Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: This Chart Shows No Association Between CO2 and Temperature

  1. #1 This Chart Shows No Association Between CO2 and Temperature 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481


    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/...18/dioxide.htm


    Note there is a temperature cycle every 150 million years that is unfettered by high CO2 concentrations of 7000 ppm, about 20 times Earth's current atmospheric concentration. This should not be surprising when you consider that 7000 ppm amounts to only 0.7% of the atmosphere.

    The temperature cycle appears to have no more than a 10C range (12 C to 22C) or 5C amplitude regardless of CO2 levels. So then how can any projections of 3 to 7 degree increases ( or more), as a result of a 0.03% increase in CO2, be rational?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity,
    Other than it's comparing what are effectively different planets the article makes a good point....LOL.

    But just to be fair lets forecast the average temperature in the future.
    Well I'll provide the solution, the continent is on the equator, the oceans will have full circulation and heat transport into both poles and the sun will be brighter. The earth will on average be warming than today. Within that average there will still be episodes of 5C or so variations based on orbital changes that are too small to resolve on the geological scale presented in the original article (or just ignored) using methods currently available.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    william, in your haste to claim a discorrelation between CO2 and temperature you forget the one factor which is of crucial importance, and that is heat redistribution through the position of the continents and ocean currents, as Lynx_Fox pointed out

    for all intents and purposes we can assume the continents to be fixed when talking about recent events (say the last million years), but you can't do that over longer geological periods : the closing of the Panama isthmus, the collision of India with Asia and the opening up of the gap between Antarctica on the one hand and South America and Australia on the other have had profound effects on the earth's climate and temperature through their influence on ocean currents and air flow around the globe
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    and also, your chart takes the geological time scale as it is, without the micro (on the order of less than 10000 years, say) being considered. Were there a chart to figure in the climate change over a few millenniums, perhaps it would show a better correlation to ...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity,
    Other than it's comparing what are effectively different planets the article makes a good point....LOL.

    But just to be fair lets forecast the average temperature in the future.
    Well I'll provide the solution, the continent is on the equator, the oceans will have full circulation and heat transport into both poles and the sun will be brighter. The earth will on average be warming than today. Within that average there will still be episodes of 5C or so variations based on orbital changes that are too small to resolve on the geological scale presented in the original article (or just ignored) using methods currently available.

    Interesting, but none of this proves a significant association between CO2 and world temperatures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    william, in your haste to claim a discorrelation between CO2 and temperature you forget the one factor which is of crucial importance, and that is heat redistribution through the position of the continents and ocean currents, as Lynx_Fox pointed out

    for all intents and purposes we can assume the continents to be fixed when talking about recent events (say the last million years), but you can't do that over longer geological periods : the closing of the Panama isthmus, the collision of India with Asia and the opening up of the gap between Antarctica on the one hand and South America and Australia on the other have had profound effects on the earth's climate and temperature through their influence on ocean currents and air flow around the globe
    That is all interesting, but proves no association between CO2 and temperatures. Further, the other factors you mentioned had no significant impact on the 150-million-year temperature cycle.

    Did it ever occur to you that the other factors only establish that CO2 is even less significant? You seem to be arguing that because there were other factors that prevented the CO2 at 7000 ppm from raising temperatures to alarmist levels, that somehow proves that CO2 is the principal forcing agent, or would be if those other agents would just get out of its way. How you know this to be true is not apparent, since you have not set forth any empirical evidence to support it.

    A better scientific method would be to match your hypothesis with some observations or data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    and also, your chart takes the geological time scale as it is, without the micro (on the order of less than 10000 years, say) being considered. Were there a chart to figure in the climate change over a few millenniums, perhaps it would show a better correlation to ...
    What you are recommending is known as data fishing. If you don't like the results, you ignore the evidence that falsifies your hypothesis and search for any evidence that can be construed to support your hypothesis. That was the sort of science they practiced in the dark ages. Nevermind that thousands died from being bled when they were ill. Only focus on the few that survived the treatment, and declare a correlation.

