Originally posted by jmclemore: Which 1 of these 2 forms of CO2 production is worse for the environment? (temporarily granting the argument that CO2 is harmful to the environment) 1. Internal Combustion of carbon based fuels. 2. Naturally occurring forest fires and volcanic eruptions.
Extracting energy from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels is "way" more significant in terms of contributing to global warming, because of the carbon dioxide byproduct.
I have posted on this forum before about volcanic activity and greenhouse gases. The reports that I cited are in agreement that human reliance on fossil fuels and emissions from other human activities are releasing greenhouse gases--CO2 most of all--at a rate that is about 100 times greater, molecule per molecule, than the sum total of volcanic activity all around the world. (In terms of the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere every year.) The reports take into account the volcanic eruptions that are seen around the world every year. Obviously, some years are more "volcanic" than other years, but the reports are based on averages over many years.
The reports take into account what is known about offshore and deep ocean floor volcanic activity, in addition to volcanic activity on all of the continental land masses.
It almost goes without saying that scientists cannot be measuring on a round the clock basis the kinds and amounts of gases that are emitted into the atmosphere from every volcanic source all around the world. What they have done is to capture air samples and take measurements with gas analyzers close up to a number of active volcanos and other geographic formations (geysers; hot springs; "what have you"). Then they extrapolate, using what is known about the geographic distribution and magnitudes of volcanos and similar geographic formations, all around the world, to estimate the total volcanic attribution for CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The volcanic attribution is a topic of ongoing study and research, but from the reports that I have seen, I believe there are more scientists that are sizing up the volcanic attribution as "small potatoes" compared to the human attribution; more than the numbers of scientists that say otherwise.
Turning to unintended forest fires and brush fires or wildfires, all of which release CO2 from the combustion of organic materials--still "small potatoes" compared to the human attribution from fossil fuels, agriculture, construction using concrete and other "stuff" that only humans are responsible for. The CO2 that is released from forest fires and brush fires is largely the same CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere by the process of photosynthesis, while the trees and other vegetation that burned were alive--before they caught fire. As the burned-out areas are recolonized by new plant life, the same CO2 is drawn out of the air again by photosynthesis and sequestered in the mass of new vegetation, until it catches fire again or decomposes in some other way. It's very cyclical. It's not a perfect balance, because of the time that it takes for CO2 to be recaptured by new plant life or forest metabolism and growth, but in the cogitations of the IPCC and the other scientists who are on board with the general thinking about AGW, forest fires and brush fires are not doing nearly as much damage as reliance on fossil fuels.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the prehistoric atmosphere as the coal, oil and natural gas formations were laid down, starting many millions of years ago and over many millions of years long past as the deposits were created. Releasing this "prehistoric" or fossil carbon into the atmosphere as a byproduct of using the fossil fuels is nothing like the cyclical process of forests and other vegetation that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and then returns carbon to the atmosphere when it burns or otherwise dies and decomposes. This organic carbon cycle of plant growth and destruction is measured in hundreds and thousands of years. The carbon cycle of fossil fuels is measured in millions of years. So it is not possible for humans as a species to depend upon "Mother Nature" to capture the carbon that is being released by using fossil fuels and sequester it below ground again within new coal beds and oil and natural gas formations.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-25-2016).]
Extracting energy from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels is "way" more significant in terms of contributing to global warming, because of the carbon dioxide byproduct.
.......
Since the release of CO2 is the same from the combustion (burning) of all carbon materials, I fail to see how the combustion of a refined fuel is more harmful than the burning of mass acreage. Both increase available CO2 levels but only 1 actually reduces the environment's ability to sequester it.
One contributor produces more CO2 and requires the environment to deal with the excess. The other produces excess CO2 and temporarily handicaps the environment in the process.
This is like setting a fire truck on fire and saying it's no big deal because it use to fight fires and when they replace it, the new fire truck will put out fires.
But lets be clear about the ability to track, measure and document volcanic activity as well as it's effect. These are not uneducated people standing around with notepads and cameras. What they lack in ability to physically observe they compensate with software to calculate potential outcomes. Please, do not expect me to believe that it is a virtually impossible task to determine volcanic frequency and impact.
The carbon cycle of fossil fuels is measured in millions of years. So it is not possible for humans as a species to depend upon "Mother Nature" to capture the carbon that is being released from fossil fuels and recycle it by sequestering it below ground again within new coal beds and oil and natural gas formations.
That is the most short sighted statement I have ever read. For it to be believed, we would have to accept the assumption that there is nothing that can be humanly done except stop using fossil fuels.
