I am interested to talk to someone who really knows the global warming science, preferrably someone working in the field. (Not some hippy who's read about it on the internet.) Can anyone condense the arguments down for me, or do I have to dig through the scientific literature myself? There seems to be growing suspicion of the anthropogenic argument, and I always am weary of scientists who are also activists---i.e. a large number of climate scientists seem to be making activist/alarmist claims. At the same time, certain parts of the polar regions are changing significantly, and it seems that there ARE documentable changes occuring.

Main questions: How do climate scientists estimate the effects of carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? It's fairly trivial to show that carbon dioxide causes a greenhouse effect in a plexiglass box with a good thermometer, but how does this translate into a large scale system like the atmosphere?

How do climate models work, given that the climate is a nonlinear system? That is, very small changes in initial conditions lead to drastically different final states. This tells me that the computer simultations people do are highly dubious because they are either a) based on linear dynamics, and so have nothing to do with the climate, or b) non-linear and highly dependant on initial assumptions, and therefore not very predictive. Perhaps the difference is between predicting weather and predicting climate?

What evidence is there that the sun's power output has increased over the past century or so, resulting in the current epoch of warming? I heard some news clip on BBC about scientists disproving this, but have also seen evidence that the polar caps on Mars are also receding. Is there any validity to these claims?

This thread is likely to dissintegrate pretty rapidly, so we should have the intelligent conversation quickly before we are overrun:) I just want to discuss the science of this, not the politics. If you want to discuss the politics, go to the appropriate forum, please.

well ok I worked in this field.

Environmentalists use factors that are for and against the greenhouse effect. Its important to remember that there are sooo many factors affecting greenhouse effect. These factors are than put into equations which that add up to a model.

One program environmentalists use is: Stella

http://serc.carleton.edu/images/introgeo/mathstatmodels/StellaStructue.jpg

Environmentalists than have these equations under a visual model which links it up as having a direct affect, negative effect, and for what variable.

Environmentalists use factors that are for and against the greenhouse effect. Its important to remember that there are sooo many factors affecting greenhouse effect.

Can you say anything more helpful?

Can you say anything more helpful?

scroll up.

The many factors affecting greenhouse effect are/including:

release of sulfur compounds from volcanoes
clouds reflecting infrared radiation...and absorption rate of clouds
absorption and reflection of radiation of area of land
absorption and reflection of radiation of area of water (70%)
absorption and reflection of radiation of ice

Effect of human pollution...car exhausts...chemical plants

photosynthesis

----After the above have been linked in a model they are than plotted on a chart which produces the desired CO2 over time in atmosphere and perhaps temperatures.


...if you really ask nicely I can provide you with a model I did in my class...a very complex model with a chart on CO2 in atmosphere over time. However you are very mean person so who knows

...if you really ask nicely I can provide you with a model I did in my class...a very complex model with a chart on CO2 in atmosphere over time. However you are very mean person so who knows

Sorry if it seems mean, but you have to admit you post was pretty unenlightening. I could have asked a fifth grader and got the same response.

But if you've done some actual science on this stuff, then I'd love for you to explain it to me.

The best summary of the scientific arguements against industrial CO2 as a cause of higher global temperatures can be found in this British documentary video:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle

I am not sure if you're being serious or not---either way I am familiar with this video:)

I just want someone to explain the science to me in a non-partisan fashion, which may be impossible. I have seen lots of people on both sides of the argument running about like decapitated chickens, some screaming "Concensus!" and some screaming "Conspiracy!".

I just want to see the science so I can decide for myslef, without having to listen to Al Gores and Michael Moores (of BOTH sides, to be sure), who seem not interested in science so much as pushing a particular agenda. Al Gore's film is a good example of environmentalist alarmism, and I'm sure the linked video is a good example of the other end of the spectrum.

a while back, at Tristan's request, I set forth 5 (or 8 as some of the five were subdivided) "100% true" facts about global warming. See:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1177065&postcount=26

One important one not mentioned there as it relates mainly to modeling is the uncertainity of knowing the effective ocean surface for the re-absorption of atmospheric gases - it is a non-linear function of the wind, with positive feed back, and although the waves make this true they are only a small part of the uncertainty. - Tiny bubbles, tiny bubbles, especially those with greater than atmospheric pressure inside, due to both the overlaying water weight and more importantly as they get very small, the surface tension.

Clouds are also such a bitch to model that even though I discuses them briefly in the post linked above, it is worth repeating here. My guess is that 0ver warm areas, they add to global heating by returning radiation that would otherwise escape, but over colder areas, northern latitudes, they scatter sun light down to the surface so it deposits its heat deeper, less absorption in long air paths at higher altitude, but this is, I think more than off set by the obvious re scatter back to space, so net effect on surface is cooling, I think.

