Another link between CO2 and mass extinctions of species

Mar 22, 2013 by Andrew Glikson
Mass extinctions caused by rapidly escalating levels of CO2 have occurred before. Credit: www.shutterstock.com

(Phys.org) —It's has been know that massive increases in emission of CO2 from volcanoes, associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in the end-Triassic Period, set off a shift in state of the climate which caused global mass extinction of species, eliminating about 34% of genera. The extinction created ecological niches which allowed the rise of dinosaurs during the Triassic, about 250-200 million years ago.

New research released this morning in Science Express has refined the dating of this wave of volcanism. It shows marine and disappear from the fossil record within 20,000 to 30,000 years from the time evidence for the eruption of large magma flows appears, approximately 201 million years ago. These eruptions increased atmospheric CO2 and increased ocean acidity.

Figure 1 – Trends in atmospheric CO2 and related glacial and interglacial periods since the Cambrian (542 million years ago), showing peaks in CO2 levels (green diamonds) associated with asteroid impacts and/or massive volcanism. CO2 data from Royer 2004 and 2006.

Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago. As our anthropogenic of CO2 are rising, at a rate for which no precedence is known from the with the exception of asteroid impacts, another wave of extinctions is unfolding.

Mass extinctions of species in the history of Earth include:

  • the ~580 million years-old (Ma) Acraman impact (South Australia) and Acrytarch (ancient palynomorphs) extinction and radiation
  • Late Devonian (~374 Ma) volcanism, peak and mass extinctions
  • the end-Devonian impact cluster associated with , which among others destroyed the Kimberley Fitzroy reefs (~360 Ma)
  • the upper Permian (~267 Ma) extinction associated with a warming trend
  • the Permian-Triassic boundary volcanic and events (~ 251 Ma) and peak warming
  • the End-Triassic (201 Ma) opening of the Atlantic Ocean, and massive volcanism
  • an End-Jurassic (~145 Ma) impact cluster and opening of the Indian Ocean
  • the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (K-T) (~65 Ma) impact cluster, Deccan volcanic activity and mass extinction
  • the pre--Oligocene boundary (~34 Ma) impact cluster and a cooling trend, followed by opening of the Drake Passage between Antarctica and South America, formation of the Antarctic ice sheet and minor extinction at ~34 Ma.

Figure 2 – Relations between CO2 rise rates and mean global temperature rise rates during warming periods, including the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, early Oligocene, mid-Miocene, late Pliocene, Eemian (glacial termination), Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, Medieval Warming Period, 1750-2012 and 1975-2012 periods.

Throughout the Phanerozoic (from 542 million years ago), major mass extinctions of species closely coincided with abrupt rises of atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean acidity. These increases took place at rates to which many species could not adapt. These events – triggered by asteroid impacts, massive volcanic activity, eruption of methane, ocean anoxia and extreme rates of glaciation (see Figures 1 and 2) – have direct implications for the effects of the current rise of CO2.

In February 2013, CO2 levels had risen to near 396.80ppm at Mauna Loa Atmospheric Observatory, compared to 393.54ppm in February 2012. This rise – 3.26ppm per year – is at the highest rate yet recorded. Further measurements show CO2 is at near 400ppm of the atmosphere over the Arctic. At this rate the upper stability threshold of the Antarctic ice sheet, defined at about 500–600ppm CO2 would be reached later this century (although hysteresis of the ice sheets may slow down melting).

Figure 3 – Plot of percent mass extinction of genera versus peak atmospheric CO2 levels at several stages of Earth history.

Our global carbon reserves – including coal, oil, oil shale, tar sands, gas and coal-seam gas – contain considerably more than 10,000 billion tonnes of carbon (see Figure 5). This amount of carbon, if released into the atmosphere, is capable of raising levels to higher than 1000ppm. Such a rise in atmospheric radiative forcing will be similar to that of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum (PETM), which happened about 55 million years-ago (see Figures 1, 2 and 4). But the rate of rise surpasses those of this thermal maximum by about ten times.

The Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum event about 55 million years ago saw the release of approximately 2000 to 3000 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere in the form of methane (CH4). It led to the extinction of about 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (see Figure 3 and 4), representing a major decline in the state of the marine ecosystem. The temperature rise and ocean acidity during this event are shown in Figures 4 and 6.

Figure 4 – The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) represented by sediments in the Southern Ocean, central Pacific and South Atlantic oceans. The data indicate a) deposition of an organic matter-rich layer consequent on extinction of marine organisms; b) lowering of δ18O values representing an increase in temperature and c) a sharp decline in carbonate contents of sediments representing a decrease in pH and increase in acidity. Credit: Zachos et al 2008

Based on the amount of carbon already emitted and which could continue to be released to the atmosphere (see Figure 5), current climate trends could be tracking toward conditions like those of the Paleocene-Eocene event. Many species may be unable to adapt to the extreme rate of current rise in greenhouse gases and temperatures. The rapid opening of the Arctic Sea ice, melting of Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and rising spate of floods, heat waves, fires and other extreme weather events may signify a shift in state of the climate, crossing tipping points.

Figure 5 – CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (2.12 GtC ~ 1 ppm CO2). Estimated reserves and potentially recoverable resources.

By analogy to medical science analysing blood count as diagnosis for cancer, climate science uses the greenhouse gas levels of the atmosphere, pH levels of the ocean, variations in solar insolation, aerosol concentrations, clouding states at different levels of the atmosphere, state of the continental ice sheets and sea ice, position of high pressure ridges and climate zones and many other parameters to determine trends in the climate. The results of these tests, conducted by thousands of peer-reviewed scientists world-wide, have to date been ignored, at the greatest peril to humanity and nature.

Figure 6 - The Paleocene-Eocene boundary thermal maximum. http://www.uta.edu/faculty/awinguth/petm_research/petm_home.html

Continuing emissions contravene international laws regarding crimes against humanity and related International and Australian covenants. In the absence of an effective global mitigation effort, governments world-wide are now presiding over the demise of future generations and of nature, tracking toward one of the greatest mass extinction events nature has seen. It is time we learned from the history of planet Earth.

Explore further: Geologist seeks clues about the most rapid and dramatic climate change in Earth's history

Related Stories

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica

Dec 01, 2011

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on AntarcticaAtmospheric carbon dioxide levels plunged by 40% before and during the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago, according to a new study. The finding helps solv ...

Ups and downs of biodiversity after mass extinction

Dec 21, 2012

The climate after the largest mass extinction so far 252 million years ago was cool, later very warm and then cool again. Thanks to the cooler temperatures, the diversity of marine fauna ballooned, as paleontologists ...

And the microbes shall inherit the Earth

Oct 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Global warming is not a novel phenomenon, and by studying what happened to the planet during a period of global warming about 250 million years ago, one USC Dornsife scientist hopes to discover ...

Recommended for you

NASA image: Fires in the southern United States

22 hours ago

In this image taken by the Aqua satellite of the southern United States actively burning areas as detected by MODIS's thermal bands are outlined in red. Each red hot spot is an area where the thermal detectors ...

User comments : 147

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

be4r
2.6 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2013
"Mass extinctions due to rapidly escalating levels of CO2 are recorded since as long as 580 million years ago."

Was it from the increase in CO2 levels, or was it from the massive clouds of ash and debris that blocked out the sun, halting photosynthesis and destroying the base of the food chain? Seeing as higher atmospheric CO2 levels are also associated with greater plant growth, I would peg it on the latter.

Man-made CO2 emissions definitely have serious potential consequences, but could we please stick to solid science and not carbon-terror scare tactics?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (38) Mar 22, 2013
With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998, the desperation of the GW alarmist is starting to show.
ccr5Delta32
2.5 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2013
With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998, the desperation of the GW alarmist is starting to show.


Sometimes Alarmist are right
T2Nav
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2013
Sorry for giving antigoracle 5*, too early in the morning and I hit the wrong end.
ccr5Delta32
2.7 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2013
With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998, the desperation of the GW alarmist is starting to show.