    Unfortunately, even a correlation does not prove that CO2 is a significant forcing agent at an atmospheric concentration ranging from 200ppm to 7000ppm. The sun, for example, provides far more energy than a patch of CO2.

    Even on smaller time scales, temperature tends to lead CO2 rather than lag it.
    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Did it ever occur to you that the other factors only establish that CO2 is even less significant?
    you're right that in geological time CO2 only plays a minor role compared with the redistribution of heat through the position of the continents and their effect on the ocean currents and rainfall patterns

    however, when considered over human timescales the continents can be considered a constant and any fluctuations have to come from other factors, one of which is CO2
    + when i say that CO2 only has minor effect in geological terms, those "minor" fluctuations can still be significant to us human beings

    it's all a matter of perspective m'boy, and you would be wise not to mix 2 totally different time perspectives up
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Did it ever occur to you that the other factors only establish that CO2 is even less significant?
    you're right that in geological time CO2 only plays a minor role compared with the redistribution of heat through the position of the continents and their effect on the ocean currents and rainfall patterns

    however, when considered over human timescales the continents can be considered a constant and any fluctuations have to come from other factors, one of which is CO2
    + when i say that CO2 only has minor effect in geological terms, those "minor" fluctuations can still be significant to us human beings

    it's all a matter of perspective m'boy, and you would be wise not to mix 2 totally different time perspectives up
    It would be wiser not to ignore the evidence that falsifies AGW. The only association between CO2 and temperature that the AGW crowd can show is in the last 150 years. (Even that association is sketchy, since temps have been falling lately and CO2 has been rising. Caveat: Some data shows temperatures leading CO2 levels by around 800 years, but they do not show the reverse.) If I understand the hypothesis, doubling the amount of CO2 could cause a runnaway greenhouse effect. When CO2 was at 7000 ppm, no such thing happened. The fact that it did not happen and the fact that conditions were different in the past, does not prove the AGW hypothesis.

    You will note that the temperature has had a steady 150-million-year cycle. Nothing you have mentioned has been able to derail that cycle to any significant degree. The amplitude is about 5K even in the most extreme, varied conditions and lack of extreme, varied conditions.

    You talk about mixing perspectives. Let me put it all in perspective for you: CO2 and the other factors you mentioned are like ants trying to stop a freight train. The freight train being the temperature cycle.

    "Lack of correlation does not prove causation."--WP
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    you're right that in geological time CO2 only plays a minor role compared with the redistribution of heat through the position of the continents and their effect on the ocean currents and rainfall patterns
    Exactly. And I'd add increase in solar radiation by at least 5% over that 500 million year period

    however, when considered over human timescales the continents can be considered a constant and any fluctuations have to come from other factors, one of which is CO2
    + when i say that CO2 only has minor effect in geological terms, those "minor" fluctuations can still be significant to us human beings

    it's all a matter of perspective m'boy, and you would be wise not to mix 2 totally different time perspectives up
    The chart over the last 50K years shows the huge variation that's completely hidden by the 50million year record.
    --
    Quote Originally Posted by bill
    If I understand the hypothesis, doubling the amount of CO2 could cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
    No climatologist are saying this, nor any model suggesting a "runaway" greenhouse in the way astronomers use the term to describe boiling off of the oceans aka Venus style. Perhaps you should define what you mean by runaway.




    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    No climatologist are saying this, nor any model suggesting a "runaway" greenhouse in the way astronomers use the term to describe boiling off of the oceans aka Venus style. Perhaps you should define what you mean by runaway.
    If what you are now claiming is true, then the AGW hypothesis is false. If the Venus-style runnaway greenhouse effect is not how AGW climatologists define "runnaway," then where did you get that idea? If climatologists are not predicting a crisis, then why do we need cap-n-trade? Obviously you can't have it both ways. I would be interested to know what you think the AGW theory states. But be careful, because once you commit yourself to a position, I will hold you to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Perhaps you should define what you mean by runaway.
    I define it the way you guys originally defined it: Earth will end up like Venus if we DON'T ACT NOW! I have heard this claim since 1985. Perhaps you AGW guys should define NOW, since the year is 2009, and 24 years have passed since 1985.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    [\quote]

