climate change

[trichrider]

care to think again?
there is no global warming. it isn't happening.
oceans are rising...sure, but not because of glacial melt.

why would we want to stop nature? i dunno...control?

i read an interesting paper in the sixties from a NASA scientist claiming the reason Venus was so hot was because of cloud coverage. now the current thinking is clouds will make it colder?

Co2 is not poison.
Co2 rise lags temperature (not the opposite).
temperature moves in tenths of degrees over about a century.
sea levels are not rising due to temperature.

why would any of this matter?

because it's fake and someone wants you to feel guilty so you'll be more amenable to giving more monies in the form of taxes, fees, prices, etc.

there is no way for higher prices, more taxes and fees, nor loss of liberties to impact what nature will do...as you so eloquently pointed out.

freedom loses...as freedom of thought has already been victim.

 

[igrowone]

care to think again?
there is no global warming. it isn't happening.
oceans are rising...sure, but not because of glacial melt.

why would we want to stop nature? i dunno...control?

i read an interesting paper in the sixties from a NASA scientist claiming the reason Venus was so hot was because of cloud coverage. now the current thinking is clouds will make it colder?

Co2 is not poison.
Co2 rise lags temperature (not the opposite).
temperature moves in tenths of degrees over about a century.
sea levels are not rising due to temperature.

why would any of this matter?

because it's fake and someone wants you to feel guilty so you'll be more amenable to giving more monies in the form of taxes, fees, prices, etc.

there is no way for higher prices, more taxes and fees, nor loss of liberties to impact what nature will do...as you so eloquently pointed out.

freedom loses...as freedom of thought has already been victim.

sometimes you have good posts and links
this is not one of those times
you speak with authority on things that are far too complex to be addressed so simply
co2 can be a poison, lock your self in a chamber with 5% co2 in it, report to us on the result

 

[stoned-trout]

has Maine warmed up yet???? I wanna move back...yeehaw

 

[igrowone]

has Maine warmed up yet???? I wanna move back...yeehaw

hang in there, it's getting nicer up here
looking like a very good winter by upstate ny standards
palm trees are a ways off, but then again who knows for sure?

 

[trichrider]

thanx igrow.

those posts you approve of are what makes me say what i did.

i've been looking at this stuff for a few years and haven't seen anything to dispute
what i typed.

some people believe in tooth-faeries and toilet-paper trees, i believe i'll have another bowl.

sometimes the bug, sometimes the windscreen.

i'm comfortable with my views.

 

[strandloper]

trichrider

Rising temperatures melt glacial ice and cause expansion of the water in the sea.
If this is not the cause of sea level rising than what is?


All the graphs I've seen show that Co2 level changes are synchronous with temperature level changes over the last 400,000 years. (since the dawn of homo sapiens)
They go up and down at the same time.
Why do you think it lags?

or are you speaking of the short term changes?

 

[trichrider]

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Lags Temperature: the Proof

Published on June 13, 2014

Written by Dr Pierre Latour PE

Man-made global warming promoters claim the high correlation between carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric temperature (T) in the 420,000 year ice core record proves CO2 causes T to change. Herein is demonstrated how the evidence conflicts with that belief.

CO2 fraud

Basics. First, correlation alone only proves correlation, not cause and effect. Physics is required to describe and prove cause and effect. Second if increasing CO2 did cause T to increase, there must be some physical lag or delay in the response of T to CO2; average T of whole atmosphere, oceans and land masses cannot respond instantaneously to CO2, no matter how strong the cause.

In fact many researchers claim CO2 actually lags T, proving CO2 cannot cause T changes at all. Rather T causes CO2.

What could cause CO2 to lag warming? Its solubility in water? Yes, that explains the data well. Simply put, when oceans warm due to greater solar energy absorption, they outgas dissolved CO2 just like soda water does because CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold. When oceans are chilled, they absorb CO2 gas and hold it because CO2 is more soluble. Tropical seas hold less CO2/m3 than polar seas do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Mixing_Time

The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory.

Data analysis. After studying that mechanism in 2009 and Al Gore’s 420,000 years of T and CO2 data in his “Inconvenient Truth” movie and National Geographic June 2007 Big Thaw article and insert, their data confirm it was a lag, not a lead.