Sometimes Alarmist are right . You use " Alarmist" as a derogatorily term I'm just curious , Was the earth meant to have us on it ? , doe's it owe us existence ? and when we muk about changing things ,are there consequences ?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
What "massive clouds of ash" are you referring to?

"Was it from the increase in CO2 levels, or was it from the massive clouds of ash and debris..." - be4r

No massive clouds of ash are seen in the geologic record.

"could we please stick to solid science" - be4r

Are you referring to scientific "facts" that you just manufactured out of thin air?
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 22, 2013
Now how is that possible when global measurements show the temperature to be increasing over that time?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

"With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998" - Antigorical

Have you been eaten more of them Republican Stupid pills, Boy?
ccr5Delta32
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 22, 2013
Sorry for giving antigoracle 5*, too early in the morning and I hit the wrong end.

Silly You !
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (25) Mar 22, 2013
"You use " Alarmist" as a derogatorily term"

Well, "alarmist" IS a derogatory term. Due to the graphic of the Earth on fire as part of the headline, the term is not inappropriate.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
"They found that particles from the ash cloud that fell into the ocean provided microscope plants, called phytoplankton, with a nutrient boost in the form of iron. Phytoplankton are important as they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. In fact, while phytoplankton represent just two per cent of all plant matter on Earth, they account for half of all CO2 absorption from the atmosphere."
http://phys.org/n...bed.html

So volcanic activity will REDUCE atmospheric CO2? How interesting.

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
Was it from the increase in CO2 levels, or was it from the massive clouds of ash and debris that blocked out the sun, halting photosynthesis and destroying the base of the food chain?


The latter would lead to a (relatively) short term condition, regardless of how much ash there may have been. The problem with CO2 loading is its longevity. Once its in the atmosphere, it takes an extraordinarily long time to get it out.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2013
So volcanic activity will REDUCE atmospheric CO2? How interesting.


And that's what you got out of the article you linked? How idiotic.

So is this what you mean Claudius when you say people should discuss the science? That we should misrepresent what the science actually says?
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2013
"That we should misrepresent what the science actually says?"

That is being done on both sides of the discussion.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2013
Now how is that possible when global measurements show the temperature to be increasing over that time?


But WAIT! Didn't you see what uba and againstseeing revealed? Dems graphs all be FUDGED! Dey all be done by bought off ALARMISTS! Dem SCIENTISTS dey all be LYING and CONSPIRATORING and stuff! ANd liking GORE and all dat! An FALSIFYING dat der DATA and STEALING and all MEETING all CLANDESTINE and stuff!
ccr5Delta32
1.6 / 5 (17) Mar 22, 2013
"You use " Alarmist" as a derogatorily term"

Well, "alarmist" IS a derogatory term. Due to the graphic of the Earth on fire as part of the headline, the term is not inappropriate.

And I agree , I also thought it was inappropriately dramatic. But for who's
eyes ?
and I agree
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
That is being done on both sides of the discussion.


No Claudius, one "side" reports findings for all to see, the other "side" then alledges they sold their findings and lied about what they actually found.
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (21) Mar 22, 2013
"No Claudius, one "side" reports findings for all to see, the other "side" then alledges they sold their findings and lied about what they actually found."

Alarmists are immaculate? How amusing. I quote from a concurrent PhysOrg article about volcanic activity increasing CO2 absorption, ask a question, and suddenly I am lying? Amusing. And revealing.
ccr5Delta32
2.6 / 5 (19) Mar 22, 2013
Caludius We have an effect or we do not , that is the question
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (25) Mar 22, 2013
"Harsh winter weather is prompting comparisons with the Big Freeze of 1963...But the winter of 2009-10 was quite different, being the snowiest and harshest for 30 years, and the winter of 2010-11 even harsher. The present winter is fitting this pattern"

"This may be the coldest week of the winter for northern United States"

"Florida's Coldest Winter in 30 Years"

"China is experiencing its coldest winter in decades"

"Brrr… Record Cold Kills 200 in India – China Experiences Coldest"

"UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years"

Just a few random current headlines. At a time when CO2 levels are soaring. Of course, it is all due to AGW.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2013
Alarmists are immaculate? How amusing. I quote from a concurrent PhysOrg article about volcanic activity increasing CO2 absorption, ask a question, and suddenly I am lying? Amusing. And revealing.


No Claudius, you did not ask a question, you made a sarcastic comment and then added a question mark.

I did not say you were lying, although it is interesting that you interpreted it that way.

Amusing indeed, and also revealing indeed. So you think that making clearly sarcastic comments with the intent to obfusticate your true intent is not obvious?
Claudius
1.9 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2013
Admittedly, it is difficult not to be a bit sarcastic with the Dogmatic. Tongue goes firmly into cheek in such situations. A sense of humor is required. Seems to be lacking among alarmists.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
Just a few random current headlines. At a time when CO2 levels are soaring. Of course, it is all due to AGW.


It is? Why ever would you say that? Some understand that climate and weather are very different to each other. Do you understand that?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2013
Admittedly, it is difficult not to be a bit sarcastic with the Dogmatic. Tongue goes firmly into cheek in such situations. A sense of humor is required. Seems to be lacking among alarmists.


Ah! So you admit then that you misrepresented your meaning. Your intention was not, in fact, to ask a question as you stated, but rather to illuminate the humour in your misleading statements?

againstseeing seems to find some of my posts humorous. He's even gone so far as to call them brilliant! So, given you have a sense of humor, I am safe to assume you also find them humorous and brilliant?
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (22) Mar 22, 2013
I said it because the article associated with the first headline "harshest winter" http://www.indepe...982.html went on to say: "Paradoxically, these new harsh winters may be the result of global warming"

"climate and weather are very different to each other."

I understand how the terms are being used. For instance, last year's summer was "climate" while this year's winter is "weather." Still very amusing.

Claudius
1.9 / 5 (22) Mar 22, 2013
"Your intention was not, in fact, to ask a question as you stated, but rather to illuminate the humour in your misleading statements?"

That is your conclusion. My intent is to use sarcasm to illustrate weaknesses in the AGW argument. And there are many such sources of amusement.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2013
I said it because the article associated with the first headline "harshest winter" "snip" went on to say: "Paradoxically, these new harsh winters may be the result of global warming"


Oh, so you're now saying that you intentionally omit data that would provide context to the quotes you use? Is this not a misrepresentation?

I understand how the terms are being used. For instance, last year's summer was "climate" while this year's winter is "weather." Still very amusing.


Ok, now I'm getting it. That's more sarcasm right? I assume I am to laugh because you are obviously using the terms in a manner that misrepresents their meaning. You've indicated you finding doing that to be amusing, so very amusing must mean doubing the misrepresentation as you've done here?

I thought you wanted to discuss the science? Or was that just more sarcasm?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2013
That is your conclusion. My intent is to use sarcasm to illustrate weaknesses in the AGW argument. And there are many such sources of amusement.


I've made no conclusion Claudius. I've asked a question.

So to clarify your intent, you put a question mark behind a sarcastic statement that you then represented as a real question, but upon being called on the misrepresentation you now mean to indicate it was actually an attempt to show a weakness in a scientific argument? Why didn't you just articulate the weakness?
Claudius
2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
Socrates was executed for similar use of irony. He questioned with sarcasm and irony to illustrate weaknesses in arguments, so that the weaknesses became self-evident. Thus someone who says he knows is shown that he knows nothing. He did not need to articulate the weakness, it revealed itself. Res ipsa loquitur.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2013
I see! So you contend, then, that your using sarcasm and then misrepresenting that sarcasm as a legitimate query is ironic? Or is that more sarcasm?

Seems ironic to me that you hold up Socrates, arguably one of the first scientists, as an example to excuse your use of misrepresentation and omission to further your argument against science.

It speaks for itself indeed.
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
"It speaks for itself indeed."