So complex is the model, filled with important guesses as to how large partially canceling factors act the I do not believe any models.

Many things surely are still forgotten. For example, just with in the last month, another complexity was noticed. As cold water absorbs gases faster than warm water, it has always been recognized that the Antarctic ocean is, disproportionally to its area, important. (Artic not so much so, until recently at least, as mainly ice covered.) The warming which appears to be relatively greater in the polar regions is making he winds stronger (more white caps on the waves, tiny bubbles - good) but the current on the bottom by the stronger circumpolar flow are also stronger. In the cold deep Antarctic oceans, carbon compounds have been falling down for eons. Don't know for sure, but think the deep water is near saturation with CO2 (at least it has a lot) so the wind driven mixing of it with the nearer to surface water is sort of like big forest fire - releasing CO2 in yet another positive feed back system.

As stated in the link, the positive feed back system that has me most concerned is the methane hydrates - conceivably if that positive feed back system develops > than unity gain, we die. I.e. Earth becomes a somewhat cooler version of Venus, with very high pressure steam atmosphere in the lower layers as the oceans take thousands of years to boil away into space. Consequently, I think instead of going to Mars to survey etc., we should be going to Deep Ocean, surveying the hydrates to learn what, if any thing is going on. As methane is much stronger green-house gas than CO2, there is probably more "greenhouse gas potential" stored there than all in all the fossil fuel man will ever burn!

Al Gore's film is a good example of environmentalist alarmism, and I'm sure the linked video is a good example of the other end of the spectrum.
Ok, watch it and explain why its science is invalid.

Because the issue is so important its difficult to find a clinically neutral point of view from any source...nevertheless the video presents a variety of sources and addresses the subject from several different angles.

Ok, watch it and explain why its science is invalid.

Because the issue is so important its difficult to find a clinically neutral point of view from any source...nevertheless the video presents a variety of sources and addresses the subject from several different angles.

First of all, I cannot explain why the science is invalid. I am not a climatologist, and I know very little about climate science. That's why I want a working scientist to explain it to me, as neutrally as possible. I can ask good questions, I think, but I don't have the time to spend digging through the relevant literature myself.

I am sure that the science in both the video you linked, and Al Gore's flick, are valid, but the devil is always in the interpretations of one's experimental results---this is why I'd like to talk to someone who is intimately familiar with the science.

I am sure that the science in both the video you linked, and Al Gore's flick, are valid, but the devil is always in the interpretations of one's experimental results---Well they cant both be valid because they indicate opposite truths.

For example, Gore pulls up this forty foot long graph in his presentation showing the last 650,000 years of CO2 levels vs. Global temperatures.

And says something like...Look here, dont it look like them lines kinda fit together...and thats it!!!

The Video I linked on the other hand, presents a detailed investigation of this graph revealing that it actually demonstrates CO2 levels lagging behind Temperature changes by 800 years...something you dont notice from a brief glance at a distance.

This is a perfect website that explains on greenhouse effect modeling using environmentalists software Stella.

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~dbice/DaveSTELLA/climate/climate_modeling_1.htm

http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~dbice/DaveSTELLA/climate/3.gif

The values used to calculate greenhouse effect are: albedo values

Albedo values reflect percentage energy reflected

Whole Planet: 0.31
Cumulonimbus clouds: 0.9
Stratocumulus clouds: 0.6
Cirrus clouds: 0.5
Water: 0.06 - 0.1
Ice & Fresh Snow: 0.9
Sand: 0.35
Grass lands: 0.18 - 0.25
Deciduous forest: 0.15 - 0.18
Coniferous forest: 0.09 - 0.15
Rain forest: 0.07 - 0.15

Further heat emission radiation equation is used: F = esA(T^4)=The rate of energy given off through radiation by an object

Than a model is made using equations and relations:
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~dbice/DaveSTELLA/climate/4.gif

The equations used are as follows:
Solar_to_Atmos = SW_Atmos_Absorp*(Solar_Input-Reflected_Insolation)
Surface_LW_to_space = 8*((Surface_Temp/288)^4)
Atmos_LW_loss = 60*((Atmos_Temp/255)^4)
... (and others...see the site)

All these are part of a model object and are linked together via a complex matrix system. The square things...are starting values...such as starting temperature...the arrows are relations...the circles are equations and such which are affected by other equations...

All this produces a chart that maps the desired values...CO2 greenhouse in atmosphere for example over time:

http://wufs.wustl.edu/pathfinder/path201/notes/images/981103_f3.gif

If you have any q's ask me.

