How did they stop Global Warming so quickly?

[BrownOut]

I didn't say water vapor wasn't on the graph. The discussion was about the green line, which is dominated by CO2. You should know what is being discussed in a post before commenting on it. Why can you not read and understand simple posts and simple discussion. If you look closely, there is no change in the forcing of water vapor. Yes it traps heat, but climate change is about climate change. unless the global warming potential or something else about water vapor changes, then there is no change due to water vapor. Get it? It's really, really, really simple. It's so easy and uncomplicated, but you and your friends are trying extremely hard to make something very simple into something complicated. The rest of us can understand these simple concepts, what's your problem?

What does not editing have to do with gimmicks? Who is using gimmicks? How, where, what are they? How does someone who makes corrections or edits using gimmicks? I have noticed your posts have alot of unsubstantiated, meaningless statements like the "gimmick" one. You may write like you think, but you're not doing much thinking when you write.

Besides, you're posts are in need of some editing, so you're not accomplishing anything at all by not proof reading and making corrections.

 

[Ross Craney]

I've been following the GW discussions both here & other forums. I'll state from the outset that I am not a GW believer. I find it hard to just accept an outcome based on faith in the science that seems to have so much ommitted. Its a bit like believing the bible & ignoring the fact that dinosaurs or pyramids are never mentioned. It seems to me that data has been collected , the results massaged, normalised, annualised, homogenised, seasonalised, averaged, and whatever else they do to it. Then an outcome is arrived at & you are expected to beilieve it whith no correspondence entered into. Unfortunately myself & many other people have questions that need to be answered , again just like believing in the bible. I am old enough to remember large volcanic eruptions in the seventees that would affect the worlds climat for the next 50 yrs. The ozone depletion that came & went & was due to CFC & HFC gases that were heavier than air. The year 2000 bug that brought out all the experts to forecast the end of civilisation. I think I have the chicken little syndrome

If Brownout or any other believers would like a convert then here are my questions -

* CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.5. Doesn't that make it heavier than air? How does it get into the upper atmosphere & if it does then what percentage gets there?
* All the science shows a correlation between CO2 & global temperature. I don't think that is in dispute. The question is , what came first the temp increase or the CO2 increase. I tend to believe that the CO2 increase is the RESULT of a temperature increase. So what caused the temperature increase in the first place. Well it would have to be the sun , its responsible for 90% of the worlds heat. Has solar radiation increased ? I don't know because I can't find that data mentioned .
* It is accepted that the oceans hold CO2 at a ration of 50:1 to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere & as the oceans warn then CO2 is released. The believers seem to think this is bad , but if you do a bit of research on " Prandtl Number " for C02 then this may not be the case.
* Prandtl Number is a dimentionless numberapproximating the ratio of momentum diffusivity (kinematic viscosity) & thermal diffusivity and is used for heat transfer , free & forced convection calculations.

Pr=uCp/k where Pr = Prandtl number
u = absolute or dynamic viscosity
Cp= specific heat capacity
k = thermal conductivity

the Prandtl number for CO2 is 28.7 @ 30*c & 2.22 @ -30*c


So from my understanding CO2 is actually a heat conduit from surface level (30*c) to the upper atmosphere (-30*c). So what happens when that heat gets up there? I can't find any data on that but I would assume it is radiated in all directions, some out to space & some back to earth. The way I see it is that CO2 actually aids in temperature stability , it is the feedback process that controls the temperature. For the CAUSE of the warming you need to look elsewhere. If anyone would like to shoot me down in flames then feel free to do so , this is only what my research has indicated & I don't have access to the "experts" or the "science" to put me in my place. Again , like the bible , there seems too much inconvenient info that has been left out because it doesn't "fit in"

 

[Mikebits]

* CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.5. Doesn't that make it heavier than air? How does it get into the upper atmosphere & if it does then what percentage gets there?

Honestly, are you questioning whether CO2 is actually in the atmosphere? First, let's clarify the definition of specific gravity. It is density of something relative to a reference which is usually water with a number of 1 and this is specified at temp and pressure. Density is mass/volume.
You ask, "Doesn't that make it heavier than air?" this brings us to needing another clarification. Air by definition is A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases.
So how does it get into the atmosphere? The density of CO2 gas decreases with increase in temp such as when leaving a spewing smoke stack. These now free floating, heated, low density molecules now get caught in wind currents and updrafts. Being that the atmosphere is dynamic in its movements the CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Also, as the CO2 reaches the upper atmosphere, the pressure is much much less than sea level further reducing its density.