That is one of the issues I have with the whole argument for anthropogenic global warming. There seems to be an endless supply of positive solutions when the discussion is about periodic and frequent natural releases of co2 but when referring human releases the conversation becomes very narrow in regards to options. (Temporarily granting the CO2 is harmful to the environment position)
On the issue of volcanic co2 releases. Much of that material was deeper in the ground than our oil and natural gas deposits. That would give volcanic released CO2 a much longer return path, would it not.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 04-25-2016).]
What you seem not to grasp is that one of the fundamental "planks" of the AGW "platform" is that the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels is a much bigger number than the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and from forest fires and brush fires.
I should have been more clear about that, as far as the forest fires and brush fires.
I believe one of the IPCC's policy recommendations is to discourage the clearing of forest land, and especially the burning of forested areas to make way for agriculture or other land uses; but that measure alone, or in concert with other climate mitigations, is not going to be large enough to nullify the strong advisability of achieving a significant reduction in the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. (That's the IPCC's view.)
My statement about "Mother Nature" stands.
If there could be changes in the way that energy is extracted from fossil fuels to eliminate or to sequester the carbon dioxide byproduct, that would eliminate some of the urgency for achieving large reductions in the use of fossil fuels within an aggressive timeline. Or, if there were some way to speed up the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere--some addition to, or some enhancement of the natural processes known as "carbon sinks" that remove CO2 from the atmosphere--to speed up this process so that it would be able to keep pace with the CO2 going into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels--that's another possibility.
I have not excluded the possibility of realizing either of these two ideas (or both) in the effort to avert the most damaging AGW climate scenarios for the remainder of the current century. But these ideas (or other ideas for achieving the same objectives) are clearly outside the scope of what it means to "depend upon Mother Nature". That's why my statement stands.
The fact that the gases--including CO2--that go into the atmosphere from volcanic activity originate from magma reservoirs that are deeper below the earth's surface than any oil or gas wells (or coal mines) is a "So what?" The relevant observation is that the volcanic contribution to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is believed to be small, compared to the amounts that are going into the atmosphere as a byproduct of human activities.
I never say that I can personally "prove" AGW. I "happen" to believe, based on what I have read and viewed, that it is more likely than not, the truth.
Have you ever considered trying your hand with Google or some other search engine? Using searches such as "the volcanic contribution to global warming" or "wildfires and carbon emissions"..? (It could take a certain amount of trial and error on your part--some iterative improvements to your search engine keywords--in order to fien tune your search engine "game".) Have you considered looking at any of the NASA material under the heading of "Why Study Carbon Dioxide?" that I suggested in my post from the day before that started with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite data? Here's the link again: http://www.jpl.nasa...press-kit.pdf
Have you ever considered downloading either or both of these documents from the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis? That would be here: http://www.climatechange2013.org
The IPCC "SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS" is 28 pages. The "FULL WGI AR5 REPORT" is 1535 pages--too long to read at one sitting, but maybe something you could browse by searching for keywords. These are in PDF format.
Could you be more proactive in terms of a solo effort to enlarge your understanding of what the "other side" or perhaps the "dark side" (in your estimation) is predicting, and how they go about explaining the basis for their predictions? Otherwise, your skepticism is "blind" skepticism. Blind skepticism makes no more sense (to me) than someone who jumps on the AGW bandwagon because it's "trendy" or lends itself to an enjoyable day of making the rounds in town in the psychosocially comfortable embrace of a close-knit peer group and "protesting".
Are you looking for a short and simple explanation of what is clearly a very complicated scenario (AGW) that comes with a long list of "moving parts" (aggravating and mitigating factors) and both short-term and long-term implications for policy makers? Are you looking for an explanation that is contained within no more than two or three paragraphs of "Anglo-Saxon" prose?
That is a profoundly unrealistic expectation that signals that you really need to "go back to the drawing board" in terms of figuring out how to go about the task of acquiring an appropriate level of background information for discussing this issue.
"Anglo-Saxon" Idiomatic for clearly worded English; usage:
The Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff tore into his own employees for staging a phony news conference at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government," Michael Chertoff said. "I have made unambiguously clear, in Anglo-Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again, and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against those people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinarily poor judgment."
~ Times Wire Reports; October 28, 2007.Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-25-2016).]
What you seem not to grasp is that one of the fundamental "planks" of the AGW "platform" is that the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels is a much bigger number than the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and from forest fires and brush fires.