    Nice correlation. Does the CO2 lead or lag the temperature? According to more updated data, the CO2 lags by approximately 800 years. More evidence falsifying AGW. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph

    Next time use the Michael Mann's (founder of RealClimate) hockey stick graph. It is much more impressive...oh wait...it's a fraud. Nevermind.
    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/th...aid-volunteers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I define it the way you guys originally defined it: Earth will end up like Venus if we DON'T ACT NOW!
    I am just constantly amazed by your lack of understanding of what it even is that is claimed by AGW proponents. Please quote someone reputable who said that "Earth will end up like Venus if we DON'T ACT NOW!". The problem of AGW is how it will negatively affect US. It has always been about that and no amount of repeating that simple fact seems to make any headway with you!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    No climatologist are saying this, nor any model suggesting a "runaway" greenhouse in the way astronomers use the term to describe boiling off of the oceans aka Venus style. Perhaps you should define what you mean by runaway.
    If what you are now claiming is true, then the AGW hypothesis is false. If the Venus-style runnaway greenhouse effect is not how AGW climatologists define "runnaway," then where did you get that idea? If climatologists are not predicting a crisis, then why do we need cap-n-trade? Obviously you can't have it both ways. I would be interested to know what you think the AGW theory states. But be careful, because once you commit yourself to a position, I will hold you to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Perhaps you should define what you mean by runaway.
    I define it the way you guys originally defined it: Earth will end up like Venus if we DON'T ACT NOW! I have heard this claim since 1985. Perhaps you AGW guys should define NOW, since the year is 2009, and 24 years have passed since 1985.
    When was the last time you heard this claim from a reputable scientific source?

    How many times have you heard this claim from a reputable scientific source?

    Altho I have heard this claim, I do not ever believe it was from a reputable source, more likely from the press. If it were commonly held to be a real possibility one would think that it would be in the news more frequently. In fact, a search of news articles with the key words "runaway greenhouse" returns 11 articles (over half of which are either referencing Venus directly or the expansion of our sun in half a billion years, the rest being largely opinion pieces); a search with the key words "climate change" returns over 29,000 articles.

    Perhaps you are disproportionately responding to the urgency in the first message, relative to how (un)representative the idea of a runaway greenhouse actually is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical

    When was the last time you heard this claim from a reputable scientific source?

    How many times have you heard this claim from a reputable scientific source?
    The only time I've heard the claim was by astronomers who research distant future of earth based on our sun slow change from a yellow dwarf star into a giant red star over the next few billion years. The habitability zone is moving further from the sun and will eventually pass the earth entirely. At that point, 1-2 billion years from now, there might be be enough solar radiation hitting the earth to create a run away green house. Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with the next century.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by williampinn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    [\quote]

    Nice correlation. Does the CO2 lead or lag the temperature? According to more updated data, the CO2 lags by approximately 800 years. More evidence falsifying AGW. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph

    Next time use the Michael Mann's (founder of RealClimate) hockey stick graph. It is much more impressive...oh wait...it's a fraud. Nevermind.
    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/th...aid-volunteers
    Why does it matter if it lags or not? CO2 stays in the atmosphere a lot longer than other greenhouse gasses and accumulates. The CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere currently is a result of human activity. As temperatures increase more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This is why you see the rising of the CO2 levels after the temperature increases.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The chart over the last 50K years shows the huge variation that's completely hidden by the 50million year record.

    People who believe that CO2 is the culprit should pay attention to that last 11,000 years. Please note that CO2 peaked at 264 ppm 11,000 years ago. Ever since, the temperature remained a +/- 2 C. Notice that the change from the 264 ppm to 280+ ppm did not change that +/- 2 C at all, in what is likely the Bond Event.

    There is ample evidence to conclude our more recent changes are solar induced. Anyone understanding the chemistry of gas solubility in liquids understand that as the temperature of the sea rises, the equilibrium changes. If all other things were equal, the CO2 introduced by man would only accumulate maybe 20 ppm more since the 1700's. This is because the ocean's equilibrium to the atmosphere in the Carbon Cycle is greater than 50:1.

