Northwest Passage

[jackdale]

The pH level of the oceans is going down. If there is any out gassing of CO2 it is being surpassed by the CO2 being absorbed.

According to the USGS volcanoes emit about 1% of the CO2 as human activity.

BTW we headed back in Juan de Fuca and within cell range. But I have work to do.

Originally Posted by newhaul

how about the myriad of natural caused wildfires ? How about the solar warmed ocean co2 out gassing?
Then there are the myriad of volcanic eruptions . ( don't drag out that tires tattered hit piece from forever ago)
it has been established that the recent eruption of mount Raikoke in the Kuril Islands
Erupted for approximately 9 hours wit a plume into the stratosphere .
Emitted as much co2 in that 4 day eruptive phase as the country of Sweden does in a year.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The pH level of the oceans is going down. If there is any out gassing of CO2 it is being surpassed by the CO2 being absorbed.

According to the USGS volcanoes emit about 1% of the CO2 as human activity.

BTW we headed back in Juan de Fuca and within cell range. But I have work to do.

welcome back jack how did the shakedown go ? Was great weather for it .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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.

I certainly don’t want to argue with myself, is a full time job keeping up with you, newhaul and exile. [emoji3] however we are making significant progress. I believe you now realize that it is the number of atoms of CO2 that matter not the concentration of the CO2 with respect to non greenhouse gases. We also both agree that a small container of ordinary air doesn’t have enough CO2 to capture enough energy to move the needle much. In fact all of the measurement stuff would probably swamp out the effect. This was my point many posts ago. However, now take the container and stretch it 30 miles. Do you have a cylinder that is 1’ in diameter and 30 miles long with ordinary air. Gosh, now we have a ton of CO2 molecules!!!! Now put your heat in at the bottom of the cylinder and measure the energy that comes out the other side.... wow surprise surprise less energy is coming out the far end. Where did it go? It warmed all those massive numbers of CO2 molecules in the cylinder. Again the concentration doesn’t matter. If you can’t wrap your mind around my cylinder, use the universal gas law to calculate the number of molecules of CO2 in the cylinder and put that same quality in a small cylinder in the lab. I haven’t done the math, but you can mentally picture 150,000 times the CO2 concentration of original small cylinder at standard pressure. That is a lot of CO2 molecules. I think you have agreed that at that concentration we would see warming. Okay what do you think will happen when we double the concentration? More warming right?

Okay, you next argument will probably be there too much CO2 in the cylinder and the CO2 at the far end of the tube will not get any heat because all the CO2 lower in the cylinder absorbed it all. Nope, that would incorrect. Yes most of the initial energy would be absorbed lower in the tube, but what happens to that energy. Each of those molecules radiates in all directions where one of the directions is further up the tube, so the energy keeps moving up the tube. So no, there is not saturation but it also true that more Co2 molecules added will absorb more energy but not at a linear rate. This is where newhauls logarithmic comment fit into the puzzle.

No complicated experiment necessary. Do I think you are to agree with all this, probably not but if you read the science websites rather than wattsupwiththat it is all there. I do hope that others who are looking to understand read this and get curious enough the learn the science rather the spin (how about you exile???).

Btw I don’t want to argue about Venus either but I have seen the lame argument on skeptic websites that it is the pressure (PV=nRT nonsense).

[jackdale]

The trip out was rough then we had really light winds. Never made Cobb Seamount, got about half way. The head failed. E rything else was great.

Originally Posted by newhaul

welcome back jack how did the shakedown go ? Was great weather for it .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I certainly don’t want to argue with myself, is a full time job keeping up with you, newhaul and exile. [emoji3] however we are making significant progress. I believe you now realize that it is the number of atoms of CO2 that matter not the concentration of the CO2 with respect to non greenhouse gases. We also both agree that a small container of ordinary air doesn’t have enough CO2 to capture enough energy to move the needle much. In fact all of the measurement stuff would probably swamp out the effect. This was my point many posts ago. However, now take the container and stretch it 30 miles. Do you have a cylinder that is 1’ in diameter and 30 miles long with ordinary air. Gosh, now we have a ton of CO2 molecules!!!! Now put your heat in at the bottom of the cylinder and measure the energy that comes out the other side.... wow surprise surprise less energy is coming out the far end. Where did it go? It warmed all those massive numbers of CO2 molecules in the cylinder. Again the concentration doesn’t matter. If you can’t wrap your mind around my cylinder, use the universal gas law to calculate the number of molecules of CO2 in the cylinder and put that same quality in a small cylinder in the lab. I haven’t done the math, but you can mentally picture 150,000 times the CO2 concentration of original small cylinder at standard pressure. That is a lot of CO2 molecules. I think you have agreed that at that concentration we would see warming. Okay what do you think will happen when we double the concentration? More warming right?

Okay, you next argument will probably be there too much CO2 in the cylinder and the CO2 at the far end of the tube will not get any heat because all the CO2 lower in the cylinder absorbed it all. Nope, that would incorrect. Yes most of the initial energy would be absorbed lower in the tube, but what happens to that energy. Each of those molecules radiates in all directions where one of the directions is further up the tube, so the energy keeps moving up the tube. So no, there is not saturation but it also true that more Co2 molecules added will absorb more energy but not at a linear rate. This is where newhauls logarithmic comment fit into the puzzle.