What you seem not to grasp is that I simply don't believe it has been proven. I have yet to get a simple explanation. Instead, when a simple question is asked it is usually meet with a ton of peripheral factors that someone else used to draw their conclusion.
I deal with people all day long who are very skilled at turning a simple answer to a simple question into a lengthy monologue for no other purpose but to overwhelm the inquirer to the point of befuddled retreat.
So wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate the claim that
"Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13 micrometers."
Seriously, I want it to be true. i can not imagine a more evolutionary transformation of how the world works, how people live and how power is generated. That is if, It is true.
So approach me like I'm an average simpleton who has not learned anything about Global Warming (or what ever it's called today) other than what I have been told.
If you were trying to help someone to understand who could not read, or as is the case with many, unable to comprehend that much reading, how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates the CO2 effect on global temperatures.
Originally posted by jmclemore: If you were trying to help someone to understand who could not read, or as is the case with many, unable to comprehend that much reading, how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates the CO2 effect on global temperatures.
<snip>
If it does not. please suggest another video with a more representative demonstration.
Hello all,
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon".
I would call the brief video segment from Mr "jmclemore" a crude, empirical demonstration of the Greenhouse Effect using CO2 from Alka-Seltzer tablets. But I don't like the fact that the guy in the video did not demonstrate convincingly that each bottle was receiving the same amount of illumination from the light source. And I don't like the fact that he dropped the Alka-Seltzer tabs into the water and then stoppered that bottle within seconds (it seems) without demonstrating in any convincing way that the total gas pressure inside the bottles was equal from one bottle to the other. It probably was, since until he stoppered it, the top was open, but still...
The video that "newf" posted in response--from MythBusters--is about the same length (short of four minutes)--and more impressive. They had two control atmospheres, a CO2-enriched atmosphere and a methane-enriched atmosphere. They demonstrated that each "atmosphere" was exposed to the same amount of illumination.
But it wasn't quantitative in any particular way. They didn't report the exact composition of each "atmosphere". I assume that the two controls were just "air". The CO2-enriched atmosphere, they didn't say how much more CO2 (vs air) in terms of ppm or on a percentage basis. And the same as far as the methane-rich atmosphere. I guess maybe if "one" were to find and view that entire MythBusters program, "one" could glean some more details about the experiment. Perhaps.
These are crude, empirical demonstrations of the Greenhouse Effect, that show how elevated levels of atmospheric CO2--and/or methane--could be causing global warming.
This (I hope it goes without saying) is the first "baby step" in terms of understanding what AGW "fans" are saying--leaving aside any thoughts about whether "you" should agree or disagree with any or all of their conclusions and recommendations.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-29-2016).]
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon".
Although I am sorry to hear you have been so ill, I am glad to hear that you are recovering. I do hope a full and long lasting recovery comes quick for you....
On your observation of each video, thank you for taking the time to note and share their shortcomings. I acknowledge that the lack of several data points do not disprove the AGW claim. I was honestly ready to give you a bit of a hard time, had you quickly judged the video. You did not, thank you.
But, the videos do show how difficult it is the reproduce the claim in a control environment. I say "difficult" to credit the efforts to explain CO2 related AGW because unproven does not mean disproven.
I quickly dismissed the resulting temperature gains based on each container's contents, proportions, A capped environment, heat source and available space for heated gasses to expands. Again, a bad demonstration is not proof a bad claim.
So, How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect of CO2 within and environment similar to our atmosphere. Wouldn't you take a sealed environment and strictly manage the gas types and quantities, the atmospheric pressure and more importantly the energy source.
If the claim requires CO2 to heat up when exposed to specific IR waves and re-emits that heat back into the atmosphere, can't we just isolate both and reintroduce them with no other gasses or heat sources. I mean, I can prove microwaves result in melted butter if they are in the same microwave oven. Can't we do the same with CO2 and Infrared?
It would certainly be convincing to see IR waves causing CO2 to increase in temperature, then see that heat re-emitted in such a way that it is reasonable to expect a larger scale would produce a global impact.
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon".
The video that "newf" posted in response--from MythBusters--is about the same length (short of four minutes)--and more impressive. They had two control atmospheres, a CO2-enriched atmosphere and a methane-enriched atmosphere. They demonstrated that each "atmosphere" was exposed to the same amount of illumination.
But it wasn't quantitative in any particular way. They didn't report the exact composition of each "atmosphere". I assume that the two controls were just "air". The CO2-enriched atmosphere, they didn't say how much more CO2 (vs air) in terms of ppm or on a percentage basis. And the same as far as the methane-rich atmosphere. I guess maybe if "one" were to find and view that entire MythBusters program, "one" could glean some more details about the experiment. Perhaps.
