Northwest Passage

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, Spencer says will, but theorizes that it's producing added warming that's not consequential. Others theorize the added CO2 is responsible for all the warming. Others still (from both camps) say it's a combo of human CO2 and natural factors that are responsible for the warming. But I don't think anyone's been able to actually measure it. I thought you were suggesting that there was a more direct, measurable relationship between CO2 & atmospheric warming, i.e. add more of one and you necessarily get a predictable, measurable amount of the other. Wasn't that what you were representing your graph to be showing? Obviously not or there would be no question about "how much." Am I getting any closer to understanding what you've been saying?



"What" isn't understood? You seem to still be misunderstanding what the issue actually is, and your cites appear to simply confirm what most have already long agreed on. But what we're discussing now is the more critical part of the equation that apparently remains unproven & unknown. Your misunderstanding also explains why you are always stressing the undisputed increase in CO2 levels (the 40%), wrongly assuming this is enough on its own to "prove" that all/most/significant warming is the necessary result. It certainly could be, but such cause & effect has not been proven, nor does it appear to be well understood. Hence the controversy over "how much." Or do you still think that this is mere gymnastics conjured up by conservatives & fueled by corrupt oil co. money to muddy the waters?

This goes back to the problem of relying on media accounts & secondary sources that are all biased in one direction. It leads to erroneous beliefs that human-derived CO2 must be the one & only culprit, and anyone who disagrees "denies" the basic "science." What else, after all, could it possibly be? The next step is believing that, since the cause of the "warming" has been "established," then any events which appear alarming are also necessarily the result of aberrant warming, which in turn is the result of human-derived CO2. What could possibly be wrong with this logic? Nothing I can think of, except the little problem of the actual science not having proved these connections. But why let such details get in the way when there's a planet that needs saving?!

The problem of hard evidence is inevitable as long as we don't have earth mark 1 to n to experiment. We have no chance to study this to the bottom untill it's over and even if the worst predictions come true there's still not conclusive evidence what caused what % of the warming etc.
Here lies the problem, do we trust to the best theories scientist can provide and adjust the "plan" when these theories come more accurate or do we count on luck some mystical natural climate phenomene balancing or divine diety. Not a hard call for me anyway..

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ummm, in reference to the bold highlight above, that fundamentally a 0.013% increase in CO2 content for 0.028% to 0.041% included in a gaseous composition comprised of of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% argon produces a significant temperature increase in a controlled experiment.





After all, if this cannot be demonstrated then all the theories under the sun, including the lapse theory you're suggesting, don't hold water if the basic mechanism doesn't play ball.

You seem to very hung up on the percentages of the gases which is basically irrelevant. Instead it is the number of actual CO2 molecules that matter. Let's do a thought experiment... You seemed to acknowledge in a previous post that the home science experiment I suggested was bogus because one container was air and the other was 100% CO2. Okay.. now what happens when I take that container of CO2 (let assume it was at 15psi) and inject enough nitrogen to take the percentage of CO2 to .04%. Now I rerun the home experiment. What will the result be??? Answer.... ding ding ding.. It will be EXACTLY the same. Why, because the number of molecules of CO2 in the container is the same and N2 does not absorb any thermal energy.

Okay... let's do another thought experiment. Let's take the earth and remove all the CO2 (yes that measly .04%) and the rest of the greenhouse gases (no not the water). Just to make the problem easier, assume the earth is all black (so it absorbed all the sun's incoming light) . What is the result after thousands of years? The answer is about 0F. But wait you say... what about the water vapor??? There is none, it is too cold, all the surface water is frozen. How is that that little .04% of CO2 could make such a difference??? What you say... I don't believe you... go look up earth black body temperature. You will find all the math and the equations.

Okay... now we are on the path to doubling the CO2 this century. Hummm.. sounds like a really bad idea.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, Spencer says will, but theorizes that it's producing added warming that's not consequential. Others theorize the added CO2 is responsible for all the warming. Others still (from both camps) say it's a combo of human CO2 and natural factors that are responsible for the warming. But I don't think anyone's been able to actually measure it. I thought you were suggesting that there was a more direct, measurable relationship between CO2 & atmospheric warming, i.e. add more of one and you necessarily get a predictable, measurable amount of the other. Wasn't that what you were representing your graph to be showing? Obviously not or there would be no question about "how much." Am I getting any closer to understanding what you've been saying?