No complicated experiment necessary. Do I think you are to agree with all this, probably not but if you read the science websites rather than wattsupwiththat it is all there. I do hope that others who are looking to understand read this and get curious enough the learn the science rather the spin (how about you exile???).

Btw I don’t want to argue about Venus either but I have seen the lame argument on skeptic websites that it is the pressure (PV=nRT nonsense).

i take it you disagree with the IPCC's CMIP5 report then??
Have you read it recently ?
Btw the CMIP6. Is even better this time they did include at least a small part of the solar and the cloud forcings .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The trip out was rough then we had really light winds. Never made Cobb Seamount, got about half way. The head failed. E rything else was great.

that's normal the head is always the first to fail hence I am composting head . Don't have to rebuild it in a seaway. BTDT
Glad to hear you had a pleasant trip.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how about the myriad of natural caused wildfires ? How about the solar warmed ocean co2 out gassing?

Then there are the myriad of volcanic eruptions . ( don't drag out that tires tattered hit piece from forever ago)

it has been established that the recent eruption of mount Raikoke in the Kuril Islands

Erupted for approximately 9 hours wit a plume into the stratosphere .

Emitted as much co2 in that 4 day eruptive phase as the country of Sweden does in a year.

Just do a little math here on the volcanos. I have no idea about if you are right about Sweden’s CO2 emissions matching your volcano, but let’s assume you are right. How do you think Sweden’s output matches the US or China’s output? Sweden is about .1% of the world total. You need to find 1000 more volcanos every year to make the numbers match. Start counting [emoji3]

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by 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 .

I have no idea, but how many of your predictions have come true??

As for the question itself, it is sort of a false question because you would say everything can be explained away with natural causes. You yourself said that .1C per decade is natural warming. That rate is within the ippc range of man made warming.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I have no idea, but how many of your predictions have come true??

As for the question itself, it is sort of a false question because you would say everything can be explained away with natural causes. You yourself said that .1C per decade is natural warming. That rate is within the ippc range of man made warming.

incorrect the ipcc said .3℃ per decade .

Question where is the ice free arctic that was predicted by 2014?

Where is this lack of snow they predicted ( btw we just got snow in eastern bc and western Alberta a few days ago ( unheard of in summer)

how about the forecast snow for this week in Moscow Russia ?

Do I need to go on you are chasing your tail again.
But that is your choice

And we are cooling

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Just do a little math here on the volcanos. I have no idea about if you are right about Sweden’s CO2 emissions matching your volcano, but let’s assume you are right. How do you think Sweden’s output matches the US or China’s output? Sweden is about .1% of the world total. You need to find 1000 more volcanos every year to make the numbers match. Start counting [emoji3]

they are out there and erupting look it up

[newhaul]

Here about half way down the page the an animation of temp anomalies for the next 10 or so days for all of Europe not just France.
https://electroverse.net/ultrapolar-...on-surely-not/
Explain the widespread areas of record cold presented .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

incorrect the ipcc said .3℃ per decade .



Question where is the ice free arctic that was predicted by 2014?



Where is this lack of snow they predicted ( btw we just got snow in eastern bc and western Alberta a few days ago ( unheard of in summer)



how about the forecast snow for this week in Moscow Russia ?



Do I need to go on you are chasing your tail again.

But that is your choice



And we are cooling

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. First the ippc gave a range of likely warming per decade. It was .1 to .3. But that in the future. From nasa “Since 1901, the planet’s surface has warmed by 0.7–0.9° Celsius (1.3–1.6° Fahrenheit) per century, but the rate of warming has nearly doubled since 1975 to 1.5–1.8° Celsius (2.7–3.2° Fahrenheit) per century, according to the international State of the Climate in 2017 report. “
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature

You would claim all the warming to date is natural per your own definition as it less than .1c per decade.

You ask for data references from others but you toss out whatever you want with little regard. When pressed you ask others to dig through pages of posts only to come up empty handed.

Your “cooling” trend is because an el Niño event was followed by a La Niña event. Hardly a useful data point.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

incorrect the ipcc said .3℃ per decade .

Question where is the ice free arctic that was predicted by 2014?

Where is this lack of snow they predicted ( btw we just got snow in eastern bc and western Alberta a few days ago ( unheard of in summer)

how about the forecast snow for this week in Moscow Russia ?

Do I need to go on you are chasing your tail again.
But that is your choice

And we are cooling

None of those were predictions from IPCC reports.

No one predicted an ice free Arctic by 2014.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jackdale

None of those were predictions from IPCC reports.

No one predicted an ice free Arctic by 2014.

I have seen snow every month of the year in Alberta.

The trend is warming, we had a short term cooling after a strong El Nino.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

None of those were predictions from IPCC reports.

No one predicted an ice free Arctic by 2014.

ten seconds

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-ice-2016-melt

I know the second one is for 2 years later but it is the us navy .

And here is one that predicts by next summer

https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/e...rt/2014/11/02/

That ain't gonna happen either