All the science shows a correlation between CO2 & global temperature. I don't think that is in dispute. The question is , what came first the temp increase or the CO2 increase. I tend to believe that the CO2 increase is the RESULT of a temperature increase. So what caused the temperature increase in the first place. Well it would have to be the sun , its responsible for 90% of the worlds heat. Has solar radiation increased ? I don't know because I can't find that data mentioned .

So you going with the chicken or the egg angle? The CO2 rise seems to correlate quite well with the rise in temp. As you already mentioned and I must agree, I have seen no supporting data that shows any solar activity that would lead one to believe that solar activity is an influence on the rise in temp. No data, not an argument.

Prandtl Number " for C02 then this may not be the case.

Before you start citing buzz words from some AGW revolution website and then quoting Wiki, perhaps you might explain this dimensionless number.

If you had bothered to actually try to understand Dear old Prandtl, you would have seen that this number decreases as density decreases. Secondly, I don't think this is relevant to what global gas issue is, as I do think it has more to do with solar energy reflection as opposed to conduction.

 

[Ross Craney]

Honestly, are you questioning whether CO2 is actually in the atmosphere?

Come on now how could you possibly infer that I said that?

First, let's clarify the definition of specific gravity. It is density of something relative to a reference which is usually water with a number of 1 and this is specified at temp and pressure. Density is mass/volume.
You ask, "Doesn't that make it heavier than air?" this brings us to needing another clarification. Air by definition is A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases.

OK , I'll reword that. CO2 is 1.5 times heavier than air

So how does it get into the atmosphere? The density of CO2 gas decreases with increase in temp such as when leaving a spewing smoke stack. These now free floating, heated, low density molecules now get caught in wind currents and updrafts. Being that the atmosphere is dynamic in its movements the CO2 stays in the atmosphere. Also, as the CO2 reaches the upper atmosphere, the pressure is much much less than sea level further reducing its density.

Well since temperature decreases with altitude a time will come when it drops out of the atmosphere

So you going with the chicken or the egg angle?

I,ve alresdy stated my opinion about that. It's a shame you edit my post so selectively

The CO2 rise seems to correlate quite well with the rise in temp. As you already mentioned and I must agree, I have seen no supporting data that shows any solar activity that would lead one to believe that solar activity is an influence on the rise in temp. No data, not an argument.

Its not being used as an arguement, I'm simply stating that I cannot find data on it

Before you start citing buzz words from some AGW revolution website and then quoting Wiki, perhaps you might explain this dimensionless number.

Don't call it a buzz word because it becomes obvious that you don't understand it. I mention it because it is a fundamental operator in fluid dynamics & heat transferrance calculations. I have NEVER seen ANY referrence to it in the AGW arguements. Seems strange to me.

If you had bothered to actually try to understand Dear old Prandtl, you would have seen that this number decreases as density decreases. Secondly, I don't think this is relevant to what global gas issue is, as I do think it has more to do with solar energy reflection as opposed to conduction.

Well sorry Mike but you really let yourself down here. I gave you the formulae & the operators but actually using them will require good knowledge of thermal & momentum diffusivity , but to simplify things check out the following table.

Temp *c Thermal Conductivity W/m k Pradtl Number
-50 0.086 2.96
-40 0.101 2.46
-30 0.112 2.22
-20 0.115 2.12
-10 0.110 2.20
0 0.105 2.38
10 0.097 2.80
20 0.087 4.10
30 0.070 28.7

If you stretch yourself a little bit further you will find that between 0*c & -40*c (which would be the temperature range encountered at upper atmosphere) specific heat capacity decreases & thermal conductivity increases. ie it gives up heat. Like I said , CO2 acts like a heat conduit between lower & upper atmosphere.
And Mike the Pradtl number does not decrease as density decreases. It decreases until -20*c & then increases. Another arguement ignoring data that doesn't fit the story.

 

[HarveyH42]

I didn't say water vapor wasn't on the graph. The discussion was about the green line, which is dominated by CO2. You should know what is being discussed in a post before commenting on it. Why can you not read and understand simple posts and simple discussion. If you look closely, there is no change in the forcing of water vapor. Yes it traps heat, but climate change is about climate change. unless the global warming potential or something else about water vapor changes, then there is no change due to water vapor. Get it? It's really, really, really simple. It's so easy and uncomplicated, but you and your friends are trying extremely hard to make something very simple into something complicated. The rest of us can understand these simple concepts, what's your problem?