Houston’s University of St Thomas, Environmental Sciences Department also confirmed the 800 year lag at their April 21, 2009 Conference with Jill Hasling, Weather Research Center, Houston, as have many others.

The measurement is done by inputting T data to a lag model with an assumed lag time constant, τ, and comparing lagged T data output with raw CO2 data. This rigorously accounts for different frequencies. If a lag time can be found that provides a close match between lagged T and CO2, the lag time assumption would be verified by measurement.

The lag model is yi = f*xi + (1-f)yi-1, a discrete form of low-pass filter or electrical RC circuit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter

xi is the series of T data for i = 1, 2, 3, …….. and yi is series of lagged or filtered T data.

Filter factor f = del t/(τ + del t) < 1, where del t is the sampling time interval between xi data points, probably about 10 years.

Computer programs easily find the value for f and τ that best fits the 420,000 year data sequence of lagged yi to CO2i. The result is τ = about 800 years. Of course it may vary by a 100 years or so. The point is the lag τ > 0.

Role of Science. This correlation becomes a proven cause and effect relation when physics explains and predicts what is observed. This value is predicted by ocean circulation rates and mass transfer rate of CO2 across oceans’ gas-liquid surface interface.

The science is this. Solubility of CO2 in water decreases with T. Just like in beer, soda and Champagne. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

Air is well mixed with only minor variation in CO2 content with latitude. Ocean is saturated with CO2 in contact with CO2 in air. Ocean water circulates up and down, north and south, east and west, all around. As warm water flows north and cools by convective and radiant heat transfer, it absorbs CO2 from air. As cold water flows south and warms by convective and radiant heat transfer, it releases, outgasses, CO2 to air. If global average Tw increases, water outgasses and CO2 in air increases. If global average Tw decreases, water absorbs and CO2 in air decreases. Oceans are a CO2 reservoir, a sink and source, depending on T changes, average about 14.9C and solar incidence absorbed/emitted changes, average about 161 w/m2 of surface.

Chemical engineering. Engineers know the rate of mass transfer of any component, x, across any gas-liquid interface is proportional to the difference between partial pressure of x in liquid and its partial pressure in vapor. Partial pressure = mol fraction* total pressure = x*Pt. x = 0.000400

PPa = Partial pressure CO2 in air is 400 ppmv * 1 atm = 0.0004 atm

PPw = Partial pressure CO2 in liquid = f*X*Tw, where f = fugacity, X = CO2 concentration in water and Tw = water T. When Tw increases, solubility decreases and PPw increases.

Transfer rate of CO2 from air to water is = TR = r*A*(PPa – PPw) > 0, where r is the interfacial film coefficient, a mass transfer rate constant, and A = interface surface area of transfer. If TR < 0, transfer is in other direction, from water to air.

TR, mol/hr = r*A(x*Pa – f*X*Tw) = r*A*(0.0004 – f*X*Tw).

This quantifies the rate of CO2 from air to water increases with its 400 ppmv content in air, a stabilizing effect, and also when Tw decreases. As Tw increases, absorption rate decreases and can turn to outgassing.

This is the part AGW promoters miss.

Control systems engineering. The instantaneous CO2 mass balance differential equation assuming ocean is well mixed is mCp dX/dt = TR + other inputs – other outputs, where m = mass of ocean and Cp is heat capacity of water. This is the form of a low-pass filter.

The theoretical time lag is Tlag = mCp/r*A*f*Tw.

This says big oceans, large m, with high heat capacity, Cp, have big lag. Thin oceans with large A have small lag. If mass transfer rate r is large, lag is small. If Tw is high, outgassing rate is large and lag is small.

m = 1.3*10**9 km3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

Cp = 75.327 J/mol-K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page) or 4.187 kJ/kg-K http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html

Ocean A = 3.61*10**8 km2. A more realistic value accounting for waves is 2x = 7.2*10**8 km2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Tw = 288K, approximately, and r and f are available from chemistry.

Using the known values of these physical parameters predicts Tlag = 800 years.

This explains why mixing or residence time of different species between atmosphere and oceans varies so greatly, from 200 years for iron to 100 million years for chloride; they have widely different mass transfer film coefficients and fugacity’s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean#Mixing_Time

Since ocean circuits complete in much less than 800 years, the well-mixed assumption is good and the circuit rates are irrelevant over 800 year periods.