These are crude, empirical demonstrations of the Greenhouse Effect, that show how elevated levels of atmospheric CO2--and/or methane--could be causing global warming.
This (I hope it goes without saying) is the first "baby step" in terms of understanding what AGW "fans" are saying--leaving aside any thoughts about whether "you" should agree or disagree with any or all of their conclusions and recommendations.
Sorry to hear of your recent health issues, hope you are feeling better.
I posted the Mythbusters video because jmclemore asked for and I quote
quote
"how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates the CO2 effect on global temperatures. If it does not. please suggest another video with a more representative demonstration."
Seems like he asked for a basic experiment showing the correlation of C02 level in air to temperature increase but is now saying it's too simplistic. Anyways there are plenty of organizations that have shown these experiments to be true all he need do is look and ask them if he is unwilling to believe any third party.
Or I suppose I can try again....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YSwajvFAY
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2016).]
Originally posted by jmclemore: How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect of CO2 within an environment similar to our atmosphere?
Published on Feb 27, 2015 These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows C02 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of C02 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to C02 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity.
The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)
First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect February 25, 2015
Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.
The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.
The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
Greenhouse Effect Is Witnessed…and Getting Worse February 25, 2015
The climate-changing greenhouse effect exists and has been directly measured in the United States, a new study reports.
The results confirm what scientists had already proved through models and laboratory experiments: Pumping carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere is warming the Earth's surface.
"We're actually measuring the fact that rising carbon dioxide concentrations are leading to the greenhouse effect," said lead study author Dan Feldman, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. "This is clear observational evidence that when we add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it will push the system to a warmer place."
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 published in the journal Nature; March 19, 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing1, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2 (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.Click to show
The Science is Settled: Global Warming is a Crock http://www.rockit.news/2015...lobal-warming-crock/ "Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs."
Originally posted by avengador1: The Science is Settled: Global Warming is a Crock http://www.rockit.news/2015...lobal-warming-crock/ "Meteorology has many facts and many scientific principles but, at this stage of its development, weather forecasts just a week ahead are still iffy. Why then should we let ourselves be stampeded into crippling the American economy with unending restrictions created by bureaucrats who pay no price for being wrong?
Certainly neither China nor India will do that, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they put into the air will overwhelm any reductions we might achieve, even with draconian restrictions at astronomical costs."
It seems very true, that if China AND India do not scale down some big plans that are on their drawing boards for many additional (and large) coal-fired power plants, then anything that is attempted by the U.S. and all the other nations would be ineffectual in terms of reigning in human CO2 emissions.
It's also true that if the U.S. does not move to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the fifty states (and U.S. territories), that would give China and India the perfect "out" to ignore any more suggestions from "us" about reducing their CO2 emissions.
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore: How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect of CO2 within an environment similar to our atmosphere?
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post?
It seems very true, that if China AND India do not scale down some big plans that are on their drawing boards for many additional (and large) coal-fired power plants, then anything that is attempted by the U.S. and all the other nations would be ineffectual in terms of reigning in human CO2 emissions.
It's also true that if the U.S. does not move to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions from the fifty states (and U.S. territories), that would give China and India the perfect "out" to ignore any more suggestions from "us" about reducing their CO2 emissions.
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post?
If you think China is going to do one thing towards hurting their economy, you have no idea how their government operates. They are capitalism on steroids. The government does anything and everything to promote their business and job growth. There is no "playing fair". It's all for China and the world be damned. They manipulate their currency, their court system, internet access and content, and everything else. They allow copying of any product without consequence. They do not take "suggestions" from us.
You still don't get it. They will not stop. Water shortage? Then move where there is water. Die? Make more Chinese. There are 1.4 BILLION of them. What is a few hundred million less?
You know that up to 30 million deaths a year are attributed to their pollution? You think that makes a difference? The country is already top heavy with older folks due to the one child policy. If they can kill off an extra 30 million old folks with early deaths it's a win/win (for them).
Any comments on how this was addressed (or not?) by my previous post?
Carbon dioxide - PDF Page30 Carbon dioxide gas is produced in quantity in the silage fermentation process. It is odorless, colorless, and tasteless, and heavier than air. Carbon dioxide is non-toxic, but displaces the air and lowers the oxygen level potentially to the point that respiratory distress can occur. Strong concentrations of CO2 can cause rapid asphyxiation due to oxygen insufficiency. .
