|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Peta - I was trying to engage Myrrh on her own territory as exploring 'the consensus' position hasn't been particularly productive so far.
Knew the Wiki stuff, though thanks for the other site.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - you are going to have to explain the graph thing a bit more. When do you think we will be entering a new ice age? And why? The graphs I have found don't give me enough information.
Luigi
Luigi - pull one up so we're looking at the same page.
Myrrh
Myrrh - you implied that you have found some graphs that make it obvious how wrong all the scientists you disagree with are. I have looked and can't find one. Certainly not one that gives me the level of precision you imply. I don't want to play 'find the graph Myrrh is talking about', it could take me months.
I implied no such thing...
I said, pull up a Vostok graph and we'll take a look at it.
quote:
Wouldn't it be easier if you just put your cards on the table and pointed me to the graph you are talking about?
No, I have spent countless days in the past looking a countless bloody Vostok graphs and reading countless different ideas about it and since practically every time I do post a link y'all go into knots of angst about the source, pull your own Vostok up. We'll take a look at it.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Are the references contained here relevent?
Key questions: In the 80's it was thought that we were in a period of cooling which started 6,000 years ago (i.e. in the neolithic - new stone age) and will continue for another 23,000 years. Cooling that has already been going on for the entire history of human civilisation is presumably not going to pull out any surprises in our lifetimes?
However more recent work suggests the current warm spell will last another 50,000 years.
Should we believe Imbrie over Berger, the older work over the more recent work? And if we do so, is there any reson not to accept Imbrie's timescale, indicating that cooling towards the next glacial would take place over a duration of tens of thousands of years rather than mere decades?
The list of papers citing Berger may also be of interest. Here.
From the page you linked to and to your post. The moment you start going into all the detail of the why it happens you're going to get bogged down in irrelevancies here, and I'll get back to the beginning of your post later.
As it says on the page somewhere, that because the earth's orbital 100,000 cycle of inclination relative to the invariable plane so closely matches the 100,000 year cycle of ice ages, the coincidence is there. What is established is both these are fact, how precisely they relate to each other is not established. But for the last 1 million years they have been in synchronicity.
What I'm looking at here is not the why of it, but the fact that for the last million years we have had a 100,000 cycle of ice ages and these as plotted from the Vostok data give us a good visual for nearly half that time.
I don't want to go into the politics of who said what and why here re views on this, but, the Vostok data first came out in 1999 and was being drilled out during the '80's and '90's; information was coming in from it during this time. Anyone publishing in 2002 and presenting the idea that there will be 'an astonishingly long interglacial ahead', isn't looking at the Vostok data.
Going back to '80's and the observed cooling for the last six thousand years. Now we do have a better handle on it, and can see that cooling ends about now, give or take, as we come to end of our current interglacial, 'ten thousand years of jolly nice in the north give or take the odd LIA', and the ice re-establishes itself in all its strength in the northern hemisphere.
Precisely when that happens is not at all easy to establish, as this change can take place with a decade or several. Climate change can be astonishingly dramatic in the speed at which it happens, but, that we're going back into the ice age 'around now' is, from the Vostok data and the better understanding consolidated in recent decades and regardless of the misdirection of AGW and give or take the impossible, for sure. I saw a Beeb page some time back that estimated it within the next 100 years, but it didn't have any workings out of it.(*)
And I'll pass on an old Cornish saying here: Beware, when white you see turn the fox and hare.
It will be interesting if I'm still around to see if the Mountain hare, the only endemic hare species in Ireland, goes back to its genetic roots and begins again to turn white in snow. Baby seals are still born white in camouflage, but I digress.(**)
Don't tell anyone, but a couple of days ago I did find a breakdown of the Vostok into smaller bites which should help in looking at the last 10,000 years, I'll see if I can find it again.
Myrrh
(*)Someone thinking through the Vostok data:
Vostok Interpretation
(**)Furry things I see in my garden:
Mountain Hare
M
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The moment you start going into all the detail of the why it happens you're going to get bogged down in irrelevancies here, ...
What I'm looking at here is not the why of it, but the fact that for the last million years we have had a 100,000 cycle of ice ages and these as plotted from the Vostok data give us a good visual for nearly half that time.
How can you possibly even attempt to make a prediction about possible future climate change without even attempting to understand the details of why the climate changes???
Yes, we have Vostok data that describes almost 0.5 million years of our recent (geologically speaking) history that forms part of the current glacial-interglacial cycle of the ice age. Yes, you can look at that data and say "currently it's warmer, and has been for ~15ka", the previous warmer spell was ~15ka long (115-130ka bp). But, before that you had a longer spell of relatively warm conditions (190-220ka bp), and a very short period with current temperatures (230-240ka bp, with the warmest part within that). And, why did the ice age start in the first place? What changed in the recent past that shifted the earth from a largely ice-free planet to one dominated by ice, with the cycles of galciation and interglacials?
That to me indicates that although the Milankovich cycles are implicated, there are other factors. What are those other factors? That's what climate science is trying to work out. Without knowing more about the other factors we can say practically nothing about the future climate. Fortunately, science does know a fair bit more about those other factors - ocean currents, atmospheric chemistry, surface topography all seem to be involved.
It also means that if humanity had taken another 100ka to evolve there would be a good chance that when they looked at their Vostok core they'd see the current interglacial, and it could very easily be a different length than the previous. It only has to be a 10% longer and there would still be a millenium left of this interglacial ... and 10% is well within the variation shown in Vostok (there was a 20ka interglacial, and the core starts in an integlacial which would be at least 30ka).