I don't see any mention about methane deposits. Basically when these are released(they will in russia/siberia, unless someone can reverse the warming trend), it's going to get a LOT warmer, not just 1 or 2 pissy degrees.

As for the causes of the current warming trend, well all I can really say is it used to be a way warmer on the earth than it is now. At any rate, it doesn't really matter what is CAUSEING it, even the hard core humanity-hating environmentalists say it is IRREVERSABLE. Buy some land at 500-1000 feet above sea level.

I don't see any mention about methane deposits....You missed post 9. Methane-hydrate decomposed make make Earth like trying to live inside an extremely high pressure steam boiler, and hotter than that, after the oceans have boiled into space. (Lot of heat capacity in the oceans to lose before it can get hotter than high preasure steam. Earth will never get as hot as Venus, where any lead on the surface is liquid, but it may become a sterile cooler version of Venus.)

If you have any q's ask me.I am not against modeling efforts. Just trying to make one is worthwhile as it helps focus thoughts, increases understanding, but I believe results of none. So I will ask a question, more to drive home how useless the computed results of the models are:

What area did the oceans have for reabsorbtion of CO2?

Seems like a very easy question compared to many others but note the second paragraph (just under the link) in post 9.

For those too lazy to read there, this problem has to do with surface of tiny bubbles made by the white caps and the effect of both temperature and pressure (inside very tiny bubbles pressure becomes great, drives gas into water fast. How the bubbles finally dies in many cases.) on absorption rate coefficients.

Billy---The effects of methane which you have been touting are hard to believe, as are some of the "facts" that you posted in the other thread, i.e. "Perhaps capable of killing 90+%, if not all, humans.", and "a much stronger positive feed back system will be triggered and then there is no way to prevent eventual seal level rise of about 100 meters.". Both of which seem to contradict everything I've ever heard from climate experts.

It's not that I disagree with the science---there is an obvious bias in your presentation.

In the linked post, you say

Also, as the atmosphere warms, some H2O vapor in it will not condense into clouds and this adds to the positive feed back.

What is the proof for this?

Finally,

indirectly man is producing at least a contribution to global warming (points about CO2 and Ch4 mentioned above) and this is increasing the evaporation rates.

I can't argue with this because it's technically true. But, over the past 150 years, the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has increased by a third. These feedback cycles you are talking about are obviously nonlinear in some sense, and so they cannot be modeled or even really understood in a quantitative manner---is this true?

Billy---(1)The effects of methane which you have been touting are hard to believe, (2)as are some of the "facts" that you posted in the other thread, i.e. "Perhaps capable of killing 90+%, if not all, humans.", and (3)"a much stronger positive feed back system will be triggered and then there is no way to prevent eventual seal level rise of about 100 meters.". (4)Both of which seem to contradict everything I've ever heard from climate experts.On (1)
Yes they are, but that does not make them false. I find it hard to believe lots of thing that my education has convenced me of intellectually, but not that they, "deep in my heart/soul," are ture. For exmple: Although I know it is true, I do not believe (deep in my heart/soul sense) that each photon goes via all possible paths, etc. but lets move on as discussing what to believe "deep in my heart/soul" is more religion than physics.

On (2) I put numbers on each statment in the "other thread" specifically so you (or others) could tell me which you disagree with. I will respond to anything you think false there, but not try to defend all now. Please tell specifically which of the numbered "facts" at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1177065&postcount=26
you think is not a "fact" and then we can discuss it.

On (3) You have not been fair to me here by omitting my qualifier first part of the sentence. Your partial quote makes it appear as if I said "the positive feed back system WILL BE triggered and sea levels WILL rise about 100 meters. I said nothing like that and do not think it even very likely, but it is possible, and so damaging (extinction of all life on Earth?)* that the possiblity should be considered. My qualifying start of the sentence, which you omitted was:

"At some increase in global temperatures,..."

Thus my sentence is absolutley true. I do not know what temperature is reqiured but guarantee you that if the ocean were to to warm to near 100C then the methane hydrates would decompose, and the positive feed back would boil the oceans, but because of their great heat capacity, it would take thousands of years before they were gone and Earth was a somewhat cooler version of Vensus, with surface atmosphere mainly extremely hot very high pressure steam. I do fear, because the consequences are a sterile Earth, that we should try to determine at what temperature this positive feed back system does in fact become a run-away thermal instability that converts Earth into a "cooler version of Venus."

I have even in still another thread explained why "this time may be different." I.e. I recognize and admit that Earth has experienced times in its history that the oceans were hotter than they are today and that during these earlier eras, that the "run-away thermal instability" did not occur. (Once it does, Earth will be locked in that stable state for a very long time - probably until the sun goes red giant and removes the steam atmosphere from Earth.)