    I think most people know that soft drinks and beer contain CO2. Funny how the liquid retains the CO2 well when cold, but most is gone after it gets warm.

    Antropogenic Global Warming is clearly a hoax in my eyes. I would say that mankind might be responsible for 1/4 of it due to the extra heat of black carbon on the arctic ice. The solar energy is mostly absorbed rather than mostly reflected. The ice is melting, and warming the ocean more where it isn't covered in ice. I sure wish Asia would use clean coal burning technology.

    If warming was due to CO2, then why is the ice on Antarctica growing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If warming was due to CO2, then why is the ice on Antarctica growing?
    a warmer world is a more humid world
    a more humid world has more precipitation, which in the Antarctic falls as snow
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    If warming was due to CO2, then why is the ice on Antarctica growing?
    a warmer world is a more humid world
    a more humid world has more precipitation, which in the Antarctic falls as snow
    Then riddle me this.

    Due to the eccentricity, obliquity, and precession of the earth, the southern pole is closest to the sun during our winter. If precipitation is your answer, why is it accumulating on Antarctica but not the Arctic cap?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    the Antarctic is basically a desert - any increase in humidity will be visible since very little moves away from the centre in the form of glaciers
    the Greenland icecap is already in an area of relatively high humidity, so the relative change in humidity is smaller
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the Antarctic is basically a desert - any increase in humidity will be visible since very little moves away from the centre in the form of glaciers
    the Greenland icecap is already in an area of relatively high humidity, so the relative change in humidity is smaller
    Well, I don't buy it as an explaination.

    Yes, I know warmth adds moisture and precipitation. Greenland is gaining more ice than it's losing in the receding glaciers as well. I meant the sea ice. Sorry for the confusion. Look at these trends:

    Arctic sea ice:



    Antarctica sea ice:



    Something else of interest:

    Greenland icecap thickens despite warming, part of article:

    The 3,000-metre thick Greenland icecap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about 7 metres. And a runaway thaw might slow the Gulf Stream that keeps the North Atlantic region warm.

    Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire icecap is thinning.

    But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall is falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, say Johannessen and team.

    "The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 centimetres a year or 54 centimetres over 11 years."

    But, they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

    Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C.

    And the scientists say that the thickening of the icecap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland. Satellite data is not good enough to measure the melt nearer sea level.
    I remember hearing about this and that the Antarctic ice is also thickening. Warming produces more precipitation, and thickens the ice when it falls as snow!

    Here's a graphic from another site:



    Caption for above image:
    This map shows areas of ice cap thinning (blue colors) and thickening (tan colors) in Greenland. Computer models indicate that warmer air is carrying larger amounts of snow into the continental interior, while that same warm air is melting the ice near the coasts. The net overall ice thickness is increasing at approximately 5 centimeters a year, meaning more ice is depositing than is melting.
    Here's something I posted on a different site:

    Black Carbon rather than CO2 I will claim to be the major anthropogenic warming on the Earth.

    Black Carbon is simply soot. It is expelled into the atmosphere by the incomplete burning of fuels. In small quantities, we see it in the USA from older cars tailpipes, and from diesel trucks when they accelerate hard. It’s the black smoke we see. Since the 70’s, here in the USA we have regulated pollution to the point that we generate very little of it in the global picture. The real culprit is Asia. They have been building and using coal power plants, without implementing the pollution controls we do. We are seeing the jet streams carry this soot to both the Arctic region, and causing occasional smog in the Pacific Northwest, which otherwise would have no smog. A few articles and some info contained within:

    Wiki: Black Carbon:

    Black carbon contribution to global warming
    Black carbon is a potent climate forcing agent, estimated to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere only for a few weeks, reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.

