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-...

Quote:


I suppose we'll have some genius claiming that the global measurements that show sea ice decreasing are incredibly inaccurate, but the measurements of the increasing Antarctic Ice are very accurate.  Just wait and you'll see 

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:


How's the elementary arithmetic exercise going?

750Gt of carbon in the atmosphere corresponds to about 1990 by the way.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:



So you're going to do an integration and provide multimodal distribution results for all seasons?

Does it show a falling trend too?  I'm looking forward to your graph.  Surprise me.

What are you talking about? Are you making a point here?

You're quoting Judith Curry. Hilarious.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:01pm:



It beats quoting Hotwhopper.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:


Nuke em.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

The market guy needs standing armies and subsidised weaponry complexes to hide his fascist mouth behind now,...  fm 

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

The denialist propaganda will have to be careful which direction it cares to tread from now on as it's all documented on the interwebs.

Interesting times  If trends start to become apparent on this global sea ice statistic then we will see panic stations and resource bottlenecks.

Whilst we've all been complaining abou conservative nature of the IPCC due to many governments having to all agree what goes into it it may be a saving grace... plans need time and i heavily suspect plans will be being put together and the markets all know it!

Resource bottlenecks are coming: it's just a timing thing...

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:


the children?

apologise

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:



I don't do "shite".

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

...interesting: you also don't do multi-year sea ice 

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:


groan 

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:45am:



Do I have homework? You were going to explain the basics of Huang and Karl. Presumably that  means error bars on the noisy ships data? I mean that is the basis for the paper.

And then of course the basics for a significance of 0.10 in the Karl paper.

They do form the basics of the paper. They can't just rely on their citations.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 11:05am:



So you distance yourself from Karl and Huang, on the basis of no error bars in their papers? And Karl because a significance of 0.10 is crap?

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, no one seems to be listening to lee.