Dynamics. I must add there is another rate step in the ocean, the consumption of CO2 by phytoplankton and production of CO2 from dissolving inorganic carbonates. I shall assume they are not rate limiting, and interfacial mass transfer at the surface is. If not, there will be a significant second-order lag.

The response of Earth’s global radiating temperature to changes in solar intensity has second-order dynamics, a small thermal lag of atmosphere and a much larger thermal lag of oceans and continents. You can think of these time lags as system residence times; volume/volumetric throughput rate or mass/mass throughput rate. These dynamic properties are neglected by AGW modelers that simply use instantaneous radiation physics, even get that wrong (I proved it would constitute a perpetual motion machine to create energy in violation of two laws of thermodynamics), resort to empirical correlations, and get that wrong too. So they can’t forecast anything. So they can do more research, to scare people into paying higher taxes.

Conclusions. Chemists and chemical engineers know about this, AGW promoters don’t, even if they are radiation astrophysicists.

So Al Gore’s 420,000 years of data confirms CO2 lags T and chemical engineering mass transfer theory proves it. That is a Truth. Whether it is Convenient or Inconvenient depends on your agenda.

Further, any attempt to use raw data rather than lag synchronized data to develop empirical statistical regression correlation models to forecast weather, global warming and climate change will lead to widely different models and wildly divergent forecasts, as proven by University of East Anglia, UK and UN IPCC research since 2000.

I have not seen any better explanation for the lag. I have never seen any credible explanation for or evidence of lead, CO2 causing T in either direction.

This does not prove that CO2 does not cause any warming whatsoever; only that 420,000 years of data doesn’t prove it does. It is not the AGW skeptics’ job to prove the GHGT, but to disprove it. For society’s sake.

http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” explains Sune Olander Rasmussen, Associate Professor and centre coordinator at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...s-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/


....and sea levels are always rising. sure there are fluctuations caused by temperature but are statistically insignificant.
water is constantly bombarding earth, it is created by the solar consumption of hydrogen, captured by earths magnetic field and brought to surface by gravity on the surface of cosmic dust.


Solar Wind Creates Water in Star Dust, Implications for Life
by Charles Q. Choi, SPACE.com Contributor | January 27, 2014 06:08am ET

This illustration shows water forming on interplanetary dust particles due to space-weathering from the solar wind. Hydrogen ions in the solar wind react with oxygen atoms in the dust to make the water inside tiny vesicles (blue). This type of water forma
[Pin It] This illustration shows water forming on interplanetary dust particles due to space-weathering from the solar wind. Hydrogen ions in the solar wind react with oxygen atoms in the dust to make the water inside tiny vesicles (blue). This type of water formation likely occurs in other planetary systems as well as our own.
Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
View full size image

Solar wind can form water on interplanetary dust, potentially adding to the primordial soup that gave rise to life on Earth, scientists say.

On Earth, there is life virtually everywhere water is found. Past research suggests much of this water may have come to Earth from comets raining down on the planet. But scientists have suggested another source of water in the airless void of space — the continuous flow of charged particles from the sun, a stream known as the solar wind.

This wind consists primarily of protons, the positively charged nuclei of hydrogen atoms. When these particles slam against oxygen-laden rocks — for instance, minerals known as silicates — they could in principle form water molecules.

The creation of water via the solar wind could help explain the presence of water on the moon and on asteroids. The wind could also have formed water on interplanetary dust, which, in turn, could have rained water down on Earth and other rocky planets.

"Interplanetary dust continually lands on the Earth and other solar system bodies," said study co-author Hope Ishii, an astromaterials scientist at the University of Hawaii. In the present day, Earth receives about 30,000 to 40,000 tons of interplanetary dust per year. This amount is thought to have been considerably higher when the Earth was young, because there was more interplanetary dust drifting through the solar system.

Intriguingly, interplanetary dust is also known to possess more carbon-laden organic molecules than any other known class of meteoritic material. Such dust "may well have acted as a continuous rainfall of little reaction vessels containing both the water and organics needed for the eventual origin of life," Ishii said.

http://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind-makes-water-star-dust.html

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

[YOUTUBEIF]TCy_UOjEir0[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[stoned-trout]

I blame the cows....yeehaw moooooooo

 

[stoned-trout]

I want more co2 so my outdoor plants will grow faster.....yeehaw

 

[trichrider]

I want more co2 so my outdoor plants will grow faster.....yeehaw

just keep breathing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOP6JnaZgw

[youtubeif]3HOP6JnaZgw[/youtubeif]

 

[strandloper]

thanks for the cut and paste trichrider.
I noticed this in it,

"The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory"

unfortunately nothing is confirmed by a theory.


and you think the seas are rising because of interplanetary dust?

 

[sdd420]

trichrider

Rising temperatures melt glacial ice and cause expansion of the water in the sea.
If this is not the cause of sea level rising than what is?


All the graphs I've seen show that Co2 level changes are synchronous with temperature level changes over the last 400,000 years. (since the dawn of homo sapiens)
They go up and down at the same time.
Why do you think it lags?

or are you speaking of the short term changes?

Dude 400,000 is short term for the earths history get real there is no way we can say global warming maybe we're on temp heat like on the house thermostat. I agree we need to discontinue fossil fuels but that's more for air quality, which has changed since the dinosaurs era. Chill and smoke some weed man. Peace sdd

 

[trichrider]

thanks for the cut and paste trichrider.
I noticed this in it,

"The lag is measured to be about 800 years and confirmed by theory"

unfortunately nothing is confirmed by a theory.


and you think the seas are rising because of interplanetary dust?

at least you read the material.
no, i didn't claim sea level rise as a result of dust. it is clear that water exists on the dust tho' & as that dust is captured by our magnetosphere it brings with it the water.
billions of years of burning hydrogen creating water and carbon that rain (literally) onto surface/into the atmosphere created our abundance.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUO8bdrXghs

[YOUTUBEIF]rUO8bdrXghs[/YOUTUBEIF]

be aware of the date
remember what he says.

 

[igrowone]

fresh news from the climate front lines
2015 was our warmest year, at least since when temperatures have been measured
and guess what? it was warmer by a LOT!

(CNN)Last year was the Earth's warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA said Wednesday.

It's been clear for quite some time that 2015 would steal the distinction of the hottest year from 2014, with 10 out of the 12 months last year being the warmest respective months on record -- and those records go back 136 years.

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.

This was aided by a December that looked and felt more like a March or April for much of the Northern Hemisphere, where traditional winter holidays had weather that was neither traditional nor winter-like.

In fact, December became the first month to ever reach 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the globe. In the United States, December was both the warmest and the wettest on record -- no other month has ever held both distinctions for the country.

It is somewhat ironic that this news comes out of Washington on a day the city prepares for what could be one of the biggest snowstorms in its history -- but big snows can occur even in the warmest years. Remember Boston last year? Despite the snowiest winter on record for Boston, the state of Massachusetts still ended the year with temperatures far above average.

Why was 2015 so warm? The biggest culprit was a major El Niño, which has joined 1997-1998 as the strongest El Niño ever observed. El Niños, which are characterized by significant warming over topical ocean waters in the Pacific, not only warm the ocean but also pump lots of excess heat into the atmosphere, raising global temperatures.

El Niño years tend to be warmer than non-El Niño years (neutral or La Niña years). El Niño was a major driver of the heat this year, but certainly not the only factor. The change also was "largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere," a NASA press release said. This is evident in that recent neutral or even La Niña years have been hotter than previous strong El Niños.

Much like sports writers who start their preseason predictions immediately following the final buzzer of the previous season's championship, many climate scientists and weather forecasters are already saying 2016 could push the chart-topping temperature climb even higher, with El Niño lingering into spring and the continued influence from man-made climate change.

The odds would certainly favor that, as 15 of the top 16 warmest years have occurred since 2000 (1998 being the lone pre-21st century year on the list). The last time we had a year become the coldest on record was 1911.

 

[strandloper]

I just read an article that said the earth temp has stopped rising but sea surface temp keeps rising and that is a concern

 

[trichrider]

fresh news from the climate front lines
2015 was our warmest year, at least since when temperatures have been measured
and guess what? it was warmer by a LOT!

(CNN)Last year was the Earth's warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA said Wednesday.

It's been clear for quite some time that 2015 would steal the distinction of the hottest year from 2014, with 10 out of the 12 months last year being the warmest respective months on record -- and those records go back 136 years.

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.