Instread of trying to find that old disussion of why "this time may be different" I briefly repeat it:
Reason has to due with the fact that CO2 is removed from atmosphere but that takes time. The rate of addition of fossil fuel CO2 to atmosphere has obvously been ocuring at significantly faster rate than the removal processes can match for at least 100 years (and the rate of addition is very rapidly accelerating now). Thus, the difference "this time" is that there is the CO2 postive feedback system already in strong opperation. I think that, probably it alone can not lead to the "run-away thermal instability" but that it alone may be able to make many life forms extinct. (Especially if the Amazon forest becomes a desert, which is begin to look highly probable.) but it alone can not make the earth sterile as "run-away thermal instability" would.

Some of the more shallow methane hydrate is already decomposing! I have seen on TV a few seconds of a scene of a dense under water field of methane bubbles rising. (By far the scarist thing I have ever seen on TV.) I hope it was just some local heating by a magma flowing upwards and not a general global event in shallow water.

So now that we have TWO positive feed back system in operation at the same time, the critical temperature has for the methan hydrate to trigger the "run-away thermal instability" has been reduced. Is it now only a 5 degree rise in the current ocean temperature? I do not know - do you? In any case it is not something to find out by expeiment, which is what we may be doing.

How will the melting of the floating Artic ice sheet (surely happening) effect the ocean bottom temperature? (Now 4 degrees C as that is the densest state of water.) The normal summer melting is part of what drives the gulf stream with cold 4 degree water sinking down in the so called "thermosaline pump" of the major flow in the Atlantic (N. & S.) oceans. (The "saline" part being due to fact the salter gulf stream water eventually cools, off Newfoundland's coast, and being more dense once it cools, it is also part of the pump that keeps the part of the ocean floor, where this 4 degrees bottom river flows, even as it crosses equator on its way into the Indian ocean, cold. It eventually rises to the surface in the Indian Ocean, hundered of years after the ice melted to much later still become part of the gulf stream returning to high Northern latitudes again.)

On(4) That is true, but many of these "experts" have not even considered some of the things I discuss above and probably no one has thought yet about some very important factor. Also, even if all significant factors have been incorportated into the modles, for reasons I illustrated with my question to dragon, in post 17, I do not believe any of the results from models of climate - the problem is far to complex for man to have certain answers and unfortunately, many of the factors, like the effect of clouds have as net effect the difference between a large positive and large negative contribution. As I stated in the other thread, I am not sure even which way the clouds contibute, to warming or cooling. In view of this, the results of these models should not be taken seriously, even with a pound, instead of a "pinch of salt." :bawl:
-----------------------------
*It seems strange, but a 100 meter rise in the sea, if due more to ocean volumetic warming than Antartic / Greenland ice melting (as I think it coulld be) may actually LOWER the pressure on the methane hydrates as when more of the now dry land is sea bottom, the total area supporting the weight of the water is increased = Reduced pressure, but this would only be true where the ocean is already deep, not on the contintental shelf where most of the methane hydrate is thought to be. (This thought, may well be wrong as there is no reason why bottom currents could not have moved some into the deeper waters that I can think of.) Also, until we explore better, some may be formed in deep water as the rivers are not the only source of the organic matter that the anerobic bacteria convert into methane. Got to kill all those shitting whales! ;) Keep up your noble work you Japanese and Norwegians. :rolleyes:

If time is limited, read other post I just made -this one mainly for the record, not nearly as important, but I try to answer direct questions.

Billy T said: "Also, as the atmosphere warms, some H2O vapor in it will not condense into clouds and this adds to the positive feed back."

BTM replied:...What is the proof for this?... Come on BTM - the "will not condense" part is simple physics.

Clouds form (almost always, althought "supper cooling," without condenstation of H2O vapor to liquid, does occasionally occur in very clean air. I.e. relative humidity can go above 100%, but very rarely does.) when the relative humidity reaches 100%. The air that is just at 100% relative humidity at X degrees and thus begining to form a cloud will not be forming a cloud if the air temperature is raised to (X+ 1)degree as then the relative hujidity is less than 100%.

I am very surprised if you are asking for proof of that. - Only possible if you are only a very narrowly educated high energy physicist! (I have known one or two such types.)

Perhaps you were questioning not how air temperature effects the formation of clouds, but about the second part of the statement: that the failure to form a cloud adds to the "positivie feed" back?

I can not prove this is so, but clouds are why Venus is so hot that "lead lakes" exist on it, if there is any lead deposit on the surface. It being closer to the sun only explains a small part of the hot surface.

If there are no clouds and it is cold, orange growers sure know that making some above their trees will keep it warmer and prevent the oranges from freezing, but they only turn on the "smudge pots" as it gets dark as they like the sun heating ground.

I think most experts in climate think / agree the effect of removing a cloud would have, if that cloud is removed for 24 hours, the net effect of making more net energy be absorbed, so that the extra quasi-thermal (300K) radiation loss during the period of darkness is more than compensated for. Surely, this is the case where it is either cold or with low albedo, like over the Sahara desert's highly reflective sand.

Obviously, if you are speaking of a location above the Artic circle in winter* this is not true as the solar input is zero* and that is less than even the very feeble loss from low-albedo, cold, ice and snow, but on the global avearage of the whole uear, I think my statement is true, but will not bet much money on it. :D
---------------------------
*If however, there is a high cloud which the sunlight can strike (not likely as not many clouds under those Artic conditions , I think) I bet the downward scattered radiation from the a 5000K source (the sun) exceeds, even in only a few seconds!, that coming upward from the <300K ice in 24 hours, in cloud's same solid angle, as the T^4 term makes the solar intensity about 77,000 times stronger.

Billy T I wish to contact you but PMs won't work until I get 20 posts
Are there other convinient ways that I could contact you?

So let's do this:

Instead of hurling long posts filled with many points at each other, lets pick one or two issues per post, to keep the discussion managable. I am quite interested in talking to you on this subject, because you seem to have studied the problem, but I have been terribly busy and can't spend 30-40 minutes reading and replying to a post.

Deal?

Let's start with the quote that I butchered (apologies)

On (3) You have not been fair to me here by omitting my qualifier first part of the sentence. Your partial quote makes it appear as if I said "the positive feed back system WILL BE triggered and sea levels WILL rise about 100 meters. I said nothing like that and do not think it even very likely, but it is possible, and so damaging (extinction of all life on Earth) that the possiblity should be considered. My qualifying start of the sentence, which you omitted was:

"At some increase in global temperatures,..."

Fair enough---I was only parsing the part I objected to. I hate it when people take me out of context, so I will try not to do the same to you.

Thus my sentence is absolutley true.

Sure. But you have to qualify it. Ten degrees C? Five degrees C? It's trivially true because it is so arbitrary:)

As you pointed out in your post, the densest state of water if at 4 C. But it will always be at 4 C, and tremendous pressures, too. So while a few degrees rise in surface ocean temperatures is plausible, a few degrees rise in SUBsurface ocean temperatures seems very unlikely.

I found this about some studies in the methane matter: http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1482.

The scientist in the article believes that it is methane which has driven past climate cycles, because (as you pointed out) methane is about 20 times better at acting as a greenhouse gas than CO2. But methane levels in the atmosphere have stabilized over the past few years, and methane has a definite lifetime of about 10 years (EPA says). (Aside from this, there is some benefit in capturing methane left from manufacturing processes, so some smart person could find a way to capture methane coming from, say, a manufacturing plant and use that to generate energy.)

So if methane begins to be released in large amounts from the ocean floor (small bubbles mostly disolve into the ocean on the way up---see link), then we will be in for an inevitible warming trend. But this is a natural cycle anyway, and has occured several times in the past. Even with the positive feedback associated with CO2, it is hard to believe how the change in climate can be so drastic as you are predicting.

So, is this the correct summary: It seems that the methane hydrates are stored mostly at low temperatures and high pressures. You say that changing the subsurface ocean temperatures by five degrees would be catastrophic, and I tend to agree, because this means that the surface ocean temperatures have changed by MUCH more than this, and we have real problems anyway.

Billy T I wish to contact you but PMs won't work until I get 20 posts
Are there other convinient ways that I could contact you?Just posting whatever you have to say is one. I do not like to exchange PMs anyway as I prefer to let the "lurkers" etc. know everything and do not like to give out my Email - get too much crap already - I get at least five notices each day that my Email has won millions or some banker or African guy died and I can share billions from his estate etc.

There is nothing you can posts that will shock or offend me. I took some pride a while back at being called a "sack of shit" etc.

also just make 19 more quick posts like: this is 1, this is 2 etc. and then PM me.

Just posting whatever you have to say is one. I do not like to exchange PMs anyway as I prefer to let the "lurkers" etc. know everything and do not like to give out my Email - get too much crap already - I get at least five notices each day that my Email has won millions or some banker or African guy died and I can share billions from his estate etc.

There is nothing you can posts that will shock or offend me. I took some pride a while back at being called a "sack of shit" etc.

also just make 19 more quick posts like: this is 1, this is 2 etc. and then PM me.

I understand your concerns about posting your email, or anything.
I am interesting in discussing the factors that affect the specific heat capacity of solids. I shall post my original PM on the physics & math section, then.

...Deal?...But you have to qualify it. Ten degrees C? Five degrees C? ...But it will always be at 4 C, and tremendous pressures, too. ....there is some benefit in capturing methane left from manufacturing processes, ... use that to generate energy.
...This is a natural cycle anyway, and has occured several times in the past. Even with the positive feedback associated with CO2, it is hard to believe how the change in climate can be so drastic as you are predicting.
So, is this the correct summary: It seems that the methane hydrates are stored mostly at low temperatures and high pressures. ...Deal accepted. I can not even guess the "critical temp" for triggering the "run-away thermal instability" or even be sure there is such a thing built on combined effect of CO2 and CH4 positive feed back systems. - I.e. perhaps even acting jointly they can not achieve >1 gain (around the loop, to speak in electrical amplifier/ oscillator terms)

This ignorance on mine is because I have essentially zero faith in the prediction of even the best model's results for this very complex problem, especially as it moves into the non-linear range where it would need to go to say anything about the question we agreed to dicuss under terms of our "deal." I just get nervous when I see such political willingness to keep increasing the CO2 release rate until "we see some serious effects" as I am pretty sure if and when we do, we are already have significant chance of being irreversibly "cooler Venus bound" at that point.

Yes, while the gulf stream exist (while the Artic ice sheet melts in summer, may be same condition - not that sure of my understanding of ocean dynamics, "thermosaline pump", etc.) the deep ocean will very likely be in a pressure /temperature state that methane hydrate is very stable. Also most experts, I think, believe most of hydrated CH4 is on the contential shelf, near the deltas of large rivers, but I am not so sure. (my "whale shit" comments of prior post.) What concerns me, is if the the thermosaline pump breaks down. Some experts are predicting this and that without the gulf stream it will get very cold in England and Norway's west coast will be ice locked year round. This seems a strange prediction to me, but I understand little in detail. None the less, if for any reason the cold Artic 4 degree flow should stop, then some of the now marginally stable methane hydrate seems doomed because of the radiogentic heat (and more importanly magma flows that come from it) heating th bottom of the oceans, not in the great depths of course, unless they did get much warmer. The 3 degree water, if it exists, is already floating on top of the 4 degree water and as the 4 degree water warms to 5 degrees they mix - lot of strange things may happen with this "convection at the bottom" stiring up deposites? releasing CO4 and CH4, probably saturated solutions, all too complex for me to understand, but I do not want these disolved gasses to suddenly come bubbling up. (I did my undergraduate work at Cornell. Lake Cayuga is very deep and bottom is near 4 degrees in middle of summer, but sometmes it "turns over" with bottom mixing, heat transfers, etc. - this is well known phenomae, but not by me, and if happened in the ocean, might be very important.)

I have already addressed your point "natural cycle - many times in the past" but briefly again: NO it has not. This time may be different as the population of man and his extraction of well sequestered carbon is enormously increased compared to any prior release rates. (and do not forget man's great cattle heards makeing CH4.) The present production rate of green house gases is way beyond nature's ability to get rid of them and accelerating as populations and living standards incerase. THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT, but I do not know if it is sufficiently different to push us over the edge to "cooler Venus bound" or not.

Mankind probably already knows more about Mars than this deep cold flow and the hydrated CH4 down in it, if any. That is why I call for Mars budget money to be spent here exploring these poorly known and potentially very important Earth questions.

As far as a recovery of CH4 and burning it or better still using as chemical feed to displace fossil feeds in chemical plants, yes I am all for that. Recovery from land fills is also good idea and being done increasingly. That said, the net effect of man, I think, has been to increase the CH4 release rate. - We got to all convert to vegiterians and kill all those "farting cows." :D etc. Also need to make some of the currenly not quite economical recovery process be used, lets give "carbon credits" to them, in proportion to the effectiveness of the CH4 compared to mere CO2, not to the Carbon content as green house gas.

Finally, again it is a misrepresentation of my position to suggest that I am "predicting" we are "cooler Venus bound." I am only noting that it MAY be the case and that is so serious, we dam well better look into that possiblity before we spend money going to Mars etc.

to bloodstriker:

I see you have a few more posts. I you only want to reproduce some of mine else where, yes you may.

By edit later: just read your post about heat capacity of solids - I know a little solid state,but only a little and it is old from memory, Nothing more than one will find in a good book like one of Kittel's

But, over the past 150 years, the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has increased by a third.
That seems like a lot doesnt it...a third? :eek:

But a third of what...somewhere between .03 and .05 percent of the total atmosphere.

And of that extremely tiny percentage only a small (single digit) percentage comes from industrial sources.

The rest is naturally derived from decaying organic matter, respiration, volcanoes, rock weathering, etc.

That seems like a lot doesnt it...a third?

Yes this is my point. Increasing the carbon by a third has lead to a global temperature increase of a degree or two?

I was pointing this out in the hopes that someone would explain to me why such a significant change has had only a limited effect on the climate. Perhaps there is some delay between increased carbon in the atmosphere and increased temperature? Or is the response logarithmic or something?

Billy---will respond soon:)

I was pointing this out in the hopes that someone would explain to me why such a significant change has had only a limited effect on the climate.
There is no significant change when its a third of only .04 percent of the total atmosphere...thereabouts.

Yes this is my point. Increasing the carbon by a third has lead to a global temperature increase of a degree or two?
Lo and behold, from 1940 to about 1975 the average global temperature was actually going DOWN...just when you'd expect all that new industrial CO2 to be pushing it up!

...I was pointing this out in the hopes that someone would explain to me why such a significant change has had only a limited effect on the climate....I can answer you:

Answer has to do with the ideas behind "optical thickness." Let me make up a numerical example: Consider wavelength L which after passing thru 1mm of pure CO2 loses half its intensity. It would also lose half its intensity if it passed thru a meter of transparent gas that contained 0.001 parts of CO2 as the same number of CO2 molecules have "a shot" at absorbing the radiation with wave length L.

I think that one "optical thickness", OT, beats the intensity down by factor of e but that is by memory and as not important to answer your question, lets for this discussion say after 1OT, 1/3 of the entering intensity remains. Thus after 2OT only 1/9 % of the original flux remains. etc.

Now if 0.01% CO2 in entire thickness of Earth's atmosphere was 1OT, then the fraction of L radiated by surface leaving Earth when the concentation of CO2 became 0.03% had only 1/27 escaping and when it gets to be 0.04% the additional reduction is not very much (1/27 - 1/81).

Summary: The first increments of CO2 can take out so much that even adding huge amounts later do essentially nothing.

Now one should not jump up and down with joy shouting: "more CO2 is not important", because at some other wavelength say near L in the "wings" of a line (or actually within the absorption band structure) the OT of 0.01% CO2 atmosphere may be only 0.00001 and even a 100% CO2 atmosphere stops little radiation at that wavelength.

So it gets complex and one must average over the entire asportion band structure of the absorbing molecule. This does mean that more CO2 will not always absorb significantly more out bound IR, but on average over the absorption band it will alway absorb some more. Also this additional absorption will be higher and that can be important too, but the effectiveness of 100% increase in CO2 is often not much additional absorption or effect on the Earth's energy balance.

This is also why the effect of a small increase in the now very small CH4 concentration can have larger effect on the energy balance, than a much larger increase of the CO2 concentration even if on a molecule by molecule basis CH4 were NOT a stronger absorber. (They absorb different IR wavelengths.) Generalizing this, it is better to dump more CO2 into the air than some new IR absorbing molecule, not now significantly present in the atmosphere.

This is just one more reason why I do not believe the results of any of the models. - Problem is just too complex to do it all correct. As I noted earlier even very simple, but important things, like: "What is the effective area of the ocean?" for absorbing CO2 from the air may be in error by a factor of 2. Also, already from just this factor alone, the problem very non-linear,* with seasonal variatin, latitude dependent, ocean temperature dependent, etc due to the wind's variation in producing white caps. (Tiny bubbles have a lot of surface and last a long time after the wave rolls them down. Many have high internal pressure from surface tension so they are 100% absorbed before they rise to surface and "break.")
------------------
*Wind is thermal gradient driven, so that alone makes it a non-linear problem.

Lo and behold, from 1940 to about 1975 the average global temperature was actually going DOWN...just when you'd expect all that new industrial CO2 to be pushing it up!

The periods before the 1970's were more subject to natural variation as they are today.

Post-1970's is the present study bin case, and it is becoming stronger linked thanks to positive feedback in anthropogenic CO2, increasing emissions, residence time, reduced albedo, and (as recently found) saturated oceans.

There is no significant change when its a third of only .04 percent of the total atmosphere...thereabouts.

Right. And 1% carbon makes no difference from a 0.8wt% carbon steel.

I am sure that the science in both the video you linked, and Al Gore's flick, are valid, There is no real science in either one, and they should not be evaluated that way. They are essays of rhetorical persuasion.

You can spot the bad logic and spurious argument in the "swindle" video without much in the way of scientific background.

Gore's video, while just as obviously aimed at rhetorical persuasion rather than technical explication, contains no such dishonest argument.

That doesn't settle the scientific issues, of course. But it does seem as though the critics of Global Warming alarmism are having a lot of trouble explaining themselves without using bad logic and deceptive argument.

You can spot the bad logic and spurious argument in the "swindle" video without much in the way of scientific background.
Ok, please explain why this documentary's arguements are spurious.

Its no good to just say they are...as if it was a religious revelation.

Ok, please explain why this documentary's arguements are spurious. Pick one. I'm not going to try the bandwidth here on the whole damn worthless pile.

Better: link a transcript, rather than the video. The quality of argument really appears to drop in video, for some reason - lack of accountability? Inadequacy of pictures for expression of logical argument? s Something goes wrong.

I am interested to talk to someone who really knows the global warming science, ...

You're wanting Environmental Engineering. Search through some .edu's sites, and you should find references that are very technical, beyond the yes/no crowd.

Something that I note most don't/won't is that if the planet does heat up. It will expand the atmosphere by several 100's of meters. This is due to the relative gas law. When we start emitting gases that don't "come back", maybe we'll wake up. We'll see...

- - if the planet does heat up. It will expand the atmosphere by several 100's of meters Not necessarily. If the greenhouse gasses trap heat near the surface, the very high atmosphere is predicted to cool and shrink - at least until the new equilibrium on the surface is reached, and the rate of heat emitted is once again matched to the heat absorbed.

The very high atmosphere seems to be shrinking, btw, last I heard - yet another confirming bit of evidence for the heat trapping effects of the extra CO2.

Not necessarily. If the greenhouse gasses trap heat near the surface, the very high atmosphere is predicted to cool and shrink - at least until the new equilibrium on the surface is reached, and the rate of heat emitted is once again matched to the heat absorbed.

The very high atmosphere seems to be shrinking, btw, last I heard - yet another confirming bit of evidence for the heat trapping effects of the extra CO2.

Although extreme, I understand this is what happened to the Martian atmosphere. It once had an atmosphere, but its equilibrium changed abruptly. Now it's more of a chaotic desert.

Of course, no one really knows what's going to happen until it does. But, I'd say we're in for some climatic hurdles before we get in gear. Let's hope that nothing drastic like Hollywood paints about this comes to light.

Almost all this is sophist spin, devoid of any application to the current global climate change.

Better: link a transcript, rather than the video. The quality of argument really appears to drop in video,
No, the video is neccessary for the presentation of graphs.

Like the one showing the ice core data on CO2 levels vs. global temperature for the last 650,000 years.

The video demonstrates that the graph (also used by Gore) actually shows the change in CO2 levels lagging behind temperature changes by approx. 800 years...thereby indicating that it is NOT a primary causitive factor in temperature changes.

Please explain why this is false.

And/Or...please demonstrate that the average global temperature did NOT drop during the period 1940-1975.

Just when you would expect it to rise with the massive increase in industrial CO2 during that time.

i usualy read this site when it comes to global warming facts,

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278&gclid=CO7P67KyvIwCFQXklAodCyqvXg

peace.

The video demonstrates that the graph (also used by Gore) actually shows the change in CO2 levels lagging behind temperature changes by approx. 800 years...thereby indicating that it is NOT a primary causitive factor in temperature changes.



I've never seen anything by Gore, but what you are postulating is a logical error. Just because x has caused y in the past does not mean that Y is always caused by X.

In this case, the CO2 production most likely occured as a feedback event from the gradual warming of the planet releasing large amounts of CO2, i.e. as permafrost warmed and became more biologically active.

Whereas in the current situation, the CO2 levels are rising due to our cars etc, and the temperature is rising with it.

its a government scam to tax people more money in cities.

peace,

Don't need global warming to do that, just increase taxes.

But since your recomending the Royal Societies take on global warming, I reckon your just taking the piss.

Don't need global warming to do that, just increase taxes.

But since your recomending the Royal Societies take on global warming, I reckon your just taking the piss.

lol, thats just the site i read mostly about global warming. i dont stand on either side of the argument, i say stop the bad air quality ecause we have to breathe in the shit,

i dont care about climate shifts or global weather changes, they happen naturaly all the time,

i do want good quality air to breathe though for the cities around the world.

peace.

I've never seen anything by Gore, but what you are postulating is a logical error. Just because x has caused y in the past does not mean that Y is always caused by X.

I certainly agree, but I havent postulated any of that. What the 650,000 year graph demostrates is only that global average temperature changes are not caused by CO2 level changes.

However this does not mean that a reverse causitive relationship is neccessarily the case either...that temperature drives CO2 levels.