So let's see. Volcanic eruptions can reduce atmospheric CO2, winters are getting harsher, summers are climate and winters are weather. Where have I misrepresented?
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2013
So let's see. Volcanic eruptions can reduce atmospheric CO2, winters are getting harsher, summers are climate and winters are weather. Where have I misrepresented?


Ah, excellent more sarcasm! I appreciate good humour especially when shared amongst peers and compatriots! And the question set in such a way as to beg an answer! Excellent use of irony!

As I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes, I can't help but wonder; at what point do we begin to discuss the science?
Steven_Anderson
2 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
We need to implement recycling in a huge way. Recycle Recycle Recycle and then take the funds from this (7.5 Trillion world wide over 10 years) to institute air carbon capture and advancement in all alternative energies including LFTR nuclear reactors. I have documented the method here at http://rawcell.com (under the Global Energy Menu at the top there is a list) . The articles are all there for everyone to read. There is nothing hidden. It can't be argued, it's a worthy investment for any sane people. Why not spend money we wasting (in the form of 500,000,000 tons of trash worldwide) to pay us back for this. This doesn't mean we should wait to start, on the contrary it's a way to get the money back in over a 10 year period!
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 22, 2013
"Excellent use of irony!"

This must explain why you have been downvoting my comments. Take a look, have I downvoted any of yours? It's bad form to downvote someone you are debating with, let others do it.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2013
ClaudiusTard posts the news article title...

""This may be the coldest week of the winter for northern United States"

Implying that it is a recent title. But in fact it is from Jan 22, 2013.

Doesn't every winter have it's coldest week?

Poor ClaudiusTard. He eats Republican Stupid pills morning, noon, and night.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2013
I downvote ClaudiusTard's comments because they are content free and filled with spectacular ignorance.

"This must explain why you have been downvoting my comments." - ClaudiusTard

For example, his early comments in this thread presume that the rift that created the Atlantic Ocean produced large quantities of ash, when in fact the volcanic activity was under water and produced very little ash.

Here is how ClaudiusTard views the world.

http://www.youtub...Z6Ixeqvs
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
Let me get this right.

If CO2 goes up to 6,000ppm, in 20,000 to 30,000 years some species will die?

Then we have nothing to worry about since all the known fossil fuels will only get us to 1,000 ppm. And much less as we use NG instead of coal.

We are saved!
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
"For example, his early comments in this thread presume that the rift that created the Atlantic Ocean produced large quantities of ash"

What a blunder by VendicarE, it was be4r that mentioned the ash, not me. It is the first comment on this article. Well done, VendicarE, master hurler of the tard epithet, whether accurate or not.

And in another blunder, VendicarE maintains that Jan 22, 2013 is not recent. In any case I said "current," not "recent."
Kron
1.4 / 5 (17) Mar 22, 2013
The probability of co2 contributing to atmospheric warming is very high. The theory of AGW is quite well backed by data, correlations in data are found which indicate a rise in co2 equals a rise in global temperature. What is lacking is the understanding of Atmospheric recovery potential. Does weather play a role in cooling the atmosphere? For instance, co2 plus rain (h2o) produces carbonic acid (h2co3). An increase in atmospheric temperature attributes to water vapor production (ie more clouds). So, the higher the temperature gets (due to co2) the more it rains, and the co2 as a result is washed out of the atmosphere.

Although it is quite safe to say that co2 is a greenhouse gas, it is a stretch to say that irreparable damage is certain through Anthropogenic co2 production (or the natural kind).
Claudius
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 22, 2013
"The theory of AGW is quite well backed by data, correlations in data"

Correlation is not causation. There is a correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates worldwide and global temperature. Yet I doubt if decreasing the number of pirates has increased global temperature.

Also, historically, CO2 levels rise AFTER increases in temperature. "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
http://www.scienc...12001658
Kron
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 22, 2013
I for one believe that hot and cold climate periods are governed by solar activity. If the solar system passes through a region of space densely populated by neutrinos, the added mass to the sun results in a smaller radius. The more dense the sun is, the higher the fusion rate and the more heat it emits.

The co2 levels (and such minor phenomena) have only temporary effects on Earths temperature, IMO.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2013
"Excellent use of irony!"

This must explain why you have been downvoting my comments. Take a look, have I downvoted any of yours? It's bad form to downvote someone you are debating with, let others do it.


Never made a single vote Claudius. Do you understand what the term misdirection means? Also I didn't realize we were debating. From what I could see we were discussing aspects of humour and sarcasm as a tool for illuminating science.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2013
"Harsh winter weather is prompting comparisons with the Big Freeze of 1963...But the winter of 2009-10 was quite different, being the snowiest and harshest for 30 years, and the winter of 2010-11 even harsher. The present winter is fitting this pattern"
"This may be the coldest week of the winter for northern United States"
"Florida's Coldest Winter in 30 Years"
"China is experiencing its coldest winter in decades"
"Brrr… Record Cold Kills 200 in India – China Experiences Coldest"
"UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years"
Just a few random current headlines. At a time when CO2 levels are soaring. Of course, it is all due to AGW.

Do try to focus on GLOBAL in GW ........
http://data.giss....;pol=reg

Does it look like there's much blue over the NH for this last winter? +0.46 deg C anomaly globally.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Mar 22, 2013
Also, historically, CO2 levels rise AFTER increases in temperature. "The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
http://www.scienc...12001658

Another myth makes it's appearance for the nth time. Answer = "When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."
Citing prehistory as a proxy for today misses out one vital ingredient. Humans. We are skewing nature by providing the CO2 ahead of time.
Also a recent study ...http://phys.org/n...tep.html
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
Correlation is not causation.


Nor is it reason for dismissal.

Also, historically, CO2 levels rise AFTER increases in temperature


runrig's responce is excellent. I need add nothing further except a question: do you understand what feedback is?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
Socrates was executed for similar use of irony. He questioned with sarcasm and irony to illustrate weaknesses in arguments, so that the weaknesses became self-evident. Thus someone who says he knows is shown that he knows nothing. He did not need to articulate the weakness, it revealed itself. Res ipsa loquitur.


Another misfired attempt at clever.

Socrates was condemned to suicide by reason of corrupting the morals of a minor(s), even if this was the result of a campaign to persecute him for his criticisms of public figures and TPTB of the time.
Brad_Hobbs
1.9 / 5 (17) Mar 22, 2013
This IS alarmism. An article that basically wraps up with (shorter version) 'we're all gonna DIE' can be nothing other. While the author presents a lot of evidence/data to support the assertion, which is presented in an inflamatory manner possible it bypasses (what the data presents) that we are at both a historic low for CO2 concentrations, and in the mid-low range on historic temperatures, which themselves are recovering from previous jaunts to the low side. This is propaganda, not science. It's just dressed up that way.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2013
Where are these "jaunts" that BradTard is referring to?

https://docs.goog...=sharing

"temperatures, which themselves are recovering from previous jaunts to the low side." - BradTard

He must be keeping them up his backside with the other factoids he spouts.
VENDItardE
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2013
i just love it when VendiCARe cant decide to respond with his own name or Maggnus , just gets lost in his own bs.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2013
He wasn't executed.

"Socrates was executed for similar use of irony." - ClaudiusTard

Do you live on a diet of stupid pills?
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 23, 2013
It is a pity you have no evidence to support your faith.

"I for one believe that hot and cold climate periods are governed by solar activity." - Kron

Perhaps if you take another stupid pill you might have better results.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2013
ClaudiusTard has discovered why science never produces absolute certainty.

But wait. He came to the same result 6 months ago, and 6 months before that, and again 6 months before that.

"Correlation is not causation." - ClaudiusTard

He seems to be completely incapable of learning.

He also seems completely incapable of accepting the measured spectra of CO2, and how increasing it's concentration measurably darkens the color of the lower atmosphere in the IR wavelengths.

It is because of his perpetual ignorance that he is known as a Tard.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2013
GISS

Average Dec,Jan,Feb temp anomaly for 1981-1990 = -22.2
Average Dec,Jan,Feb temp anomaly for the last 13 years 54.6

As usual, the Data doesn't agree with the statements made by ClaudiusTard.