Spencer says that some other not really explained factor is going to outweigh the warming. He says perhaps it is Pacific Decadal Oscillation and he suggests this needs more study (so he is really saying he has no idea). I pointed out in a previous post that seems very unlikely. The Nature article recently published probably tosses more cold water on it, because it points out that the recent warming has been world-wide not centered on any one geographic area.
I'm not aware of any credible other "natural" explanation. Yes, Newhaul says it is the Sun it is the Sun. Yes, the Sun is what makes the earth warm and it is the vehicle that warms the planet more with added CO2. However, the natural variability of the Sun is about an order of magnitude less than the energy of added CO2. Even Spencer acknowledges that with his 1% change to energy balance of the earth with added CO2. So, what other natural forces are you talking about?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or do you still think that this is mere gymnastics conjured up by conservatives & fueled by corrupt oil co. money to muddy the waters?

I gave Reef a thought experiment... how about one for you. You are the CEO of a major oil company. Your bottom line, your bonus and your job depends on selling more and more oil. Your research scientists come to you and say "we have a problem, our primary product is going to significantly change the climate in next 50 to 100 years". You are the CEO, what is your response as corporate strategy???

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You seem to very hung up on the percentages of the gases which is basically irrelevant. Instead it is the number of actual CO2 molecules that matter. Let's do a thought experiment... You seemed to acknowledge in a previous post that the home science experiment I suggested was bogus because one container was air and the other was 100% CO2. Okay.. now what happens when I take that container of CO2 (let assume it was at 15psi) and inject enough nitrogen to take the percentage of CO2 to .04%. Now I rerun the home experiment. What will the result be??? Answer.... ding ding ding.. It will be EXACTLY the same. Why, because the number of molecules of CO2 in the container is the same and N2 does not absorb any thermal energy.

Okay... let's do another thought experiment. Let's take the earth and remove all the CO2 (yes that measly .04%) and the rest of the greenhouse gases (no not the water). Just to make the problem easier, assume the earth is all black (so it absorbed all the sun's incoming light) . What is the result after thousands of years? The answer is about 0F. But wait you say... what about the water vapor??? There is none, it is too cold, all the surface water is frozen. How is that that little .04% of CO2 could make such a difference??? What you say... I don't believe you... go look up earth black body temperature. You will find all the math and the equations.

Okay... now we are on the path to doubling the CO2 this century. Hummm.. sounds like a really bad idea.

1. You forgot the pressure will make the N/CO2 mix MUCH hotter. But you've nailed why Venus is a hothouse.

2. Actually I do believe you. You obviously glossed over my prior snowball earth reference. You knowm zippo and the gas tanker???



I could also go on about the square of volumes etc but then I'd just start acting like you.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I gave Reef a thought experiment... how about one for you. You are the CEO of a major oil company. Your bottom line, your bonus and your job depends on selling more and more oil. Your research scientists come to you and say "we have a problem, our primary product is going to significantly change the climate in next 50 to 100 years". You are the CEO, what is your response as corporate strategy???

Speaking of thought experiments.


What did you decide. Would you prefer one deg colder or one deg warmer???

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

1. You forgot the pressure will make the N/CO2 mix MUCH hotter. But you've nailed why Venus is a hothouse.

2. Actually I do believe you. You obviously glossed over my prior snowball earth reference. You knowm zippo and the gas tanker???



I could also go on about the square of volumes etc but then I'd just start acting like you.

Boyle's law has no effect here. In a closed container if you increase the pressure, sure the temperature will rise but only temporarily and has nothing to do with absorption of IR radiation and that's what matters.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Singularity

....Came for the science, which isn't here...but more interested in the Greek tragedy (really a fascinating psycho-social-historical concept in and of itself)....

It's nice to know that someone wants science. Exile often bitterly complains when I present the results of scientific studies. Hope this study is tragic enough for your tastes.

Oceans Are Melting Glaciers from Below Much Faster than Predicted, Study Finds

Beneath the ocean's surface, glaciers may be melting 10 to 100 times faster than previously believed, new research shows.

Until now, scientists had a limited understanding of what happens under the water at the point where ice meets sea. Using a combination of radar, sonar and time-lapse photography, a team of researchers has now provided the first detailed measurements of the underwater changes over time. Their findings suggest that the theories currently used to gauge glacier change are underestimating glaciers' ice loss....

Their study is the first to directly measure underwater melt rates of tidewater glaciers: Previously, scientists relied on estimates of how water and air temperature and ocean currents influence melting.

