Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15
Send Topic Print
The greenhouse effect (Read 12145 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #30 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:14am
 
Ajax wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 6:09pm:
Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale
(NO)
,
(11,000 years)


Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1

http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)


(NO)
, It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.


WARNING !
This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.


Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2

http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-histor...

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale
(NO)
,
(millions of years)


Graph-3

http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately

http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg


http://i65.tinypic.com/vyld92.jpg


http://i68.tinypic.com/qssivs.jpg

http://i63.tinypic.com/hskznq.jpg



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #31 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:23am
 
Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.”

But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so.

When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab!
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #32 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:28am
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:23am:
Correlation does not imply causation. Nobody ever said “because more heat and more CO2 therefor we are hot because of more CO2.”

But we have known CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1865 or so.

When we use spectroscopy—we find the CO2 in the atmosphere is acting like a greenhouse gas! Just like it does in the lab!

You idiot.

They've been saying gee its hotter... oh look there is more CO2 therefore it must be CO2 which is causing the heat.


Hate to tell you...  but the Earth is not a bell-jar and climate and atmosphere are much more complicated.

Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #33 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:44am
 
No, spectroscopy shows that the GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking IR from escaping into space. This causes the heating we are clearly getting.
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 21604
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #34 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 1:05pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 10:44am:
No, spectroscopy shows that the GHGs in the atmosphere are blocking IR from escaping into space. This causes the heating we are clearly getting.


Still ignoring the incoming IR? How sad.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 21604
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #35 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 1:06pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10th, 2017 at 10:08pm:
Consequences of AGW

:
:
:

• Agriculture/Horticulture
  – https://www.wineselectors.com.au/selector-magazine/wine/how-climate-change-is-ch...


Oh. I was thinking statistics. You know temperature for the region etc? Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #36 - Jul 11th, 2017 at 9:45pm
 
Here you go:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=Data-&-network

Nuriootpa has a weather station, didn’t see one for Angaston or Tanunda, the other two main towns. You will need a good spreadsheet program to handle the data, or a database. Suggest you load max & min temps, convert to monthly averages. Plot them on a chart—will show an increase. Doubt you have the ability. Just look at temperature series charts, Barossa is just NE of Adelaide, have increased in temperature.

You will find vignerons everywhere having to adapt to warming conditions.

You can’t win, can you Lees, no matter how you deflect, bullshit and obfuscate.

I will let you know how well the Fiano was received at Fridays dinner.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 11th, 2017 at 9:52pm by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 21604
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #37 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:02am
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 11th, 2017 at 9:45pm:
Nuriootpa has a weather station,



Yes. It only opened in 1996.

Kapunda is only 16.2K away and opened in 1861. Its highest maximum temperatures are Jan 9, 1939 - 45.4; Feb 1, 1943 - 43.9; Dec 19, 1957 - 42.8

Station Number 023307

Glad to be of help.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #38 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:09am
 
Kapunda is not in the Barossa, it is higher, different subclimate.

Nuri records go back to 1957 in the BuMet records.
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 21604
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #39 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:25am
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:09am:
Kapunda is not in the Barossa, it is higher, different subclimate.

Nuri records go back to 1957 in the BuMet records.


You do realise there are two Nuriootpa stations?


    Site name:  NURIOOTPA COMPARISON
    Site number:  023321
    Latitude:  34.48 °S   Longitude:  139.00 °E
    Elevation:  274 m
    Commenced:  1952  Status: Closed 01 Mar 1999 
    Latest available data:  28 Feb 1999



    Site name:  NURIOOTPA PIRSA
    Site number:  023373
    Latitude:  34.48 °S   Longitude:  139.01 °E
    Elevation:  275 m
    Commenced:  1996  Status: Open 
    Latest available data:  06 Jul 2017

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_023321.shtml
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #40 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:27am
 
Were there, wow!
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 21604
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #41 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:29am
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:27am:
Were there, wow!


Yeah. And of course you would just take the end temperature of one and connect it to the new one - a la  Michael E Mann. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #42 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 12:33am
 
Can’t you sleep, Lees? Something worrying you? You are never online and speaking chit this late.
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #43 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 2:31am
 
Quote:
Why the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than weather records suggest


One of the key questions about climate change is the strength of the greenhouse effect. In scientific terms this is described as “climate sensitivity”. It’s defined as the amount Earth’s average temperature will ultimately rise in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Climate sensitivity has been hard to pin down accurately. Climate models give a range of 1.5-4.5℃ per doubling of CO₂, whereas historical weather observations suggest a smaller range of 1.5-3.0℃ per doubling of CO₂.


We have seen warming of 1.1°C since pre–industrial times, with CO2 concentrations having increased by over 40%.

Quote:
In a new study published in Science Advances, Cristian Proistosescu and Peter J. Huybers of Harvard University resolve this discrepancy, by showing that the models are likely to be right.

According to their statistical analysis, historical weather observations reveal only a portion of the planet’s full response to rising CO₂ levels. The true climate sensitivity will only become manifest on a time scale of centuries, due to effects that researchers call “slow climate feedbacks”.


Slow climate feedbacks. And oh dear Lees won’t be happy—Bayesian inference  Smiley  .

Quote:
slow climate feedbacks, refers to the ultimate consequence of climate response – in other words, the final effects and environmental consequences that a given greenhouse gas concentration will deliver.