There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills, have always enjoyed books, over TV, movies, and video games. I just don't think like you, my mind functions a little differently. I understood it in that other two GW threads, now closed. Water vapor does nothing to help the Global Warming Cult, and therefore has no effect on Climate Change. Water is a very unique molecule, and has many interesting properties, which is one reason life even exists on this planet.

You obviously get confused at times, and need to clarify by belittling people, who do belong to your chosen belief system. Personally, I could careless about such things. If you must degrade others to build yourself up, just illustrates your own inadequacies and weakness. Whatever helps you, more power to you.

Looking out the window... Looks like the Climate Change for today, is wet. Past few months, it was followed with cold. Hope that Trend doesn't continue this time, I'm on vacation this week, and a new car to play with. Might not buy this on though, isn't looking too good. The more, I look, the more questionable it gets. Has duel exhaust, drivers side is clean and shiny, passenger side is burnt and dirty. Along with the 'add oil' light, might be burning oil, and costly repair. Tires are well worn, something else to replace soon. The power windows might not be too bad, parts for both will run me about $150 (including shipping). Got to head up to the tag office, and get it register so I can drive around some and see how it rides.

 

[BrownOut]

I get really tired of people commenting on my posts who haven't read them carefully. Everyone makes mistakes, I understand, but when I need to explain something over and over and over, then I'm either talking to someone who just ain't gonna get it, or someone who is purposefully trying to deceive. And when you call AGW science believers a "CULT", how does that square with you’re complaining about belittling people. I've found that the critics believe they can be just as abusive as they please, and then whine over any little perceived slight. The most ridiculous thing I've heard is how I'm told repeatedly how 200 years of data is insufficient to draw conclusions, but a 3 week cold snap is plenty long enough to decide AGW isn't real. An event that has never happened in recorded time isn't rare, but one that has been recorded many times is rare.

Thanks, Mike for that explanation of air. That little false argument about specific gravity is sort of like saying "my nose has more specific gravity than my face." CO2 is indeed a constituent of air, so the argument makes no sense at all. As far as CO2 being a heat conductor, there are lots of problems with that analysis. First of all, it would be a pretty poor conductor, according to the Prandtl number. Secondly, when we speak of the oceans heating, we are talking about the effects of greenhouse gases, and the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere which is responsible for the heating. So in effect, what is being said is the heating releases CO2, which in turn cools. But without the heating, there would be no release. Thirdly, the theory depends on CO2 getting into the upper atmosphere, and measurements show little of the gas in that region. In fact, CO2 like other greenhouse gases is responsible for warming the earth an extra 86 degrees over the temperature of solar radiation alone. The **broken link removed** to show this is very easy to follow.

 

[tcmtech]

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

More skeptics with well recognized degrees and accreditations on climate, weather, meteorology, and earth science from their working careers and professions.


Solar cycle influences and what not.

Solar Cycle Linked To Global Climate

The EPA's thoughts.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html (lots of links here.)

 

[HarveyH42]

Yes, it is simple, too simple for all our woes and fears to be focused on a single, simple, and abundant, naturally occurring molecule, CO2. Mankind has been sending CO2 into the air ever since he struck the first fire. I just see quite of other things that influence climate, other than CO2 and warming. Whether or not AGW is actually, a cult, it shares all the key features, and a fair comparison. Cults where kind of popular in my youth, and we were well educated in things to avoid, to avoid the trap. But that's a whole other argument, which would be about as productive. CO2, the one and only true cause of warming, and they only way to save the planet, from change. Climate isn't weather, but climate does cause extreme weather, do to AGW... One simple molecule, in a relatively small concentration, compared to most other components of the atmosphere, has the greatest influence over the climate. Is that simplistic enough? I do understand what you are saying, just don't BUY what you are selling. It makes complete sense to you, because that is all that you know, it's all you have to work with. Just a matter of perspective. I've always been taller than average, and get a little better view, over the rest of the herd...