I've asked about -
Weight of CO2? No matter how CO2 mixes into our atmosphere, "CO2" sinks to the lowest level. Even if air carries it up, it's own weight brings it back down.
Concentrations of CO2? I honestly only have a suspicion that colder dry areas without much plant life would be higher ( but I can't find anything to back it up) other than to say that that atmosphere doesn't have much plant life or water.
Behavior of CO2? in nature it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form(state) other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us to control temperature and pressure.
I feel that your responses have been more of a redirect than a simple answer. I see more information from sources who simply cite their own conclusion to data they produced.
Example: Does CO2 cause an increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?
How should this be answered. If I have read everything correctly that you have linked to, Yes it does. But what do you say? Does CO2 cause an increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?
As far as CO2 settling out of the atmosphere as a heavier-than-air gas and collecting as a denser layer of gas at ground level--not happening. That could only happen if the atmosphere were in equilibrium, and the atmosphere is never in equilibrium. There is always some external source of energy that is causing updrafts and mixing throughout the atmosphere. Solar illumination that is converted into heat energy at the surface of the earth. Wind energy related to the earth's diurnal rotation from day to night.
The satellite data that I just referenced (a few posts back) reveals CO2 in significant concentrations at the boundary between the most distant traces of atmosphere and outer space. And there are molecules of greater "weight" than CO2 that also filter upwards to the most distant parts of the atmosphere from ground level. Fluorocarbon refrigerants and spray can propellants. The molecules that were (and still are) causing "holes" in the high altitude ozone layer above the North and South polar regions.
"In nature, it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form (state) other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us to control temperature and pressure."
OK. Is there some conflict here with the way that scientists have explained how AGW "works"..? I'm not seeing your "point".
"Does CO2 cause an increase in water vapor by heating up the atmosphere?"
That is part and parcel of how scientists explain AGW.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2016).]
"In nature, it's unlikely to find CO2 in any other form (state) other than as a gas. For it to be liquid or solid requires us to control temperature and pressure."
OK. Is there some conflict here with the way that scientists have explained how AGW "works"..? I'm not seeing your "point".
That is the BIG difference between CO2 and H2O (water, water vapor, ice). There are many more H2O molecules suspended in the atmosphere (as water vapor) than CO2 molecules. So H2O is always the most significant greenhouse gas, in terms of the magnitude of its contribution of heat energy to the total greenhouse warming effect.
But H2O is constantly settling out of the atmosphere as rain, snow, condensation (dew) and sometimes as hail. Winds push the atmosphere around, and when humid air gets pushed upwards and into cooler temperature regimes over rising terrain, or pushed over colder land and sea surface, local equilibrium causes some of the water vapor to precipitate. That is H2O that is removed from the atmosphere.
Water and water vapor are "self-regulating" because of water's propensity for phase changes between its gas, liquid and solid states. H2O doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere
CO2--does not liquefy or freeze as readily as water vapor--so, not nearly as "self-regulating" as water and water vapor. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. This is why CO2 is a "culprit" or "perpetrator" of AGW, and water and water vapor are not.
In other words, the hydrologic cycle that moves water into the atmosphere and removes water from the atmosphere works very rapidly, compared to the slow-moving cycles that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The natural CO2 cycles are not keeping pace with the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
QED..?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-08-2016).]
As far as CO2 settling out of the atmosphere as a heavier-than-air gas and collecting as a denser layer of gas at ground level--not happening. That could only happen if the atmosphere were in equilibrium, and the atmosphere is never in equilibrium. There is always some external source of energy that is causing updrafts and mixing throughout the atmosphere. Solar illumination that is converted into heat energy at the surface of the earth. Wind energy related to the earth's diurnal rotation from day to night.
Then how does the co2 get from the atmosphere into the ocean. or to any other carbon sink for that matter.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The satellite data that I just referenced (a few posts back) reveals CO2 in significant concentrations at the boundary between the most distant traces of atmosphere and outer space. And there are molecules of greater "weight" than CO2 that also filter upwards to the most distant parts of the atmosphere from ground level. Fluorocarbon refrigerants and spray can propellants. The molecules that were (and still are) causing "holes" in the high altitude ozone layer above the North and South polar regions.
Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2 in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2 actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: That is the BIG difference between CO2 and H2O (water, water vapor, ice). There are many more H2O molecules suspended in the atmosphere (as water vapor) than CO2 molecules. So water vapor is always the most significant greenhouse gas, in terms of the magnitude of its contribution of heat energy to the total greenhouse warming effect.