The researchers found that those theories oversimplify tidewater glacier melting patterns. For example, the theories assume that ice will melt more quickly in places where water is flowing faster. But that's not always the case, the new findings show....

In addition to air and water temperature, ocean salinity, currents and the glacier's shape can all play a role in influencing tidewater glacier melt.....

"If the climate is steady, you expect 90 percent [of glaciers] to be advancing at any time," said Jason Amundson, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska and co-author of the study. "What we're seeing now is the opposite." Only a few tidewater glaciers are advancing; most are retreating, he said.....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Boyle's law has no effect here. In a closed container if you increase the pressure, sure the temperature will rise but only temporarily and has nothing to do with absorption of IR radiation and that's what matters.

At some point the temperature will peak. Kind of like a European heatwave. Mr Roberts didn't specify time, but he did specify initial pressure so just like media reporting on European heatwaves, I ran with the ball and focused exclusively on the peak whilst ignoring the logical situation that this was likely a small fraction of the overall period of the experiment's duration.


It was a thought experiment, after all.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

At some point the temperature will peak. Kind of like a European heatwave. Mr Roberts didn't specify time, but he did specify initial pressure so just like media reporting on European heatwaves, I ran with the ball and focused exclusively on the peak whilst ignoring the logical situation that this was likely a small fraction of the overall period of the experiment's duration.


It was a thought experiment, after all.

You were not completely lost. Föhn winds are effected by the Boyle's law when they first ascend up (not a Föhn wind yet in this phase) and then descent from a high mountain ridge down to lower lands. That'a weather fenomen but not climate.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

You were not completely lost. Föhn winds are effected by the Boyle's law when they first ascend up (not a Föhn wind yet in this phase) and then descent from a high mountain ridge down to lower lands. That'a weather fenomen but not climate.

I'll have to take your word on that, but I will say that at 37485 psi, Mr Robert's container had better be made of something other than PET and have the lid screwed on tight!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's nice to know that someone wants science. Exile often bitterly complains when I present the results of scientific studies. Hope this study is tragic enough for your tastes.

Oceans Are Melting Glaciers from Below Much Faster than Predicted, Study Finds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy2CzmcoqRQ

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

1. You forgot the pressure will make the N/CO2 mix MUCH hotter. But you've nailed why Venus is a hothouse.

2. Actually I do believe you. You obviously glossed over my prior snowball earth reference. You knowm zippo and the gas tanker???



I could also go on about the square of volumes etc but then I'd just start acting like you.

Sorry, I don’t think you have science right. Why do you think temperature is going to be high? Are you thinking of the universal gas law perhaps? Yes P is high but n (number of molecules ) on the other side went up by the same amount. No pressure is not the reason that the surface if Venus is hot. It is hot because the CO2 in very high concentrations is capturing the heat.


Okay you accept that .04% of CO2 can have significant warming of the surface of the earth. So now why don’t you accept that doubling of that CO2 will not have any effect on the earths temperature?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Sorry, I don’t think you have science right. Why do you think temperature is going to be high? Are you thinking of the universal gas law perhaps? Yes P is high but n (number of molecules ) on the other side went up by the same amount. No pressure is not the reason that the surface if Venus is hot. It is hot because the CO2 in very high concentrations is capturing the heat.


Okay you accept that .04% of CO2 can have significant warming of the surface of the earth. So now why don’t you accept that doubling of that CO2 will not have any effect on the earths temperature?

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Sorry, I don’t think you have science right. Why do you think temperature is going to be high? Are you thinking of the universal gas law perhaps? Yes P is high but n (number of molecules ) on the other side went up by the same amount. No pressure is not the reason that the surface if Venus is hot. It is hot because the CO2 in very high concentrations is capturing the heat.


Okay you accept that .04% of CO2 can have significant warming of the surface of the earth. So now why don’t you accept that doubling of that CO2 will not have any effect on the earths temperature?

1. You're arguing with yourself now. I agreed with you that an atmosphere of ***** loads of molecules of C02 will get hot. That's why you nailed Venus. Fortunately for us located at the next stop, the atmosphere of Venus is irrelevant to that of the Earth's.

2. Round and round in circles we go. Because it cannot be demonstrated in a controlled environment.

[newhaul]

You know I'm still waiting for my question to be answered from several pages ago .

Show 3 agw predictions of the last 40 ( and I am even expanding from 30) years that have actually happened that can't be explained by natural forcings.

Its not a hard one .