 

[BrownOut]

Well, thanks for proving my point about how abusive you can be while whining about any perceived slight you might receive. I guess you didn't know about glass houses and throwing stones. And all you've told us is whatever you see at the moment is all telling about present and future trends. You have not shown any understanding about anything, and yet you think yourself competent enough to criticize me. You have no idea what the limits of my knowledge is, but you feel qualified to comment on it. That only shows how much you are willing to state things you don't know anything about, which pretty much casts a pall over all statements you've made.

 

[Mikebits]

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

More skeptics with well recognized degrees and accreditations on climate, weather, meteorology, and earth science from their working careers and professions.


Solar cycle influences and what not.

Solar Cycle Linked To Global Climate

The EPA's thoughts.

Recent Climate Change | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA (lots of links here.)

Isn't this Happer guy the Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives a large part of its funding from Exxon?

 

[tcmtech]

Isn't this Happer guy the Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives a large part of its funding from Exxon?

Don't know myself to be honest. Who worked where is not something I have ever concerned myself with as far as I view their knowledge or abilities.

As far as credentials of who worked where how many of us have changed jobs at one time that could be seen as having worked for or have gone to work for some place someone else would see or feel as a bad place or a good place. And should any of our employment history really be whats more important than our actual knowledge and experience?

I have unfortunately worked for a couple of corrupt businesses where drug use, drug dealing, and paying off inspectors to get illegal work passed was common. That doesn't mean I am a drug user or a dealer or that I too do illegal business dealings just because I worked around those people at one time. That also does not mean my knowledge and experience I gained from that work environment is invalid either since I do not work their any longer.
I have also worked at a few places that are seen a good as well but that shouldn't make what I learned and experienced their be seen as being of any greater value either.

So am I a good person or a bad person based on where I have worked and is my knowledge and experience I can pass along to others of any more or less value or credit because of that time I spent at those places?

 

[BrownOut]

Isn't this Happer guy the Chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, which receives a large part of its funding from Exxon?

Yes he is.

 

[HarveyH42]

Well, thanks for proving my point about how abusive you can be while whining about any perceived slight you might receive. I guess you didn't know about glass houses and throwing stones. And all you've told us is whatever you see at the moment is all telling about present and future trends. You have not shown any understanding about anything, and yet you think yourself competent enough to criticize me. You have no idea what the limits of my knowledge is, but you feel qualified to comment on it. That only shows how much you are willing to state things you don't know anything about, which pretty much casts a pall over all statements you've made.

I don't take Global Warming seriously, it's a bad joke. I'm not concerned about the rising temperature, just how much of my pitiful paycheck your people want to take, and squander on nothing at all. Abusive? I'm just that mean or nasty, maybe someday I'll show you the difference. The 'slight', is how you take the tone of the all knowing, while trying to force you views. You figure I would appear of minimal intelligence, if I don't agree, and want to avoid the embarrassment. Maybe that mentality got you through grade school, but I was never easily bullied into anything. Never cared to be popular, or part of any group. Seems to be the only way you know, either it's worked for you all your life, or it's been used on you, with great success.

I don't agree, not because I don't understand, but because I'm not buying garbage. I didn't start this thread to prove anything, since I'm not trying to sell anything. I could careless if I change anyone's opinion on Climate Change. You've made your choice, worked hard to prove to yourself and everyone else you made the right choice, good for you. That's entirely your business, sell it some where else. I've looked over your goods, and think it's a defective product, and choose to shop for better quality.

The Climate Change is a good thing for life on this planet. There as absolutely nothing to prove otherwise, but all evidence points to life being very good, with a warmer climate and higher levels of CO2. Why try and preserve the mess we have today? Who stands to profit most, from a CO2 based economy? Who decides how many credits are handed out, and to who?

As for myself, I've been entirely open an honest about everything in my life, my job, education, home, even my dog. Nothing to brag on, nothing to be ashamed of, just the facts. Have noticed though, that you don't seem to have much going for you, except an 'advanced degree', which you never specified a field, even when asked directly. Must be a PhD in Climatology or Scientology...

 

[BrownOut]

There you go again; trying to make yourself seem knowledgeable about things you know nothing about. You don’t know me or what I have going for me. Just as you didn't know anything about me from the beginning, but pretended to know enough to comment on my knowledge. You make a habit of commenting on things you know nothing about. So I conclude you're only a demagogue pretender who talks big and says nothing. What a surprise that a denialist pretends to know of things he doesn't. You and yours disappoint me each time I read any of your drivel. You have nothing other than name calling, sarcasm, bull sh*tting, trying to speak of things of which you are uniformed. For someone who didn't want to change anyone's mind, you sure write alot of crap and try to discredit anyone who disagrees. I ain't buying any of your garbage, including your story about your intents. It just doesn't fly.