But water vapor is constantly settling out of the atmosphere as rain, snow, condensation (dew) and sometimes as hail. Winds push the atmosphere around, and when humid air gets pushed upwards over terrain, or pushed over colder land and sea surface, local equilibrium causes some of the water vapor to precipitate, so that part is removed from the atmosphere.
too bad all that precipitation can't capture and carry all that carbon back to the ocean and soil.
So to recap,
- We have CO2 that only moves up until it gets trapped at all levels of the atmosphere. because there is not pause or reduction in air current that will allow CO2 to yield to gravity.
- CO2 that can produce radiative heating or cooling through infrared radiation.
- Water doesn't capture CO2 in the air but does when it is a lake, river or ocean.
Originally posted by E.Furgal: outlaw volcano's as they put more co2 in the air DAILY than we ever could
And you figured this out by yourself? Excellent work.
Since I have no direct, personal access to any nearby, active volcanoes, I tried to see if I could make some sense of this online, using Google.
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (U.S. Geological Survey), from 2007 CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volc...e/2007/07_02_15.html
Scientific American, from 2009 CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together http://www.scientificameric...volcanoes-or-humans/
The U.K. Guardian, from 2010 CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together http://www.theguardian.com/...ano-climate-sceptics
Discovery News (associated with cable TV's Discovery Channel), from 2012 CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together http://news.discovery.com/e...s-climate-110627.htm
Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
So the outlier here--the seemingly minority view--and the sentiment just expressed by PFF's very own E.Furgal--is from Robin Wylie, who, at the time that the Wylie Op-Ed was published in LiveScience, was a doctoral candidate in volcanology at University College London.
Any follow up here, from anyone that is "into" this amazing discussion thread, which has garnered more than 5700 replies since the first post in 2008, about Robin Wylie and his thinking on this?
Snopes(.com) even weighed in on this, as recently as December 16, 2015. Not that I would present Snopes as a particularly reliable source of peer-reviewed scientific research; nevertheless, Snopes contributor Dan Evon lined up with this assessment:
quote
CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
Then how does the co2 get from the atmosphere into the ocean. or to any other carbon sink for that matter.
Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2 in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2 actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation.
too bad all that precipitation can't capture and carry all that carbon back to the ocean and soil.
So to recap,
- We have CO2 that only moves up until it gets trapped at all levels of the atmosphere. because there is not pause or reduction in air current that will allow CO2 to yield to gravity.
- CO2 that can produce radiative heating or cooling through infrared radiation.
- Water doesn't capture CO2 in the air but does when it is a lake, river or ocean.
You just said:
quote
Are referring to the radiative cooling produced by co2 in both the mesosphere and thermosphere. Where CO2 actually acts as a coolant by shedding heat via infrared radiation.
You are not surrounded by the mesosphere or the thermosphere. Those parts of the atmosphere are way up there--higher even than the stratosphere. You (and everyone else) lives their entire life immersed in the lowest part of the atmosphere--the troposphere. And that is where carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect.
As far as your other questions or comments, I have this to say: If you want to use scientific facts and principles as a way to challenge what many notable climate researchers are saying about AGW, you first have to understand the "blueprint" of AGW that has gained traction among climate researchers as something of a consensus position. You will never be able to understand the blueprint of AGW using this piecemeal, pick-and-poke, one question at a time kind of approach.
I think that all of this latest round of your questions or comments has been addressed in straightforward and eminently readable "Anglo Saxon", and you can find it online. This is the link: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/new...launch-press-kit.pdf
This is NASA's press kit from July 2014 for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (or OCO-2 satellite) Launch. It is in PDF format. If you have a desktop unit or a solid laptop PC or Mac, you could not do better for your part in this discussion than to download this PDF-format document and "peruse" it using Adobe Reader or any other software application that provides reading of PDF-format documents.
The entire document is only 37 pages long. If you were to drop down to the section that is bolded as "Why Study Carbon Dioxide?" (starts on page 17), these are the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs in sequence that you would encounter:
quote
Carbon dioxide is the most significant human-produced greenhouse gas. (Greenhouse gases contribute to warming Earth’s atmosphere by absorbing radiation emitted from Earth’s surface.) It is also the principal human-produced driver of changes to Earth’s climate.
Carbon dioxide is a long-lived gas in Earth’s atmosphere. While more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted is removed from the atmosphere within a century, about 20 percent remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Though generated at Earth’s surface, carbon dioxide rises into the free troposphere, which begins at roughly 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) above the surface. There, winds (weather systems and jet streams) transport it around the globe, across oceans and continents.