"winters are getting harsher" - ClaudiusTard

He has been told this on multiple occasions as well.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2013
Claudius Tard needs to find something to whine about.

"Due to the graphic of the Earth on fire as part of the headline, the term is not inappropriate." - ClaudiusTard

Since he is ignorant of science, he attacks the picture that wasn't created by a scientist.

Here is one showing projected drount conditions was produced by a scientist.

https://docs.goog...=sharing
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2013
Now how is that possible when global measurements show the temperature to be increasing over that time?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

"With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998" - Antigorical

Have you been eaten more of them Republican Stupid pills, Boy?
-- VendicarTurd

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

I rest my case.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (21) Mar 23, 2013
ROTFLMAO.

AnalOrifice is an idiot; he can't even read a simple graph correctly.

Both of his citations, http://www.woodfo...98/trend show warming trends.
deepsand
3 / 5 (22) Mar 23, 2013
Sean_W
2.2 / 5 (20) Mar 23, 2013
Oh nose!!! The Earth has caught fire! What have we done?!?!
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
Even worse, you can plainly see BP's oil spill spreading around the Caribbean
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2013
runrig: "Another myth makes it's appearance for the nth time."

Two great responses from runrig - of course this issue has been raised countless times - and despite being addressed well by board members - with great supporting material - they will continue to be raised. What are the motives of people who continually raise the same arguments - ignore the science and reasoning behind the responses - and move on to the next article - to begin the whole process over?
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2013
Both http://www.woodfo...98/trend show warming trends.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter

You are truly a Turd, FecalMatter, born in the dark, briefly sees light when someone takes a dump and then back in the dark again. It would explain your ignorance.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2013

Another misfired attempt at clever.

Socrates was condemned to suicide by reason of corrupting the morals of a minor(s), even if this was the result of a campaign to persecute him for his criticisms of public figures and TPTB of the time.


No, he was executed because he was getting the youths to question the existence of the Greek Gods. This was considered corrupting the morals of the youths, for which he was executed. Do you agree that someone questioning the existence of Greek Gods is a corrupting influence?
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 23, 2013
@Magnus

"Never made a single vote Claudius."

Perhaps you don't know this, Magnus, but on your personal profile page you can see who is voting on your comments. Pants on fire!
Kron
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2013
It is a pity you have no evidence to support your faith.

"I for one believe that hot and cold climate periods are governed by solar activity." - Kron

No evidence for solar activity affecting temperature? Let's take a look at 2 extremes:

1. By some unknown process the Sun disappears out of the sky. Does the temperature of the Earth go up or down?
2. Sun goes Supernova. Earth gets fried (temperature skyrockets) or temperature goes down?

You are an ignorant fool to counter my statement in the manner you did.

If you mean to say that the hypothetical heating scenario I've outlined involving an influx of neutrinos has no backing evidence, I'd concede. But, to say that the Sun does not affect the temperature of the Earth is just flat out stupid.
Perhaps if you take another stupid pill you might have better results.

Perhaps you've had enough.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2013

Another misfired attempt at clever.

Socrates was condemned to suicide by reason of corrupting the morals of a minor(s), even if this was the result of a campaign to persecute him for his criticisms of public figures and TPTB of the time.


No, he was executed because he was getting the youths to question the existence of the Greek Gods. This was considered corrupting the morals of the youths, for which he was executed. Do you agree that someone questioning the existence of Greek Gods is a corrupting influence?


"Socrates was executed for similar use of irony. He questioned with sarcasm and irony to illustrate weaknesses in arguments, so that the weaknesses became self-evident."


Your words -not mine, numbskull.

Your two assertions do not equate, nor does "condemned to commit suicide" equate to execution.

Drop it now, Claudius -it will only get worse.

Claudius
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
"Your two assertions do not equate, nor does "condemned to commit suicide" equate to execution."

"at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[15] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[16] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock."

"After drinking the poison, he was instructed to walk around until his legs felt numb. After he lay down, >>the man who administered the poison<< pinched his foot."

- Wikipedia

Note the words "the man who administered the poison". So, condemned to death by poison, administered by an executioner, equates to suicide? Interesting definition.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
The only thing worse than 1. a conservative who doesn't believe in AGW, is 2. a liberal who does and yet continues the practices which contribute to greenhousing.

The difference between the two is like the difference between 1. negligence leading to death, and 2. premeditated murder.

I wonder how many liberals believe in AGW and still drive a gas consuming vehicle, or use electricity (even solar panels are delivered on gas consuming transport), or work in a place which contributes greenhouse gases to the environment, etc.?

What can be said about the morals of those who continue these practices and yet think the AGW science is settled?
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2013


Note the words "the man who administered the poison". So, condemned to death by poison, administered by an executioner, equates to suicide? Interesting definition.


"Administered the poison" -in other words, passed him the cup, and watched while he tossed it back.

Don't try to split hairs, as you will come up short all the way.

Claudius
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2013
You know, I've actually visited the spot where Socrates was held prisoner while awaiting his court-ordered "suicide." Your definition of suicide needs work, Caliban.

Let's see, a man sentenced to die by electrocution. He is visited by the warden who tells him it is time to go to the place of execution. He gets up, walks to the chair and sits down, waiting for death. Since he did not struggle and make them force him to the chair, since he "voluntarily" walked to the chair and "voluntarily" sat down, did he commit suicide?
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2013
So in other words, if Socrates had had the bad form to resist the execution, forcing the executioner to pour the poison down his throat, it would not have been suicide? But since he chose to be virtuous to the end and not lose his dignity, he committed suicide?

And you probably think that the accusation of "corrupting minors" meant he was a child molester. When his real crime was in teaching the youths to think for themselves.
eachus
2 / 5 (12) Mar 23, 2013
The latter would lead to a (relatively) short term condition, regardless of how much ash there may have been. The problem with CO2 loading is its longevity. Once its in the atmosphere, it takes an extraordinarily long time to get it out.


Sigh! Statements like this are just silly. If you look at the current data: http://www.esrl.n.../trends/ you will see that the average seasonal change is about twice the year-to-year increase. If mankind were to stop adding CO2, levels would drop 10 ppm/year or faster. Expecting mankind to stop adding CO2 in a short period of time is unreal, but if it happened, levels would drop below 200 ppm (about half) in a few decades.

An individual molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere for less than five years: http://www.skepti...time.htm However, most of the change is due to CO2 absorption by the ocean, which is an equilibrium process. Circulation out of the air AND water takes much longer.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (18) Mar 23, 2013
Both http://www.woodfo...98/trend show warming trends.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter

You are truly a Turd, FecalMatter, born in the dark, briefly sees light when someone takes a dump and then back in the dark again. It would explain your ignorance.

Won't change the fact that your two cited graphs contradict your claim.

Deal with it.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 23, 2013

Won't change the fact that your two cited graphs contradict your claim.

Deal with it.
-- deepsandTurd
How about this one - http://www.woodfo...01/trend
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (19) Mar 23, 2013

Won't change the fact that your two cited graphs contradict your claim.

Deal with it.
-- deepsandTurd
How about this one - http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Do you really think that repeated celery-picking is going to work?

Try the following.

http://www.woodfo...80/trend

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 24, 2013

Won't change the fact that your two cited graphs contradict your claim.

Deal with it.
-- deepsandTurd
How about this one - http://http://www.woodfo...01/trend

-- deepsandTurd
You give FecalMatter a bad name. You can't even copy a line of text.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2013
Copy? What are you blathering about?

No matter, your sophomoric attempt at misdirection will not serve to evade the fact that you continue to cherry-pick while ignoring HADCRUT data which counters your confirmation bias.

You are an intellectual fraud.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2013
Copy? What are you blathering about?

No matter, your sophomoric attempt at misdirection will not serve to evade the fact that you continue to cherry-pick while ignoring HADCRUT data which counters your confirmation bias.

You are an intellectual fraud.
-- deepSandTurd

Try clicking on the URLs you posted, you reeking, slimy lump of fecal matter. To dumb to even realize.
Jo01
1.7 / 5 (18) Mar 24, 2013
"Harsh winter weather is prompting comparisons with the Big Freeze of 1963...But the winter of 2009-10 was quite different, being the snowiest and harshest for 30 years, and the winter of 2010-11 even harsher. The present winter is fitting this pattern"

"This may be the coldest week of the winter for northern United States"

"Florida's Coldest Winter in 30 Years"

"China is experiencing its coldest winter in decades"

"Brrr… Record Cold Kills 200 in India – China Experiences Coldest"

"UK weather forecast: Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years"

Just a few random current headlines. At a time when CO2 levels are soaring. Of course, it is all due to AGW.


It's unusually cold in continental Europe too.

J.
Jo01
1.6 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2013
I have a question about CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?

J.
Jo01
1 / 5 (11) Mar 24, 2013
"Continuing emissions contravene international laws regarding crimes against humanity and related International and Australian covenants."

It's strange that the root cause isn't mentioned: emission is directly linked to the number of people on this planet. So it's better to say that it is against humanity (and all other animals) to keep birth control out of the discussion.
It's also strange that black carbon (which currently accounts for almost half of the 'warming') isn't mentioned at all.

J.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2013
With global temperatures actually cooling since 1998, the desperation of the GW alarmist is starting to show.

I may be a bit late, but I would like to bring my favorite animated graph to this discussion:

A Misunderstanding of Trend
http://www.skepti...php?g=47
The Alchemist
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 25, 2013
I have a question about CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?

J.

Great q.
You'll need to forgive me, for 30 years I thought CO2 was so stupid it didn't need quantification...
There are two schools of thought, both wrong as far as I can tell:
One, that the current amount of CO2 is completely blocking 100% of it's narrow frequency band. The downside of this theory is that you can change the amount of CO2 by 10x both ways before you'd see any change.
Two, that a change of 60ppm (0.0006%) CO2 is somehow having a physical effect, overwhelming 1200% (min-dry desert) of the broad spectrum GH gas, H2O, including overlap. Even if an exponential relationship 60 ppm has no significant effect. (W/O H2O GH gas the world would freeze).
AGW is definitely occurring: Glacial/Polar melt, but CO2 is a red herring.
Math behind these is available... qualitative refutations ignored, or laughed at...
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
It never does.

"At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?" - Jo01

It just keeps getting darker and darker with the layer of absorption getting deeper and deeper in the atmosphere, extending from the Earth's surface, upward.

Beer's law.

http://en.wikiped...bert_law
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
Odd how your own reference contradicts your own claim.

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

"I rest my case." - Antigorical

Have you been a fool all of your life?
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2013
In other words you have lost the argumetnt because your own reference doesn't support your lie.

"You are truly a Turd, FecalMatter" - AntiGorical

Have you been a liar all of your life?
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2013
The starting year isn't 1998 which was the starting year for your original false claim.

"How about this one" - Antigorical

How about this one?

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

The fact is, climate is defined on periods of 30 years or longer so that weather noise is statistically averaged away from the results.

Your choice of periods < 30 years long therefore suffers from being contaminated by weather noise.

You have been told this before, but you are innumerate, and ignorant of basic statistical methods.

Here is the 30 year curve...

http://www.woodfo...83/trend
jnjnjnjn
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
It never does.

"At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?" - Jo01

It just keeps getting darker and darker with the layer of absorption getting deeper and deeper in the atmosphere, extending from the Earth's surface, upward.

Beer's law.

http://en.wikiped...bert_law


That doesn't seem to be the case: "At higher absorbances, concentrations will be underestimated due to this shadow effect unless one employs a more sophisticated model that describes the non-linear relationship between absorption and concentration."
So the relation is non-linear due to the fact that CO2 molecules block the absorption by others when the CO2 concentration increases.
And by the way, everyone knows that sunlight is completely blocked a few kilometers below the sea.

So I would like to see the exact relationship between CO2 concentration and heat absorption.

J.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 25, 2013
[So I would like to see the exact relationship between CO2 concentration and heat absorption.

J.

Demanding, aren't you? :o)
Beer's law is a good-ish model to use, though it is full of pitfalls. If you'll put H2O and CO2 into it, and assume only CO2 is a full spectrum absorber, it is still insignificant. You'll eventually find, that 1.2 x an abysmally small number is still abysmally small, and water trumps.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2013
We are looking at comparing the atmosphere:
150000 ppm H2O desert, 320 ppm CO2 (pre-ind) bal .2/.8 O2/CO2
vs
150000 ppm H2O desert, 380 ppm CO2 (curr.) bal .2/.8 O2/CO2and two pro-GW arguements: http://www.global...nds.png. Which is the false argument that CO2 absorbs 100%, but if we go with it...then changing the CO2 doesn't change absorbance until you loose or gain 10x amounts.
The other is the micro-view, and to ask if 60 ppm per m3 is a significant increase. If we include H2O, it is not (look at the concentration overlap in the link and x1200). But ignoring that, this is 60 additional photon interactions per meter. Let's call it 5000 solid meters (no exponential decline) 300,000 additional absorb/emit. interactions, half-up, half-down. Using the random walk with a wall... and some n x P statistics we have increased the effective photon path 30% per standard dev, and 5000 km x 130%, 160% etc. divided by "c," is still insignificant.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2013
Sigh! Statements like this are just silly. If you look at the current data: "snip" you will see that the average seasonal change is about twice the year-to-year increase.


Welcome to the discussion eachus! Nice of you to begin your adventure here with an insult and a host of misunderstandings!
You call attention to the airbourne fraction and then immediately add a link that you think somehow relates to it without offering an explanation as to how you think it relates. It is true that yearly CO2 levels are rising, and it is also true that the effect is somewhat countered by global carbon sinks, but how do you think that makes the statement "The problem with CO2 loading is it's longevity" quote "silly"? Do you understand how the carbon cycle works?

You insinuate that co2 is not a persistant constituant of the atmosphere, once added. Yet there are reams of papers suggesting the opposite, and outlining the reasons why. (See Solomon et al 2008, or Archer, D. (2005).) cont..
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 25, 2013
The process you allude to(by insinuation) is sequestration. While slow re-sequestration of CO2 will, indeed, begin to start pretty much as soon as the addition of "new" CO2 stops, the process of sequestion is a geologic process. (That means it takes a long time.) It would most assuredly NOT occur in the space of decades, as you contend.

An individual molecule of CO2 stays in the atmosphere for less than five years: http://www.skepti...time.htm However, most of the change is due to CO2 absorption by the ocean, which is an equilibrium process. Circulation out of the air AND water takes much longer.


This is true, but again the way you've used it is misleading. While an [i]individual[/i] molecule does indeed have a 5 yr lifespan, it is also [i]readmitted[/i] within that period, leaving an (almost) net balance. That's why they call it a "carbon cycle". It takes geologic (there's that word again)timescales to remove any significant amount of CO2 permanantly.
Jo01
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 25, 2013
... Using the random walk with a wall... and some n x P statistics we have increased the effective photon path 30% per standard dev, and 5000 km x 130%, 160% etc. divided by "c," is still insignificant.

Thanks for your response. I cannot follow your argument completely.
I know that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas by far, but even a few percent of this is an enormous amount of energy. I read that CO2 has 9-26% of the greenhouse gas total (wikipedia) so that is significant. The point is that the absorbtion spectrum of water vapor almost completely overlaps that of CO2. The part that isn't blocked by H2O is the part I am talking about and I would like to know what the exact relation is between CO2 concentration and heat absorption within this part of the spectrum.

J.
(By the way, your link wasn't valid.)
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2013
Thanks for your response. I cannot follow your argument completely.


Unfortunately no one can, because his argument is deeply flawed.
Jo01
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 25, 2013
Thanks for your response. I cannot follow your argument completely.


Unfortunately no one can, because his argument is deeply flawed.


