AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 19 Aug 2007 21:29 <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > 1) I do not understand how the lag between CO2 and temperature is > explained. They should be in lock-step if CO2 is a causal agent. Heating is in lock step with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but there is a lag in atmospheric CO2 concentration that results from the thermal enertia of the ocean. As the deep ocean warms it can hold less CO2 and that CO2 is outgassed to the atmosphere which obviously amplifies the surface warming. So you warm the air immediately, the ocean warms slowly, and as the temperatures of the oceans rise over the centuries, more CO2 is released from the ocean which increases the amount of surface warming. > 2) Positive feedback responses cease only when the feedback breaks > down. Either CO2 has ceased being responsive to temperature, or > temperature has ceased being responsive to CO2. Neither. The positive feedback system is still in effect. The ocean however is not CO2 saturated so it will not begin to outgas until it's temperature rises a few 'C. > Since it is accepted that temperature is responsive to CO2, how has CO2 > ceased being > responsive to temperature? It hasn't. Warmer surface temperatures also mean melting, rotting tundra which returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Desertification also means that the carbon that once was locked up into the soil is lost to the atmosphere as the biological component of the soil is broken down by organisms and then by chemical weathering. > 3) The positive feedback loop need to have an asymmetric mechanism, > otherwise there would be a square-wave instead of a triangle-wave of > temperature. If the feedback loop is temperature->GHG->temperature, > then there is no asymmetry. You mean an even period square wave. You don't have a triangular waveform either. You have a cross between the two, with an asymmetric period. I would interpret this as being a generally sign wave type signal with trigger points on the leading and trailing portion of the positive going waveform. The trigger points (tipping points in the common venacular), are chosen by the chance purturbations of the chaotic climate system. > 4) What is wrong with the alternative explanation the the causal > feedback mechanism is deglaciation leads to sea-level rises, leads to > better heat transfer from Pacific to Atlantic, leads to more > deglaciation, with CO2 simply responding to average sea-level > temperature? Why would a sea level rise make for any significantly better heat transfers between the oceans? Are you asking why historically CO2 hasn't responded to sea level temperatures? If so, then the answer is that it indeed does so, and has done in the past. During those times, the climate driver were the orbital variance - forcing a chaotic climate system. Currently the climate system is being directly forced with the emission of vast quantities of CO2 by man.
From: pgarrone on 25 Aug 2007 05:51 On Aug 20, 11:29 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" <LynchTheBushTria...(a)AngryMob.com> wrote: >pgarr...(a)acay.com.au> wrote > >> 1) I do not understand how the lag between CO2 and temperature is >> explained. They should be in lock-step if CO2 is a causal agent. > > Heating is in lock step with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but there is >a lag in atmospheric CO2 concentration that results from the thermal enertia >of the ocean. > > As the deep ocean warms it can hold less CO2 and that CO2 is outgassed to >the atmosphere which obviously amplifies the surface warming. > > So you warm the air immediately, the ocean warms slowly, and as the >temperatures of the oceans rise over the centuries, more CO2 is released >from the ocean which increases the amount of surface warming. After looking at a simple positive feedback model, I now accept that the delayed CO2 response does not preclude it acting as an agent in a positive feedback loop to end the iceage. I assumed - delay of 800 years - 5000 years to swing the output - forcing amplitude of 40 percent of the output - close to unity loop gain in the feedback system > >> 2) Positive feedback responses cease only when the feedback breaks >> down. Either CO2 has ceased being responsive to temperature, or >> temperature has ceased being responsive to CO2. > > Neither. The positive feedback system is still in effect. The ocean >however is not CO2 saturated so it will not begin to outgas until it's >temperature rises a few 'C. > >> Since it is accepted that temperature is responsive to CO2, how has CO2 >> ceased being >> responsive to temperature? > > It hasn't. Warmer surface temperatures also mean melting, rotting tundra >which returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Desertification also means that the >carbon that once was locked up into the soil is lost to the atmosphere as >the biological component of the soil is broken down by organisms and then by >chemical weathering. You have not explained why the runaway positive feedback ends. What stops a "snowball earth" or "planet-venus-runaway-greenhouse" effect? (Assuming that the positive feedback loop consists of warming->more CO2 ->more warming) > >> 3) The positive feedback loop need to have an asymmetric mechanism, >> otherwise there would be a square-wave instead of a triangle-wave of >> temperature. If the feedback loop is temperature->GHG->temperature, > You mean an even period square wave. You don't have a triangular waveform >either. You have a cross between the two, with an asymmetric period. I >would interpret this as being a generally sign wave type signal with trigger >points on the leading and trailing portion of the positive going waveform. >The trigger points (tipping points in the common venacular), are chosen by >the chance purturbations of the chaotic climate system. To quote from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing "Note in the graphic the strong 100,000 year periodicity of the cycles, and the striking asymmetry of the curves. This asymmetry is believed to result from complex interactions of feedback mechanisms. It has been observed that ice ages deepen by progressive steps, but the recovery to interglacial conditions occurs in one big step." Actually for mine it looks like a 100000 year period sawtooth wave, with a lot of added noise, but this noise is a minimum when its coldest. A simple temperature-GHG mutually reinforcing causation cannot explain this asymmetry. > >> 4) What is wrong with the alternative explanation that the causal >> feedback mechanism is deglaciation leads to sea-level rises, leads to >> better heat transfer from Pacific to Atlantic, leads to more >> deglaciation, with CO2 simply responding to average sea-level >> temperature? > > Why would a sea level rise make for any significantly better heat transfers >between the oceans? Consider this "thermohaline circulation". During an ice age, the passage through Indonesia would be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation Of course this article argues against my amateur-skeptic position, because it has a delay of some 1 to 3 thousand years. But as discussed in point 1, CO2 also lags by 800 years, so a lag in itself does not preclude a positive feedback causation. There has to be some small initial temperature rise to start the process off. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050428180401.htm Nevertheless I like it because it explains the breaking of the positive feedback mechanism and the asymmetry better. When all the glaciers have melted, sea level stops rising. When the route through Indonesia is substantially blocked, the loop gain goes to near zero. > > Are you asking why historically CO2 hasn't responded to sea level >temperatures? If so, then the answer is that it indeed does so, and has >done in the past. During those times, the climate driver were the orbital >variance - forcing a chaotic climate system. No, I wasn't asking that, but don't be shy to express yourself. And I open a fifth front. 5) Why did ice-ages start 3 million years ago? Surely the laws of physics causing the feedback between GHG and temperature did not change. But if we consider ocean levels as the critical feedback, then the continents re-arranged themselves to allow the positive feedback loop to develop. > > Currently the climate system is being directly forced with the emission of >vast quantities of CO2 by man. 6) So how do you preclude natural variation, given the historical record? Thanks for your reply.