The denailists won't bully me; won't back me down; won't get their baloney pseudo-knowledge past me. No matter how many insulting comments you make, how many uninformed comments about my life, education or knowledge, how many times you mock and ridicule, I'm here and I'll be here for a very long time. So go ahead and keep wasting space and your time. I got all damn day. You're not going to run me off no matter what.

 

[HarveyH42]

There you go again; trying to make yourself seem knowledgeable about things you know nothing about. You don’t know me or what I have going for me. Just as you didn't know anything about me from the beginning, but pretended to know enough to comment on my knowledge. You make a habit of commenting on things you know nothing about. So I conclude you're only a demagogue pretender who talks big and says nothing. What a surprise that a denialist pretends to know of things he doesn't. You and yours disappoint me each time I read any of your drivel. You have nothing other than name calling, sarcasm, bull sh*tting, trying to speak of things of which you are uniformed. For someone who didn't want to change anyone's mind, you sure write alot of crap and try to discredit anyone who disagrees. I ain't buying any of your garbage, including your story about your intents. It just doesn't fly.

The denailists won't bully me; won't back me down; won't get their baloney pseudo-knowledge past me. No matter how many insulting comments you make, how many uninformed comments about my life, education or knowledge, how many times you mock and ridicule, I'm here and I'll be here for a very long time. So go ahead and keep wasting space and your time. I got all damn day. You're not going to run me off no matter what.

Wow, this is certainly a keeper. Not even one mention of Climate Change. I comment on things I know nothing about, because I ask direct questions, and get no response, or a quick dodge. Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, next decade, or a thousand years from now. There are dozens of lottery simulations for sale, but the only people making money off them, are those writing them. Same with Climate Change prediction, looks great on paper...

Where have I resorted to name calling? Sarcasm? This whole thread was started on sarcasm, you seem to be the only one who missed it, and it wasn't all that subtle. I stated my intentions, and only exploring alternative explanations for the possible warming trend, and other potential out comes, besides burning up, hurricanes of monstrous proportions, and unfortunate fate of the polar bears (only good for knocking over trashcans anyway). Also concerned about the economic impact of carbon-based currency.

If you don't like my writing, don't believe there is anything of value, and think I'm so poorly educated, why even bother reading my garbage, our commenting? Why take my worthless words so personally? If my thoughts are so weak and shallow, why do you defend so viciously? These are rhetorical questions, not a request for further froth...

 

[shortbus=]

<SNIP>

The denailists won't bully me; won't back me down; won't get their baloney pseudo-knowledge past me. No matter how many insulting comments you make, how many uninformed comments about my life, education or knowledge, how many times you mock and ridicule, I'm here and I'll be here for a very long time. So go ahead and keep wasting space and your time. I got all damn day. You're not going to run me off no matter what.

Brownout, I believe you! I also believe your mind was made up before you ever researched anything.


TCMtech-- Great new avatar!!!

 

[ElectroMaster]

Guys, please keep this thread on topic and peaceful or it will be locked.

 

[BrownOut]

Heck, you haven't said anything about climate change either. I only seek to expose those who come on here and write about people or things they know nothing about, but pretend to know. You've shown yourself very willing to do that, and write some of what you pretend to be facts about me and my life. But you don't know me, don't know anything about me, have no knowledge about my life, what I have going for me, what subjects I've studied. And yet you feel as though you're qualified to comment and make statements about these things. You only expose yourself as a someone willing to invent facts from thing air by doing so. You want to know why I would take personal comments personally? Well, seems that's a question that answers itself.

You have nothing of any value to say, no new data, and no new breakthrough. Just the same old, worn out rhetoric, sarcasm, name calling and decidedly illogical, irrelevant and inarticulate blather. Nothing. Oh, and criticisms, insults and attempts to bully anyone who disagrees with you, as well as misquoting and misrepresenting their posts and words. Sorry, you're whole case is a straw man without merit. What a waste of server space to have all your worthless postings and personal vendettas on here.

 

[BrownOut]

Brownout, I believe you! I also believe your mind was made up before you ever researched anything.

Yeah, I invedted AGW all by myself!

 

[shortbus=]

A global warming CO2 scientist