Still, a reasonal question I think.

J.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2013
The only significant IR wavelenghts absorbed by CO2 are ~15um.
The Planck curve peaks at 193K at 15 um.The peak shifts to shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures. 10um peaks at 300K.
Comparing the amount of energy under the curve at ~300K in the 15um band is not much greater than at 193K. That's the nature of the equation, and this all assumes blackbody emissivites.
There is only ~2W available to be 'trapped'. Solar radiance varies by over 2W/m2.
How much energy is 'trapped' per ppm of CO2?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (18) Mar 25, 2013
I have a question about CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?

Setting aside that the "small" portion of the spectrum that it blocks just happens to be that portion which gives rise to radiative forcing, the answer to your question is "none;" i.e., there is no such thing as the "saturation" that the denialists babel about.

deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Mar 25, 2013
I know that H2O is the most important greenhouse gas by far, but even a few percent of this is an enormous amount of energy. I read that CO2 has 9-26% of the greenhouse gas total (wikipedia) so that is significant. The point is that the absorbtion spectrum of water vapor almost completely overlaps that of CO2.

That their absorption bands overlap does not mean that both H2O and CO2 absorb at precisely the same wavelengths.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2013
At what concentration (ppm) does it completely block the (small) part of the spectrum it can block?

It doesn't ... "A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Angstrom, is that CO2 could have no influence on radiation balance because water vapour already absorbs all the IR that CO2 would absorb. Earth's very moist, near surface tropical atmosphere is nearly saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Angstom's argument is that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO2 escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as displayed in the inset fig 2, the individual WV and CO2 spectral ines interlave but do not totally overlap. That structure limitsthe competition bewteen CO2 and WV" From ....
http://geosci.uch...2011.pdf
ALso ( 2 parts - link in text )
http://www.realcl...argument

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) Mar 27, 2013
@jo01 & jnjnjn: "Random walk/wall" refers to increasing the emission path of heat/photons by being released from the Earth striking a CO2 mol., being emitted up or down, and how long it takes to escape the atm..
Here's the link (we'll use it below to) http://www. globalwarmingart.com/images/4/4e/Atmospheric_Absorption_Bands.png

I actually have 9 strong physical models why CO2 is not a player:
Here's a do it yourself one. The most unique emission band for CO2 is 4.3 micron. Let's overcount and say 4.2-4.4 mic.. Now lets look at the emission spectrum of the atm., and use ryggesogn2's model. (He say's it's the 15, use 14.9-15.1, both if you want-it won't matter.)
Now you can measure the proportion of CO2 to other atm effects. When you do this you are way overcounting.
Now consider the energy is inversely proportional to wavelength.
Now consider the concentraions of GH gasses. Better.
But you can already see there really isn't a way to model CO2 as significant.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013
So what is the exact relation between CO2 concentration [CO2] and retained energy?
Look at the intrinsic properties of CO2.
It's absorption/emission spectrum 2.7, 4.3 & 15 microns, and relaxation time (4micro-sec).
It's concentraion. 0.038% vs 0.032% "pre-GW"
Molecular weight: C O2 --> heavier than 80% N2 20% O2
That's it. Nothing magical.

Incidently, there are practically no radiative effects due to CO2 in the last kilometer of the atm.. Because of it's high m-mass and sparsity, there is not a significant amount there.
But water m-mass 18, vs 28/32...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 27, 2013
That their absorption bands overlap does not mean that both H2O and CO2 absorb at precisely the same wavelengths.


It does mean that you can multiply the concentrations of one vs the other to see how competative they'd be.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2013
Incidently, there are practically no radiative effects due to CO2 in the last kilometer of the atm.. Because of it's high m-mass and sparsity, there is not a significant amount there.


Peer review for above/link?
Below from earlier liinked paper ...
"What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving."
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2013

Peer review for above/link?

Yes, it was called all the work that went into the Canonical Ensemble. Great stuff. In some circles, it needs as much proof as F=ma.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2013

Peer review for above/link?

Yes, it was called all the work that went into the Canonical Ensemble. Great stuff. In some circles, it needs as much proof as F=ma.


That's as clear as mud to me. If you understand my English colloquialism? I say again - please link to a link to a paper otherwise you are just posting personal ramblings.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2013
That their absorption bands overlap does not mean that both H2O and CO2 absorb at precisely the same wavelengths.


It does mean that you can multiply the concentrations of one vs the other to see how competative they'd be.

Apples and oranges.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013

Peer review for above/link?

Yes, it was called all the work that went into the Canonical Ensemble. Great stuff. In some circles, it needs as much proof as F=ma.


That's as clear as mud to me. If you understand my English colloquialism? I say again - please link to a link to a paper otherwise you are just posting personal ramblings.

I am sorry, bro, you're not one of my students, I don't have an obligation or the time to explain it to you, it takes a quarter of a semester as it is. You can google its development as well as I, I am sure there's a wiki. It is a fundament of thermodynamics.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2013
Where's jnjnjn, Jo01 and Maggnus?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2013
... personal ramblings.

Personal ramblings? Here? Heaven forbid!
At least my rambling have some physics backed math behind them. I can find any reference/authority to say whatever I want.
For example... skepticalscience uses sophmoric physics to prove its points, these journals are peer reviewed yet if anyone sees something they don't BELIEVE they spout their
personal ramblings
.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 28, 2013
This is pretty awesome...
http:
//lasersparkpluginc.com/images/atmospheric_cross_section_spectra4.jpg
Look closely for the red bands and what they mean...
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
I am sorry, bro, you're not one of my students, I don't have an obligation or the time to explain it to you, it takes a quarter of a semester as it is. You can google its development as well as I, I am sure there's a wiki. It is a fundament of thermodynamics.


Right - so you're saying your "personal ramblings" trump all the science that has been done by experts in their field .... because they are fundamental.......????? How does that work in sane world?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Mar 28, 2013
Where's jnjnjn, Jo01 and Maggnus?


I've been watching Alchemist, and marvelling at how you are mostly right and dead wrong at the same moment. I would take the time to explain it to you, but:

I am sorry, bro, you're not one of my students, I don't have an obligation or the time to explain it to you, it takes a quarter of a semester as it is.


Your suggested mechanism for global warming is orders of magnitude too small. You have become dogmatic in your insistance, and you need to step back and re-think "cause" vrs "effect".
antigoracle
1 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2013
This is pretty awesome...
http:
//lasersparkpluginc.com/images/atmospheric_cross_section_spectra4.jpg
Look closely for the red bands and what they mean...


And so the truth shall prevail. The GW Alarmist are fully aware of their deception that's why they are trying to hide behind the protection of the IPCC. I do hope they see the inside of a prison for this so that some hardened criminal can show them some global warming.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2013
I've been watching Alchemist, and marvelling at how you are mostly right and dead wrong at the same moment. I would take the time to explain it to you, but:

Your suggested mechanism for global warming is orders of magnitude too small. You have become dogmatic in your insistance, and you need to step back and re-think "cause" vrs "effect".

I've created 10 ad hoc models (a definition of non-dogmatic by the way) and I simply CAN NOT find a way to make CO2's contribution significant. Even the linear over counting method proposed for Jo01 & jnjnjn, demo's an insignificant effect!

Point out where any of my assumptions are wrong, (in a way expressible mathmatically) I will apply them and maybe we can show a world where CO2 is a factor.
What more do you want from me? To blindly agree?
Again, show me where I am wrong, or propose a mechanism/model that shows CO2's power.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2013


Right - so you're saying your "personal ramblings" trump all the science that has been done by experts in their field .... because they are fundamental.......????? How does that work in sane world?

OMgosh. Lets ignore that you are mixing three arguements together. The Canonical Distribution is a tool nobody would disagree with for a problem like this. So yes, like Boyles Law, or Nerst's equation, or any other tool, I would say so, it is hardly rambling, or controversial.
all the science... experts in the field
all these experts hardly support your position in the matter do they? So many are pro-, some many con-...
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2013
Maggnus, you do realize that the US, in it's daily commute alone, releases the same amount of energy as a nuclear weapon. Unlike that energy, the burning of fossil fuels is released as waste heat, so nearly 100% of it is absorbed into the environment. I doubt a nuke is even 10% as effecient.
That's enough waste heat to melt 5.5 million meters of ice! And you say too small? The world releases 8-10 times this amount in a day.
Yet you think the insulating power of 380 ppm, (0.00038) and a change of 60 ppm (0.00006) is significant, even intuitively (without the math) it begs believability.
As a rule for something to have a physical effect and be less than 0.3% it has to be catalytic in nature or surface active. CO2 is neither, nor is there any other forseeable mechanism for its effects to be multiplied.
And then there is water...
I considered the problem from every angle I can, you tell me what I haven't considered.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2013
This is pretty awesome...
http://laserspark...tra4.jpg
Look closely for the red bands and what they mean...

What is awesome is that you would try to pass off "Transmittance of 1 km Horizontal Air Path at Sea Level" as being of material relevance.

Equally awesome is the fact that AO was gullible enough to swallow the farce.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Mar 29, 2013
What is awesome is that you would try to pass off "Transmittance of 1 km Horizontal Air Path at Sea Level" as being of material relevance.

Your arguements are those of a fish on a hook.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2013
At least my rambling have some physics backed math behind them. I can find any reference/authority to say whatever I want. For example... skepticalscience uses sophmoric physics to prove its points, these journals are peer reviewed yet if anyone sees something they don't BELIEVE they spout their "personal ramblings"

If I get your meaning ( English not your native tongue? - I find you ... a bit hard to follow ). You are saying that CO2 doesn't have a significant GHG effect in the Earths climate system? And in justifying that position, you say "Lets ignore that you are mixing three arguements together. The Canonical Distribution is a tool nobody would disagree with for a problem like this." No. Not 3, 1 basic point - I repeat. You're saying you cannot be wrong because the "fundamental science" says so. Surely the obvious answer is, it is you who are wrong and 98% of climatologists are correct, as they are using those exact same maths that you get a different answer with.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2013
@runrig, talk is cheap bub, show me.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2013
@runrig, talk is cheap bub, show me.


Show you what?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2013
This is pretty awesome...
http://laserspark...tra4.jpg
Look closely for the red bands and what they mean...

What is awesome is that you would try to pass off "Transmittance of 1 km Horizontal Air Path at Sea Level" as being of material relevance.

Equally awesome is the fact that AO was gullible enough to swallow the farce.
-- dsT
What is truly remarkable is that you missed the point of the graph -- CO2 is practically irrelevant compared to water vapor in GW.
http://tucsonciti...-player/
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Mar 29, 2013
@runrig, talk is cheap bub, show me.


Show you what?

Show me the physics, math, models, measurements from these climatologists, that are so indisputable.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 29, 2013
This is pretty awesome...
http://laserspark...tra4.jpg

You are an idiot who doesn't even understand what that graph actually portrays, let alone grasp its irrelevance to the totality of the atmosphere.

Hint: Study the meaning of "Horizontal Air Path at Sea Level."
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Mar 29, 2013
@antigoracle-thank's, I've added the link to my favorites. It's nothing I haven't said before, but it is nice to have a second.
It doesn't say anything controversial, and cetainly the city comparison is telling.
Incidently, there are two very telling other facts that disprove the additional CO2 theories:
1) It should take longer to cool down at night. This effect should be measurable. Nobody's measured it.
2) CO2 insulation should cause climate stabilization, like insulating your home, not the dynamatism we are witnessing.

Global Warming is a misnomer, designed to cause controversy. CO2 is a red herring, designed to cause controversy. We are causing drastic climate change, just not by CO2, or for that matter, rampant warming.

So I take it you didn't fall for the AlGorerithm either? (rhetorical) It took me a while to disbelieve the illusion.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2013
@runrig, talk is cheap bub, show me.


Show you what?

Show me the physics, math, models, measurements from these climatologists, that are so indisputable.


I don't have to show you anything. It is agreed by 98% of climate scientists that AGW is occurring. The literature is swamped with paper/data that support that.
It is me that is asking you to provide evidence from others that your hypothesis is correct. You are the maverick . Not me. Or science.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2013
@runrig, talk is cheap bub, show me.


Show you what?

Show me the physics, math, models, measurements from these climatologists, that are so indisputable.


I don't have to show you anything. It is agreed by 98% of climate scientists that AGW is occurring. The literature is swamped with paper/data that support that.
It is me that is asking you to provide evidence from others that your hypothesis is correct. You are the maverick . Not me. Or science.

About 40% of the climatologist I know won't give any opinion so concise, they are in the "it's a complex issue with many variables" school of thought. A few of them are in the "it goes in cycles" infuriating school of thought. Some are all about CO2 and mass transfer. None of them know how to use these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas. True, I don't know a huge number, but my small statistic must be considerably non-representive.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 30, 2013
Ah @runrig, you forget I absolutely believe AGW is occurring, I have a simple and intuitive model that has been describing/ predicting it for 30 years. I got seguewayed into thinking we were talking about CO2 being the cause, which is just silly, as I have submitted powerful arguements for, including that definitive illustration from lasersparkplug.
I need to recind my previous statement: I both know alot more and alot less climatologists than I indicated.
I know many an environmental scientist who has a hand in climatology, and a bevy of computer model-ers who have done climate modeling, but only 1.5 who actually got paid to do climate studies. He/they were definitely in the "it's a complex subject, with many variables," opinion.
Even so, it stikes me that the climatoligists publishing articles on this very website are hardly 98% of like minds. In fact if you ever meet any academians of like minds, I can almost guarentee you, that they have not, themselves met. :o)
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 30, 2013
I have a simple and intuitive model that has been describing/ predicting it for 30 years. I got seguewayed into thinking we were talking about CO2 being the cause, which is just silly, as I have submitted powerful arguements for, ...

That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

... including that definitive illustration from lasersparkplug.

As already noted, that graph of transmittance over a "Horizontal 1 km Path at Sea Level" is BS. That's like saying that you've measured the effects of butterfat by sampling the bottom of a container of un-homogenized milk.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (15) Mar 31, 2013
That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Jealous much?
Prediction is the sincerest form of proof.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2013
I predict that your predictions will be found wanting, as is the case for your assertion re. the significance of a "Horizontal 1 km Path at Sea Level."
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (15) Apr 01, 2013
I predict that your predictions will be found wanting, as is the case for your assertion re. the significance of a "Horizontal 1 km Path at Sea Level."

Your conclusion is desperate, measured horizontally is being more generous to CO2 than vertically. I'd challenge you to prove your assertion, but we've both demonstrated you've no fist in your glove.
Your prediction is boring. It's been 30 years, they even work retroactively-making it 30 plus plus years. I don't care if they fail tomorrow. Just about every scientific premise breaksdown with changing conditions, new discovery or accuracy. I can keep it up to date only until the primary effect remains the primary driver. After that, it's a different model.
deepsand
3 / 5 (16) Apr 01, 2013
I predict that your predictions will be found wanting, as is the case for your assertion re. the significance of a "Horizontal 1 km Path at Sea Level."

Your conclusion is desperate, measured horizontally is being more generous to CO2 than vertically. I'd challenge you to prove your assertion, but we've both demonstrated you've no fist in your glove.

Your assertion is not only patently false on the face to anyone with but a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the composition of the totality of the atmosphere, but is a naked one as well.

That which you assert without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
Ah @runrig, you forget I absolutely believe AGW is occurring, I have a simple and intuitive model that has been describing/ predicting it for 30 years.


I don't forget Alchemist, but that doesn't make you any less wrong about the cause. There is nothing else that can cause the forcing we are seeing in the atmosphere right now. Your suggested cause is MAGNITUDES too small to do what you are claiming it is doing.