    Estimates of black carbon’s climate forcing (combining both direct and indirect forcings) vary from the IPCC’s conservative estimate of + 0.3 watts per square meter (W/m2) + 0.25, to the most recent estimate of 1.0-1.2 W/m2 (see Table 1), which is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”

    In some regions, such as the Himalayas, the impact of black carbon on melting snowpack and glaciers may be equal to that of CO2. Black carbon emissions also significantly contribute to Arctic ice-melt, which is critical because “nothing in climate is more aptly described as a ‘tipping point’ than the 0°C boundary that separates frozen from liquid water—the bright, reflective snow and ice from the dark, heat-absorbing ocean.” Hence, reducing such emissions may be “the most efficient way to mitigate Arctic warming that we know of.”
    OK, for those of you who error on the side of caution. The first paragraph says “reducing black carbon emissions may be the fastest means of slowing climate change in the near-term.” The second paragraph has the IPCC increasing it’s estimated impact from 0.3 to 0.55 watts of warming to 1 to 1.2 watts. Shouldn’t this most easily controlled measure be attempted first before regulation CO2 emission levels?

    If warming from soot increases, then what did they say before is decreasing… I’ll bet they don’t, but I’d say they are seeing CO2 isn’t the culprit they claim it is. Considering on the below graph, they gave CO2 something like a 1.5 to a 1.8 watt range, that would now be reduced to maybe 0.8 to 1.5 watts! However, the below graph must be older yet. It shows soot at 0 to 0.2 watts. Correcting to the higher soot figure drops CO2 to even more. Because of the way the range these, I won’t attempt to quantify a valid change. Just that it’s even farther. Along with the truth that solar irradiance changes should be higher than the approximate 0.1 to 0.3 watts the give, you can see that CO2 can easily be getting smaller. Solar irradiance by official NASA and other agencies than monitor the sun clearly increase by at least 0.3 watts.

    [IMG] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rcings.svg.png [/IMG]

    Second article, by MSNBC; Soot may speed up melting of Arctic ice:

    Using computer models and information from NASA satellites, scientists located significant accumulations of black carbon soot in the Arctic region. This soot may contribute to the warming of a region that has already seen rapidly increasing temperatures in recent years.

    "This research offers additional evidence black carbon, generated through the process of incomplete combustion, may have a significant warming impact on the Arctic," said Dorothy Koch of Columbia University and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
    Funny thing is that CO2 doesn’t produce the right calculation to be the primary reason for warming that has been observed. Climate models have been made since the 80’s on the assumption greenhouse gasses were the primary cause of warming. What almost any article I see on the subject fails to do is acknowledge that if we are seeing other factors contributing to warming, then CO2 must not be warming the earth as much as first assumed. They refuse to see past the Flat Earth mentality.

    Is soot, not CO2, to blame for the loss of Arctic ice?:

    The Arctic is especially vulnerable to pollution. In recent years the Arctic has significantly warmed, and sea-ice cover and glaciers have diminished. Likely causes for these trends include changing weather patterns and the effects of pollution. Airborne soot also warms the air and affects weather patterns and clouds.
    Black carbon has already been implicated as playing a role in melting ice and snow. Basically, when soot falls on ice, it darkens the surface and accelerates melting by absorbing more sunlight than ice would, just as wearing a black shirt in the summertime makes you feel hotter than if you wore a lighter color. Dark colors absorb heat and light, and lighter colors reflect it keeping surfaces cooler.
    From ABC News; Can We Save the Polar Bears?:

    Scientists are discovering that what appears to be pristine, white snow may be more polluted than it seems. They're finding tiny particles of black carbon — too small for the naked eye to see — from forest fires and human pollution.

    Under a microscope, scientists can see black carbon particles by the trillions. Those black carbon particles cause the snow to melt faster.

    "Black carbon absorbs sunlight and it causes warming," said Stephen Warren, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.

    Scientists have traced soot blown into the Arctic region to industrial sources in North America, Europe and now Asia, but there's still hope.

    "I think we can still save the Arctic," said NASA's James Hansen. "Our calculations are that we could keep the sea ice in the Arctic from melting much more than it has already."

    That can only happen if emissions cuts include greatly decreasing black carbon from smokestacks and tailpipes, according to Hansen and other scientists. That's an effort everyone has to strive for, from China to the United States.
    A few more links:

    Soot Could Hasten Melting of Arctic Ice

    IGSD/INECE Climate Briefing Note: 9 June 2008, A must read. Nice data. Has the most recent BC estimates of forcing at 1.0 to 1.2 watts.