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 26 Aug 2007 20:04 "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" wrote >> Ahahahahaha.. What makes you think that CO2 has to "retain heat" in >> order >> to create a higher temperature somewhere. <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > As soon as you figure out how to create higher tempertures without the > expensive acquisition of energy, you have solved all of the problems > of modern society, including the need to burn fossil fuels for > heating. Meaningless drivel that doesn't even begin to answer the question. Stupid... Stupid.. kdthrge. <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > Heat is energy. Energy is never lost or created. This is called > conservation of energy. Pointless, worthless, inapplicable, droaning. <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > 1 mole of air @stp is 22,400 cubic cm. As a sphere this would have a > radius of 12.1 cm or a surface area of 1847 cm. If this sphere were at > 300k, meaning that at it's surface, 460Wm-2 were leaving the system, > this sphere of 1847 sq cm would radiate 82.9 Joules per second. Yawn. Air is not a blackbody. You might have noticed that from the fact that air is not pitch black or even close to being pitch black. Hence your blackbody calculation is inapplicable - even while being inapplicable to the topic at hand. .... <kdthrge(a)yahoo.com> wrote > This is due to the validity of Kirchoff's theorem.... Now that you have finished your mindless, error prone, rambling, here is my response. Ahahahahaha.. What makes you think that CO2 has to "retain heat" in order to create a higher temperature somewhere?
From: ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans on 26 Aug 2007 20:44 > On Aug 20, 11:29 am, "ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans" >> It hasn't. Warmer surface temperatures also mean melting, rotting >> tundra >>which returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Desertification also means that the >>carbon that once was locked up into the soil is lost to the atmosphere as >>the biological component of the soil is broken down by organisms and then >>by >>chemical weathering. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > You have not explained why the runaway positive feedback ends. > What stops a "snowball earth" or "planet-venus-runaway-greenhouse" > effect? Well, for "snowball earth", freezing oceans mean less surface area for the uptake of CO2 and since natural sources continue depositing it in the air, it's concentration increases as the surface freezes, and it eventually counters the cooling trend, at which point the ice begins to melt, the CO2 that had been absorbed is outgassed into the atmosphere, and also since liquid oceans are darker than frozen ones, they continue to warm simply by melting. So you get this large rapid rise in global temperatures, - typically ending a glacial period. Once the ice has largely melted only the darkening effect of the melt reduces to nearly zero, Outgassing stops as well and the system enters a reasonable stable orbit around some system attractor state. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > And I open a fifth front. > > 5) Why did ice-ages start 3 million years ago? Did they? That's not at all clear. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > Surely the laws of physics causing the feedback between GHG and > temperature did not change. No, the feedback mechanisms wasn't different, but the position of the continents was. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > But if we consider ocean levels as the critical feedback, > then the continents re-arranged > themselves to allow the positive feedback loop to develop. And why do you feel that the continents care about doing such a thing? >> Currently the climate system is being directly forced with the emission >> of >>vast quantities of CO2 by man. <pgarrone(a)acay.com.au> wrote > 6) So how do you preclude natural variation, given the historical > record? I don't, we live within it. However human emissions are outside that which nature is responsible for producing. This is clearly evident from the isotopic abundances of Carbon and Oxygen in the atmosphere.
From: Talk-n-Dog on 27 Aug 2007 22:15
kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > KDeatherage > CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help. > Is this like Munchausen Syndrome: making yourself sick or injuring yourself in order to get attention from the medical community, but instead they make the *PLANET* sick. This is Munchausen by proxy: making someone ELSE sick... Is there a cure for the Proxy version, can we give the Planet a placebo and let them, move on and make the universe or maybe Mars sick? -- http://OutSourcedNews.com Our constitution protects criminals, drunks and U.S. Senators. Which at times are, one and the same... The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the whole thing. - Gump That - |