These can include long-term climate feedback processes such as ice sheet disintegration with consequent changes in Earth’s surface reflection (albedo), changes to vegetation patterns, and the release of greenhouse gases such as methane from soils, tundra or ocean sediments. These processes can take place on time scales of centuries or more. As such they can only be predicted using climate models based on prehistoric data and paleoclimate evidence.


We know methane is starting to be released from thawing Arctic and Antarctic tundras, but nitrous oxide might be an even bigger cause of these long term climate feedback processes. As sea ice and land based ice sheets melt darker ocean and rocks are exposed. Unlike ice and snow which are white and so reflect a lot of sunlight back into space water and rocks are dark and absorb sunlight and so heat up. This is albedo change. This is why warming is happening twice as fast at the poles as anywhere else on the globe.

Quote:
On the other hand, when greenhouse gas forcing rises at a rate as high as 2–3 parts per million (ppm) of CO₂ per year, as is the case during the past decade or so, the rate of slow feedback processes may be accelerated.


Oh good! So we might get some extra warming from these so–called “slow” longer term feedbacks sooner. Wonderful!

Quote:
A study led by climatologist James Hansen concluded that climate sensitivity is about 3℃ for a doubling of CO₂ when considering only short-term feedbacks. However, it’s potentially as high as 6℃ when considering a final equilibrium involving much of the West and East Antarctic ice melting, if and when global greenhouse levels transcend the 500-700ppm CO₂ range.


We are above 400ppm already, allowing for methane we are at about 450ppm CO2 equivalent, not long to go to get to 500ppm and idiots want coal mining and burning to be sped up  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy And Boobhead thinks, based on a liar’s tales that we are in an ice age.  Cheesy

Quote:
Prehistoric climate records for the Holocene (10,000-250 years ago), the end of the last ice age roughly 11,700 years ago, and earlier periods such as the Eemian (around 115,000-130,000 years ago) suggest equilibrium climate sensitivities as high as 7.1-8.7℃.

So far we have experienced about 1.1℃ of average global warming since the Industrial Revolution. Over this time atmospheric CO₂ levels have risen from 280ppm to 410ppm – and the equivalent of more than 450ppm after factoring in the effects of all the other greenhouse gases besides CO₂.


Time for a picture, some peoples’ heads are steaming (assuming they managed to read this far.)

...

Quote:
Climate change is unlikely to proceed in a linear way. Instead, there is a range of potential thresholds, tipping points, and points of no return that can be crossed during either warming or transient short-lived cooling pauses followed by further warming.

The prehistoric records of the cycles between ice ages, namely intervening warmer “interglacial” periods, reveal several such events, such as the big freeze that suddenly took hold about 12,900 years ago, and the abrupt thaw about 8,200 years ago.

In the prehistoric record, sudden freezing events (called “stadial events”) consistently follow peak interglacial temperatures.

Such events could include the collapse of the Atlantic Mid-Ocean Circulation (AMOC), with consequent widespread freezing associated with influx of extensive ice melt from the Greenland and other polar ice sheets. The influx of cold ice-melt water would abort the warm salt-rich AMOC, leading to regional cooling such as is recorded following each temperature peak during previous interglacial periods.


Cont’d
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2017 at 2:45am by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: The greenhouse effect
Reply #44 - Jul 12th, 2017 at 2:34am
 
Quote:
Over the past few years cold water pools south of Greenland have indicated such cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean. The current rate of global warming could potentially trigger the AMOC to collapse.

A collapse of the AMOC, which climate “sceptics” would no doubt welcome as “evidence of global cooling”, would represent a highly disruptive transient event that would damage agriculture, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. Because of the cumulative build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such a cool pause is bound to be followed by resumed heating, consistent with IPCC projections.


I have expressed concern the “Atlantic Conveyer” might be stopped causing problems for England and Western Europe which are at quite high altitudes, made very habitable by the warmth brought by the Gulf Stream aka Atlantic Conveyor.

There are global maps of temperatures showing such cold spots south of Greenland. Greenland has been losing bulk ice for some decades and this cold, fresh meltwater could interfere and stop the warm, very saline Gulf Stream—called the AMOC in the reference article.

Quote:
Humanity’s release of greenhouse gases is unprecedented in speed and scale. But if we look far enough back in time we can get some clues as to what to expect. Around 56 million years ago, Earth experienced warming by 5-8℃ lasting several millennia, after a sudden release of methane-triggered feedbacks that caused the CO₂ level rise to around 1,800ppm.

Yet even that sudden rise of CO₂ levels was lower by a large factor than the current CO₂ rise rate of 2-3ppm per year. At this rate, unprecedented in Earth’s recorded history of the past 65 million years (with the exception of the consequences of asteroid impacts), the climate may be entering truly uncharted territory.


https://theconversation.com/why-the-climate-is-more-sensitive-to-carbon-dioxide-...

The abstract of the study discussed in the Conversation:
Quote:
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report widened the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range from 2° to 4.5°C to an updated range of 1.5° to 4.5°C in order to account for the lack of consensus between estimates based on models and historical observations. The historical ECS estimates range from 1.5° to 3°C and are derived assuming a linear radiative response to warming. A Bayesian methodology applied to 24 models, however, documents curvature in the radiative response to warming from an evolving contribution of interannual to centennial modes of radiative response. Centennial modes display stronger amplifying feedbacks and ultimately contribute 28 to 68% (90% credible interval) of equilibrium warming, yet they comprise only 1 to 7% of current warming. Accounting for these unresolved centennial contributions brings historical records into agreement with model-derived ECS estimates.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2017 at 2:43am by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 15
Send Topic Print