    Study: Black Carbon Pollution Major Factor in Global Warming, 23 March 2008

    Global Warming Hoax:



    Notice how out closest source of Black Carbon emissions at high levels is Mexico City? I know that from a better map of this I've seen. Somewhere, I have a few NASA links that cover the BC levels better. I think I covered enough here. Threads getting a bit big already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    sorry, hadn't realised you meant sea ice

    when it comes to sea ice i'd say the redistribution of heat through ocean currents must play a major role - in this case Antarctica is clearly far more isolated than the Arctic, which could explain the different behaviour
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    sorry, hadn't realised you meant sea ice

    when it comes to sea ice i'd say the redistribution of heat through ocean currents must play a major role - in this case Antarctica is clearly far more isolated than the Arctic, which could explain the different behaviour
    Global Warming gets real complicated. I've been doing my best to get a handle on it, but there are too many factors. I have learned enough to absolutely believe that CO2 is just a minor player in warming. I see the causes of temperature under a 10,000 year time scale as:

    1) Changes in solar irradiation. The intensity changes of radiation we receive are small, but significant. What is 0.1% to 0.3% of 288 K?

    2) El Niño and La Niña.

    3) Black carbon on ice, especially arctic sea ice.

    4) CO2, which would mostly be absorbed by the ocean if it wasn't warming, changing the equilibrium. Because of the equilibrium, we would have to sequester more than 360 gigatons of CO2 for every 1 ppm we want to remove from the atmosphere.

    If you want to go longer scales, then the changes in the Earth's orbit come to play. Longer time periods yet, aging of the sun, accumulated hydrogen from the solar winds, water from asteroids, and dozens of other things.

    ---Edit---

    Changed "100 gigatons of CO2" to "360 gigatons of CO2." The carbon cycle is more than a 50:1 ratio of carbon in the oceans vs. the atmosphere. There is about 2 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 per ppm of CO2. I forgot to add the oxygen in the weight. If we were in balance to past equilibrium data, it would be about 389 gigatons per ppm. With the warmer oceans, maybe the equilibrium is less than 50:1 now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Nice correlation. Does the CO2 lead or lag the temperature? According to more updated data, the CO2 lags by approximately 800 years.
    Until recently.

    There being no anthropogenic source of CO2 until recently.

    But lag or lead, the correlation appears to conflict with your original post and all of your reasoning about it - how do you explain that?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    There is ample evidence to conclude our more recent changes are solar induced.
    Except a correlation with solar flux patterns, which is kind of significant.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    If warming was due to CO2, then why is the ice on Antarctica growing?
    The moisture-curbed glaciers may be growing, inland. The temperature-curbed glaciers are melting, and moving faster toward the ocean to melt some more.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Yes, I know warmth adds moisture and precipitation. Greenland is gaining more ice than it's losing in the receding glaciers as well
    The total change on Greenland has been a large net loss so far, at a rate which appears to be accellerating: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0401103555.htm .

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    1) Changes in solar irradiation. The intensity changes of radiation we receive are small, but significant. What is 0.1% to 0.3% of 288 K?

    2) El Niño and La Niña.

    3) Black carbon on ice, especially arctic sea ice.
    Solar irradiation is carefully measured and tracked, directly and by proxy well into the past. Its patterns do not correlate with the recent warming trend, and its influence would be amplified by the greenhouse effect rather than replacing it. The Children are cyclical, and do not explain century trends. Soot explains only Arctic and high altitude ice loss at most - by blocking sunlight from the lower atmosphere, it would cool water and land regions otherwise. The evidence of a warming trend is mutliply sourced - everything from drought patterns to ice out dates on inland lakes to water isotope chemistry to biological migrations and colonizations - and needs a general, planetwide, century-correlated explanation that fits the patternswe see.

    One pattern not explained by any of your proposed causes: the differential warming of winter nights at higher latitudes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •