svguy

I will take it from that response that you do not believe that there has been an overall temperature rise over the last..... oh...... 55 years or so?

And/or I will take it that you do not believe that there has been an excursion in sea temperatures (and net energy in the sea) over that same approximate time?

Uhh...... okay........

So by your statement, global warming is not a problem, since there is no "warming"? Is that a correct assessment of your query above?

(i.e: most people who study this actually do realize that there is an upward movement in the temperature; the question is not whether the "anomaly" is occurring, the major questions are in the causation aspect of that "anomaly")

This is almost like the the story the attorneys tell about their training in law school about a dog bite case:

The defense states (all in one document):
"If the owner has a dog, it was in the yard and chained;
If the owner has a dog and it wasn't in the yard, it was controlled;
If the owner has has a dog and it wasn't controlled, there was no bite by that dog, it was another dog;
If the owner has a dog and that dog bit, then the complainer teased the dog;
If the owner's dog bit the person without provocation, there is only a slight injury;
If the owner's uncontrolled dog bit without provocation with more than slight injury, the defendant had it coming to them;
The owner has no dog;
Their was no bite -- ever."

Ironduke

Of course carbon dioxide itself doesn't emit heat by itself. It absorbs atmospheric heat that would otherwise be dissipated into space, then emits that heat back into the atmosphere. That's why it's called a "greenhouse gas," because it has an effect similar to the panes of glass in a greenhouse, which allows light resulting in heat in but prevents some of that heat from escaping.

So yeah, you're right, carbon dioxide doesn't produce heat, it just prevents a portion from escaping.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Parihaka

Nope. Take it from my quote that I don't see that temperature rise as anomalous.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

svguy

Actually Dale, what is being said is that the mere existence of a MWP in and of itself has no bearing on whether CO2 is the major present causative factor of the current warming.

If the thesis was "Warming ONLY occurs as a result of CO2-based triggers", the proof of a worldwide and deep MWP would be proof of the opposite of the conjecture; thus dispositively disproving the conjecture.

I think that the there is somewhat worldwide acceptance that there are multiple potential triggers or causative items; acting alone and/or in conjunction with one another.

Heck, you spout them all the time. (sun, orbital mechanics, .... etc.)

So yes, the evidence of the MWP is very germane to whether Co2 is a *dispositive* causative agent; it is vastly less germane as to whether Co2 is a major factor in this one.

Think about it....

svguy

Not trying to avoid it at all, Dale. You are the one hung up on the term "driver". A "driver" (from what I can take in this field) is something that adds an effect.

Now that we have gotten past the fact that you have somewhat misconstrued the term by "blending it in" with all of the other effects (or other "drivers", both positive and negative), I'd be happy to discuss the other issues with you.

My first comments on this board were directed at the first stark statements that "CO2 has no effect" and that "CO2 is not driver", which is blatantly wrong, and have been pretty much limited to that subject.

7thsfsniper

What is MWP?

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

svguy

The article really did not say that at all. The comment was more directed at the note that the "thicknesses" of the atmospheric components between the equator and the poles.

It helps to read an article prior to commenting on someone's statements on it.

Parihaka

gunnut

Right. I don't disagree. But the predominant force that warms the planet is the sun. We can have an atmosphere full of CO2 and freeze to death if the sun dims a bit. We can burn to death if the sun warms a bit even if we have half the CO2 we have right now.

The current warming trend, and probably all the warming trends in the past, is due to the sun radiating slightly more heat over the past several decades. Doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air, it will not alter the sun.

Then there's the earth itself. We really have no idea how the earth reacts to slightly more CO2 in the air. It may not even notice. Or it may compensate before we realized the effect.

We have no working model that describes the earth's climate. UN's best model that describes the current temperature doesn't work when you plug in data from the past. If we can't verify that it works, how can we trust its results for the future?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Helium

My argument and/or theory of GW, which I have explained WITH scientific evidence is built around considering the fact that the atmosphere and substances in it can and are affected by variables within this ecosystem. I have asked you specifically to explain WHAT variables stop/moot carbon in the atmosphere affecting heat absorption.
If you canot provide an example of one or more of the variables interacting with carbon in the atmosphere whereby resulting in influencing or decreasing Joseph Fourier's scientific process of the green house effect then you must assume it occurs, no?!

It seems that your argument is that 'We dont know'; we do not fully understand the mechanics of the earth so we cannot be totally sure that there are variables within the atmosphere that affect the tons of carbon we release into it every year. This is a flimsy argument and careless too.

Your assertions and arguments that the step by step outline of how GW occurs is invalid because there are variables -unknown/not-yet-understood by us- that can affect carbon in the atmpsphere is merely wishful thinking to support an assertion, akin to saying "but what if and what if this". If there is no scientific evidence to support that there are varaibles can moot the occurance of the green house effect than you must assume it occurs. Are there any scientists that have speculated that there are even variables beyond our understanding that can affect or influnce the green house effect?

(I do not consider carbon a driver/emitter of heat but a substancecontributing to a chain reation that results in the retaining of solar heat in the atmosphere that would have otherwise been lost -to space- if it was not there)

Ironduke

Evidence suggests that the MWP was localized to NW Europe, not worldwide. Likely had to do something with the Gulf Stream. Oceanic temperatures have a huge impact on atmospheric temperatures.

As far as it not mattering how much CO2 is put into the air, yes, it does matter, because the Earth retains more of whatever radiant heat derived from the Sun. It retains more radiant heat from a cooler Sun as well as more of the radiant heat from a warmer Sun. Increased C02 retains increased amounts of radiant heat.

So, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun heats up, the increased C02 would aggravate the heating trend.

Conversely, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun cools down, the increased C02 would mitigate the heating trend.

Helium

Why is CO2 emission and its effec negligible?

Isn't Joseph Fourier's Green House effect evidence of this? Or is is that there may be some unknown/misunderstood variables that moot the green house effect, BUT we just haven't discovered it yet?

If anyone is claiming that because the percentage of natural carbon in the atmosphere is so tiny percentage that it is hard to believe it can have an effect on global temperatures, here is some evidence of how introducion of chemicals to the atmosphere can affect the earth. (maybe thats what you mean by CO2 emissions are negligible due to their quantity?)

The ozone molecules in the atmosphere make up 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%).

Wow, chlorofluorocarbons CFC's got all the way up to the stratosphere (thats the 2nd layer, out of 5, of the atmosphere) AND...wait...AND caused ozone to deplete creating holes in the ozone layer. So substances released by humans were able to penetrate atmospheric layers and react with other substances in the atmosphere all without being affected by any mysterious misunderstood variables. Wacky huh!

Carbon must be some "special" molecule, so it will be affected by some variables, right, not like Ozone which is an exception ofcourse.

Yes, I understand that the bacteria made the atmosphere oxic over a long period of time (was it almost a billion yrs or 700 mil yrs, read the quote) but it is tiny, tiny bacteria altering the chemical composition of the earths atmosphere.

Parihaka

He's known for it. A sockpuppet formerly known as Tanq_Tonic.

gunnut

No. Unless you can prove that it occurs as a direct result, it does not. It would be known as a theory. There are many theories around. Just because you can't disprove it, doesn't mean you can prove it.

Sure, we release a lot of CO2 in the air, but it's insignificant as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor may not be as good a greenhouse gas as CO2 molecule for molecule, but it accounts for more of a percentage in our atmosphere percentage wise. Methane is a much smaller percentage wise, but is a far more potent greenhouse gas. IPCC's report pretty much ignored the fact that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It assinged all the heating to CO2.

I don't understand this part.

CO2 is insignificant as a main cause of the "so called" global warming we're experiencing right now. That's all I'm trying to say.

The earth's climate fluctuates. The sun's radiance fluctuates. CO2 is but a tiny part of the entire equation. To assign blame on human consumption of fossil fuel as the sole cause of "global warming" is quite irresponsible.

gunnut

I think you attributed my quote to someone else.

I don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or even has a part in global warming. What I'm trying to argue is that it's a tiny part of it, insignificant, really. The earth's climate changes without any detectable CO2 increase or decrease. Our records are not detailed enough to tell us the history of earth's climate down to the variation of 1C over a period of 30 years. Our records are of thousands of years at a time, with temperature variation of more than a few degrees celsius. Where ice core samples are spotty, "scientists" make up stuff to fill in the holes. The very foundation of this CO2 leading to global warming is shady.

It's like a business with an operating budget of $10,000 a day. Sure, switching all CRT to LCD will save power, but by how much? Does saving $3 a day really matter to a budget of $10,000? Power company can raise the rates and wipe out all the savings and then some. Or it can lower the rates and make up all the difference (using CRT) with leftovers.