As an organization, NASA is mostly "in" with what I have described as "something of a consensus blueprint" for AGW.
This is your "AGW front line". Your "AGW combat" assignment. You will never "win" until you first read and understand this relatively straightforward material from NASA, and then--and only then--come up with your own strategy (and tactics, I suppose) to counter it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2016).]
So the outlier here--the seemingly minority view--and the sentiment just expressed by PFF's very own E.Furgal--is from Robin Wylie, who, at the time that the Wylie Op-Ed was published in LiveScience, was a doctoral candidate in volcanology at University College London.
Any follow up here, from anyone that is "into" this amazing discussion thread, which has garnered more than 5700 replies since the first post in 2008, about Robin Wylie and his thinking on this?
Snopes(.com) even weighed in on this, as recently as December 16, 2015. Not that I would present Snopes as a particularly reliable source of peer-reviewed scientific research; nevertheless, Snopes contributor Dan Evon lined up with this assessment: [QUOTE]CO2 emissions from human activities around the planet vastly outweigh CO2 emissions from all of the world's volcanoes put together
"Large-scale fires in western and southeastern states can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks as the states' entire motor vehicle traffic in a year..."
It sounds like one fire can quickly "undo" any efforts a government forces on the citizens.
"Overall, the study estimates that U.S. fires release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning."
According to that study (from 2007), the CO2 emissions from forest fires and wildfires could "undo" any modest national reduction in the amount of carbon emissions from fossil fuels reliance--"modest", as in a range of 4 to 6 percent--but that's the extent of it. If there were an aggressive reduction in the amount of carbon emissions form fossil fuels reliance, as many climate activists would like to see--like on the order of 25 or 50 percent--most of that would not be canceled out or nullified by the effects of forest fires and wildfires as averaged over a period of "good fire years" and "bad fire years".
Always remember to "Do the math" and never forget that "It is what it is"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2016).]
Infrared radiation vs visible sun light. IR-Radiation is present day or night , sun light or shade.
If I understand this correctly, wouldn't it be better to track night time temperatures to measure the "effect" of co2 on global temperatures.
Also, wouldn't make more sense to track our average low temps to verify a sustained trend of increasing temperatures.
Wouldn't be easier to determine an expected temperature drop rate based on the daily high temperature?
I mean, if we can calculate the drop in water temperature after having been boiled to show how long it should take to return to room temp, would tracking night time low temps and how long they took to drop, show the effect of CO2 on the environment?
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-15-2016).]
I've seen this video used many times to prove that CO2 absorbs IR Radiation. But it's does nothing to demonstrate CO2 causing an increase in temperature inside the tube. If CO2 can cause temperatures to rise, couldn't if be proven by taking 2 tubes, fill one with CO2 and the other Air. Make sure the are the same pressure and track the temperature of the tubes as the lay out in the sun.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-15-2016).]
This one has 2 jars with thermometers in the jar. co2 is added to 1 jar with heat lamps shinning on both jars. It seems like this is a simple experiment.
The problem
Both jars should have been measured with identical conditions Leaving the lid open on 1 and closing the other makes it really hard to compare the results because it changed the pressure inside the jar as heat is applied.
I have some other spheroids to juggle and worse than that, my computer is barely working. So I cannot go searching for "stuff" online that would be a direct answer to your latest question(s). But, if you are thinking that what happens during nights has somehow slipped through the cracks or has not been given sufficient attention by climate researchers, I think that idea can be dismissed.
I used Adobe Reader to do some keyword searches on the 1535 pages of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
The word "night" or "nights" is used 134 times. The phrase "warm nights" is used 26 times. Check out these screen captures:
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-15-2016).]
The temperature drop from sun down to sun up would reflect the effect of co2 on temperatures by showing lower rate of cooling.
CO2 and Infrared Radiation are still present in the absences of sun light. If CO2 , as claimed , reduces the troposphere's cooling efficency, then CO2 would be causing our low temperature average to increase. That should be easily determined through the temperature record.
So, even if CO2 does contribute to increases in surface temperatures, what would the night time average temperature be without the influence of CO2.
Not that I believe CO2 contributes to warming, but if it does that would support the idea that CO2 also reduces cooling. IF that is the case , I'm reminded that there is no free lunch and the small amount of warming could be offsatting the amount of cooling.
Not that I believe that CO2 in our atmoshpere produces temperature increases.
But if it does, which would be worse a gradual rise in temperature or a gradual fall. I would think that either over time would be bad, eventually.