This was aided by a December that looked and felt more like a March or April for much of the Northern Hemisphere, where traditional winter holidays had weather that was neither traditional nor winter-like.

In fact, December became the first month to ever reach 2 degrees Fahrenheit above normal for the globe. In the United States, December was both the warmest and the wettest on record -- no other month has ever held both distinctions for the country.

It is somewhat ironic that this news comes out of Washington on a day the city prepares for what could be one of the biggest snowstorms in its history -- but big snows can occur even in the warmest years. Remember Boston last year? Despite the snowiest winter on record for Boston, the state of Massachusetts still ended the year with temperatures far above average.

Why was 2015 so warm? The biggest culprit was a major El Niño, which has joined 1997-1998 as the strongest El Niño ever observed. El Niños, which are characterized by significant warming over topical ocean waters in the Pacific, not only warm the ocean but also pump lots of excess heat into the atmosphere, raising global temperatures.

El Niño years tend to be warmer than non-El Niño years (neutral or La Niña years). El Niño was a major driver of the heat this year, but certainly not the only factor. The change also was "largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere," a NASA press release said. This is evident in that recent neutral or even La Niña years have been hotter than previous strong El Niños.

Much like sports writers who start their preseason predictions immediately following the final buzzer of the previous season's championship, many climate scientists and weather forecasters are already saying 2016 could push the chart-topping temperature climb even higher, with El Niño lingering into spring and the continued influence from man-made climate change.

The odds would certainly favor that, as 15 of the top 16 warmest years have occurred since 2000 (1998 being the lone pre-21st century year on the list). The last time we had a year become the coldest on record was 1911.

not so fast....

The Global and Middle upper Stratosphere are expected to cool in the coming century, mainly due to Carbon Dioxide increases.

[FONT=&quot]The cooling due to CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] will cause ozone levels to increase in the middle and upper stratosphere, which will slightly reduce the cooling. Stratospheric ozone recovery will also reduce the cooling. These ozone changes will contribute a positive radiative forcing of climate (roughly +0.1 W/m[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT][FONT=&quot])[/FONT][FONT=&quot] compared to 2009 levels, adding slightly to the positive forcing from continued increases in atmospheric CO[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]abundances.
Future hydro-fluorocarbon (HFC) abundances in the atmosphere are expected to warm the tropical[/FONT][FONT=&quot] lower stratosphere and tropopause region by roughly 0.3 K per part per billion (ppb) and provide a positive radiative forcing of climate.[/FONT]


www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/chapters/chapter4.pdf

i guess i deserved a post scripted from CNN. touche'

 

[trichrider]

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/cooling_processes.html

the second law of thermodynamics for all you cats...

 

[armedoldhippy]

care to think again?
there is no global warming. it isn't happening.
oceans are rising...sure, but not because of glacial melt.

why would we want to stop nature? i dunno...control?

i read an interesting paper in the sixties from a NASA scientist claiming the reason Venus was so hot was because of cloud coverage. now the current thinking is clouds will make it colder?

Co2 is not poison.
Co2 rise lags temperature (not the opposite).
temperature moves in tenths of degrees over about a century.
sea levels are not rising due to temperature.

why would any of this matter?

because it's fake and someone wants you to feel guilty so you'll be more amenable to giving more monies in the form of taxes, fees, prices, etc.

there is no way for higher prices, more taxes and fees, nor loss of liberties to impact what nature will do...as you so eloquently pointed out.

freedom loses...as freedom of thought has already been victim.

global warming WAS occurring, the debate was over whether we caused it or not. at the moment, it is holding fairly steady & could go either way. only an imbecile thinks that we can control the weather. ocean levels ARE rising. if it is not because of the polar caps melting & the Greenland ice sheet melting off, suppose you enlighten us as to exactly where all of this extra water is coming from? or maybe you think all of the land masses are overburdened with fat people that eat at McDonalds & we are sinking into the sea...freedom of thought has not been lost, but there are attempts to hijack it every day from every direction. most people are simply too fucking lazy to think for themselves & will cheerfully follow someone who has a prior position that they want to believe is true IE - Obama is a Muslim, Bernie Sanders is a Communist, marijuana is a gateway drug, medical marijuana is just an excuse for useless stoners to sit around high & eat Cheetos all day playing World of Warcraft....