I say to you again: step back and relook at what you are claiming. Think over the amount of energy it would take to heat the oceans, and consider what it takes to make them acidic enough to dissolve shells of calcium carbonate. You are seeing something that is not there.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2013
I say to you again: step back and relook at what you are claiming.

You don't need to heat oceans, not nearly: On this score, it is you who are maybe jumping to conclusions.
Maggnus, you're very sharp guy, I am admiring your (productive)comments on the " 'Summer Melt" thread, but you're mistaken if you don't think I've considered these. The 5.5 million m3 of ice is just a sideshow. The proof is in description of effects, and predication.
Contrary-wise, if you try to predict climate with CO2, what do you get? Not what we're seeing. There should be a stabilization of day-night temps., moderation in weather, etc..
However, as perhaps the only one on this website who enjoys being proven wrong, tell me what I am missing.
I have already derived pretty solid physics-based proofs CO2 can't do the job. Please show me the poor assumptions. In fact, I cannot derive a way it can, but perhaps I have missed something. I am, after all, the only one on this site who isn't perfect :)
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
So, Deepsand, dismiss it already, and me to, if you don't mind.
I seem to recall showing you the photon-gas interactions of heat (light) and CO2, no easy mathmatics, and you then dispelling it by trying to define it away with a definition I'd never heard of.
So please, ignore me, make my day.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2013
I am, after all, the only one on this site who isn't perfect :)


Me thinks thou dost protest too much! :)

You have to account for the oceans Alchemist, for at least two reasons that jump right out at me. One, they absorb a LOT of heat. Two, they HAVE ALREADY absorbed a GREAT DEAL of heat. Your model has to account for this and all of the other signs of global atmospheric heating, or it fails.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (15) Apr 02, 2013
So, Deepsand, dismiss it already, and me to, if you don't mind.
I seem to recall showing you the photon-gas interactions of heat (light) and CO2, no easy mathmatics, and you then dispelling it by trying to define it away with a definition I'd never heard of.

That's a problem of your own making.

So please, ignore me, make my day.

The easiest way to ensure that you are ignored is for you to just go away.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2013
I am, after all, the only one on this site who isn't perfect :)


Me thinks thou dost protest too much! :)

You have to account for the oceans Alchemist, for at least two reasons that jump right out at me. One, they absorb a LOT of heat. Two, they HAVE ALREADY absorbed a GREAT DEAL of heat. Your model has to account for this and all of the other signs of global atmospheric heating, or it fails.

OK, easy, Ocean absorption-is an exponential of temeperature difference, between air and water. The temperature increase for released heat (where it would exist) is short-lived and local-most of it not reaching the ocean. Heat does not equal temperature-I hope I don't have to explain that.
Now with CO2 insulation on the other hand, you'd be retaining temperature, that's what insulation does...:)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2013
Now with CO2 insulation on the other hand, you'd be retaining temperature...:)


And so we are. A great deal of temperature. It is not a perfect insulator, which is what you are trying hard to make it out to be.

I did some BOE calculations, and I have to admit I was surprised by the values I got, although I think I'm a couple of magnitudes too high. Yet I am still several orders of magnitude too low for the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere and oceans to have occurred from your theory.

Its contribution is not zero, but it is nearly insignificant compared to CO2 loading.
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
@Maggnus- I need to see your work!
I have not even been able to imaging a starting place that makes it significant. And I've approached it many ways, as you know.
Unless, you go... Earth is insulated by CO2. CO2 has increased 370/320. Therefore 15% more...
Which is of course, mind-numbingly wrong... right?
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
Maggnus-I don't even need to see your work, just your approach to the problem.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
Maggnus-I don't even need to see your work, just your approach to the problem.


Simply this: take the amount of energy produced daily across the planet, compare that to the amount of energy arriving each day from the sun, see which is bigger.

Now, consider the amount of energy mechanically produced versus the amount of energy it would take to heat the oceans by 1C. Determine the time it would take to heat the oceans this way. (I am ignoring radiative effects, heating of the land masses, etc.)

Then consider the effect of trapping a percentage of the solar heating, and determine the time it would take to heat the ocean's waters by 1C.

Even with a small percentage (I used 1.28%) the difference is several orders of magnitude. The amount of energy coming from the sun is gigantic. Mechnical heating, meh, not so much lol.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
@Maggnus, THAT is very deceptive. We are talking about CO2's impacts.
As to mechanical heating vs. here's a trivial counter: Yes the Sun's enegy trumps, but it is reflected, absorbed, used, re-radiated, and the balance is what brings us to what we are accustomed to... It is also the varation that's important. Waste heat goes directly into the environment, trivial amounts of it get radiated, (temperature with height of atm will give you an intuitive). That's just the basic.
Now, on topic, something about CO2?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2013
If memory serves, and you do due dilligence, you will find an apples to apples comparison of the Sun's vs waste heat comes to about 3%, with a huge margin for error, mind you.
I am working on finding my math on the subject. But I think I'll let you finish first.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2013
But that's the whole point Alchem. CO2 is essentially transparent to direct light from the sun, but is opague to reflected light. It therefore "traps" the reflecting light. Light is energy, and trapped energy adds heat to a closed system.

Island heating (which is what you are talking about) can have the same effect, but it requires a substancial amount of energy. There is not enough energy in all of the mechanical heating from every manmade source on the planet combined, and then multiplied by 10,000, to have the effect on our planet that the energy being trapped from the sun adds. Its a drop in the bucket Alchem, a candle next to a central blast furnace.
You're arguing that H2O is the bigger badder GHG, which is correct, but that is not what is causing the problem. H2O falls out of the atmosphere relatively quickly. CO2 doesn't, it stays for a very long time, and during that time it continually traps & holds heat energy from the sun.
You are confusing cause and effect! DO THE MATH
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2013
@Maggnus, no, none of that is what I am talking about. You are simply confusing what we are speaking about. Island heating is about materials used in cities, H20 is always at least 12 times more prevalent than CO2, and that's in the desert, and as for the blast furnace of the Sun, I am very aware.
I am also aware you haven't shown me your calc.s. Whereas I have shown (deepsand) that in the microsecs it takes CO2 to relax from an absorption, it's bombared by magnitudes of other photons, that CO2 is not numerically prevalent enough to have an insulation effect without water, that if you just use spectacularly overcounting linear methods, CO2 still can't compete with water, in additon there are two qualitative assertions you simply can't counter. Which is OK, I've been essying the "environmental stabilization" effect of GH gasses on the bigger brains I know and they've got nothing either. Measuring the daily effect of CO2 should be a simple exercise in stats..
One we'll never see.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2013
@ Alchem - No Alchem, I know exactly what you are trying to say, and I am telling you that it is wrong. It is called island heating, which includes cities, but is not just cities. regardless, a quibble and not important to the discussion.
Tell you what - you claim to be a chemist. So why then, if your idea has any traction, are you arguing your case on a science website that restricts any responces to 1000 words or less? If you have the numbers, as you claim, and they support your position, as you claim, why are you not submitting your work for publication?
You say the "big brains" around you have nothing either. Has it crossed your mind that they have nothing because you have asked your questions in such a way as to beg the answer? Try re-wording the question. Either way, and regardless, I stick by my answer. You method of mechanical heating is several orders of magnitude too small to have set off the warming we are currently seeing.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2013
CO2's effects should be most prominent at night, and should result in the lengthening of cooling time. This is a different effect than Island Heating, which is from asphalt and buildings absorbing heat differently than natural environs.
Like King Canutte I think I can order the oceans stop...
But unlike he, I realize I can only affect the oceans within arms reach.
Question: In how many ways and how many times do I have to do the math? It seems I've got six different ways CO2 cannot possibly work, zero ways it can, but am open to suggestions for another approach...
As for impact of heat, 0.001% is the max fluxuation of the Sun, and much much less than that affects climate. Let's call it (0.001)^-1 x 10 or 10000. We've reached agreement!
Then I find out Gore measures the CO2 increase from 3 sources, the last only source being a volcano whose activity has been increasing lately.
Increasing activity = increased CO2.