Originally posted by rinselberg: "wildfires and carbon emissions"
quote
In the fight against climate change, forests play a critical role — drawing more greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than they emit.
But when they burn, much of those stored gases are released back into the atmosphere.
So far, the fires in Fort McMurray have released the equivalent of roughly five per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, said Werner Kurz, a senior research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service in charge of Canada’s National Forest Carbon Accounting System.
The average emissions from forest fires in the boreal plains, where the northern Alberta fires are burning, are about 170 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare, Kurz said.
Multiply that by 239, 390 hectares, the size of the Fort McMurray fire on May 11, and the fire has already released about 41 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Is there a plan to have a forest fire as large as the Fort McMurray fire in Canada each and every year?
When the burned out areas around Fort McMurray are recognized by new vegetation during the coming years, some of the CO2 that was released by the forest fires will be removed from the atmosphere by the growing shrubs and seedling trees. CO2 was released from the Fort McMurray area as the fires burned. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the Fort McMurray area as new plant life takes hold and grows. That's a closed loop carbon cycle. It is not going to burden the atmosphere with more CO2 to the same extent as it would have been to add the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere by using coal, oil or natural gas.
The processes of fossil fuels mining and drilling--unlike the Fort McMurray forest fire--mostly do not open up areas for plant life to recolonize and recapture CO2, and beyond that, finished fossil fuels that are ready for use are dense in carbon and the combustion processes for extracting energy from fossil fuels are designed to consume as much of the fuel--and as a consequence, release as much of the fossil carbon in the form of CO2--as possible. It's not like a forest fire, which leaves behind a lot of charred wood that wasn't completely burned. (That's carbon that wasn't released as CO2 during the forest fire.)
Mickey_Moose is a man of many faces, like this one:
Is there a plan to have a forest fire as large as the Fort McMurray fire in Canada each and every year?
When the burned out areas around Fort McMurray are recognized by new vegetation during the coming years, some of the CO2 that was released by the forest fires will be removed from the atmosphere by the growing shrubs and seedling trees. CO2 was released from the Fort McMurray area as the fires burned. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the Fort McMurray area as new plant life takes hold and grows. That's a closed loop carbon cycle. It is not going to burden the atmosphere with more CO2 to the same extent as it would have been to add the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere by using coal, oil or natural gas.
The processes of fossil fuels mining and drilling--unlike the Fort McMurray forest fire--mostly do not open up areas for plant life to recolonize and recapture CO2, and beyond that, finished fossil fuels that are ready for use are dense in carbon and the combustion processes for extracting energy from fossil fuels are designed to consume as much of the fuel--and as a consequence, release as much of the fossil carbon in the form of CO2--as possible. It's not like a forest fire, which leaves behind a lot of charred wood that wasn't completely burned. (That's carbon that wasn't released as CO2 during the forest fire.)
Mickey_Moose is a man of many faces, like this one:
There are no subspecies of CO2 that are less absorbable than the others. Prior to a forest fire, no matter the size of the burn, the trees and plants all absorbed CO2 from the environment.
When that forest burns, it ceases to absorb carbon and becomes a contributor of it. The CO2 gain is twofold. first you have an increase of CO2 as a result of reduced absorption and 2nd the additional carbon produce by the burning forest. The regrowth of planet life, even if quick, will not return to it's previous rate of CO2 absorption for decades and in terms of trees maybe longer. And during that recovery period a CO2 absorption deficit creates a bottle-neck in the system. The result is a magnification of the so called CO2 problem. The closed loop argument is nothing more than a closed mind locked in a loop of rhetoric to protect a ridiculous idea.
The claim that CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels are some how floating around in our atmosphere without a viable loop while naturally produced CO2 has a smooth path, makes no sense unless we are talking about 2 different forms of CO2 and the one created by combustion of fossil fuels, are apparently anti-gravitic, non-soluble and unaborbable by plants.
Likewise the claim that volcanic discharges into the atmosphere is some how less detrimental to the environment than CO2 release by automobiles and industry emissions closer to the ground is as laughable. Volcanoes like forest fires do not improve the situation. No matter how much regrowth occurs afterwards, it does not square the amount of unabsorbed CO2 cause by a disruption of the loop/carbon cycle efficiency. Unless, CO2 from fossil fuels are some how different from CO2 produced by and other burning method.
There is no amount of data/records that will sufficiently differentiate between CO2 sources to prove a disproportionate affect due to fossil fuels without first demonstrating a difference between CO2 molecules in such a way to explain how they can perform or behave differently without a difference in molecular structure. Which would mean that one of them is not CO2......