And, that's only if you look at the temperature record from Vostok. If you're going to cite Vostok then at least be honest and include the whole record. The maximum CO2 in Vostok is 280ppm ... that means that we're currently well outside the range of CO2 concentrations shown in the core. That has to raise enormous questions about whether the pattern will continue to repeat ... since the pattern has already been broken I'd suggest that common sense would indicate that it won't continue to repeat.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Re the Vostok Interpretation link:
He says: "We are currently hovering near the top of a cycle and an ice age seems to be due. However, comparing today's position with the 4 previous peaks suggests that the temperature should have reached 2oC or more some 10,000 years ago, but it hasn't. If anything, the world is now somewhat colder than we might expect."
This could have something to do with the Younger Dryas around 12800 years ago when back into the ice age appeared have arrived, it lasted around a thousand years and then the warming cycle of the interglacial continued. But perhaps by stopping it reaching 'normal' levels and so our interglacial cooler than norm?
There's evidence that this was actually caused by a comet and was so severe in instantly changing temperature that it wiped out all the big animals that had previously survived the comings and goings of these cycles in our northern hemisphere. No more mamoths, sabre-tooths and all that were around then. Thinking about it now, it could be that what was disrupted was the migration pattern, as we still see in Africa today, when huge herds go on the move over vast distances and so the prey follow them too. An unexpected and such severe and long lasting disruption changed that finally.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
OK, there's graphs all over the place, but I haven't found one with a zoom so we can look at gradients of descent into a glacial. (Not an ice age).
The NOAA ftp site is down, but here is a copy of the dataset so we can do our own graphs:
http://www.asimow.com/vostok.1999.temp.dat
This should be the same data graphed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
I haven't made my own plot to compare.
Does anyone have objections to this dataset? If not we can probably get ones from earlier or later papers with google + citations.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think so. Alan's point re CO2 concentrations and patterns must be taken into consideration as well.
That's one of the problems of inference from historical data. As is the "small" matter of multiple causation, to which Alan also referred.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
How can you possibly even attempt to make a prediction about possible future climate change without even attempting to understand the details of why the climate changes???
Because I'm starting from the beginning Alan.
First we have to understand what a graph is, then understand what it is saying, then we can look at the detail.
Then we can ponder on the reasons for the synchronicity and the detail of the hiccups. We don't understand the detail. We don't have any actual effin answers for the detail with any degree of certainty. We can speculate.
We're looking a Vostok, we also have now historical data from geology etc., but what we are looking at is Vostok which is a very good picture of the real world confirming such other historical data.
In the Vostok Graph. What we have is simple observation of what has been found via this graph. (And a consistent time lag of c800 years rise of CO2 following dramatic rises in temperature.)
What we also know is that we have a recurring cycle around the sun in amazing degree of synchronicity with the 100,000 year cycle of ice ages.
quote:
Yes, we have Vostok data that describes almost 0.5 million years of our recent (geologically speaking) history that forms part of the current glacial-interglacial cycle of the ice age. Yes, you can look at that data and say "currently it's warmer, and has been for ~15ka", the previous warmer spell was ~15ka long (115-130ka bp). But, before that you had a longer spell of relatively warm conditions (190-220ka bp), and a very short period with current temperatures (230-240ka bp, with the warmest part within that). And, why did the ice age start in the first place? What changed in the recent past that shifted the earth from a largely ice-free planet to one dominated by ice, with the cycles of galciation and interglacials?
Well, it sure as hell wasn't man-made emissions from CO2 which have shown no ability to raise global temperatures even in our last century when we see REAL temps going down the more we began to pump in.. And since that is complete junk science, I'm not going to argue with you about it. My physics teaches a reality based CO2 and my science teaches from observation and REAL data, not cherry picked figures to create data for a theory. So I'm not going there to waste more time on this aspect. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, it pools, don't even think of organising a piss up etc.
But, what we're looking at in the Vostok graph is quite distinct, it jumps out at you; the regularity of the peaks, the troughs.
That's the first thing to understand. the next thing to understand is where we are along that line of peaks and troughs. And that is very well understood by those who can read graphs. We are NOW, give or take fine detail, at the END of OUR PRESENT interglacial. We are on the brink of heading back into our ice age. For another 100,000 years until the next from the cycle of interglacials kicks in.
quote:
That to me indicates that although the Milankovich cycles are implicated, there are other factors. What are those other factors? That's what climate science is trying to work out. Without knowing more about the other factors we can say practically nothing about the future climate. Fortunately, science does know a fair bit more about those other factors - ocean currents, atmospheric chemistry, surface topography all seem to be involved.
Of course there are other factors when we go into the detail. But most of that is speculation because we don't know all the causes of the variations, the little hiccups of rises and falls along the consistent pattern of cycle which is the base line.
Don't even go there. From AGW you don't even have reliable temperature information. What the hell you hope to understand in delving into such detail is beyond what your figures from your science is able to tell you because it cannot be trusted.
quote:
It also means that if humanity had taken another 100ka to evolve there would be a good chance that when they looked at their Vostok core they'd see the current interglacial, and it could very easily be a different length than the previous. It only has to be a 10% longer and there would still be a millenium left of this interglacial ... and 10% is well within the variation shown in Vostok (there was a 20ka interglacial, and the core starts in an integlacial which would be at least 30ka).
Yes it could very well be a different length..
However, the peaks arrive with a monotonous regularity and they dip likewise with a monotonous regularity..
That's why it is called the 100,000 year cycle. Because it is.
quote:
And, that's only if you look at the temperature record from Vostok. If you're going to cite Vostok then at least be honest and include the whole record. The maximum CO2 in Vostok is 280ppm ... that means that we're currently well outside the range of CO2 concentrations shown in the core. That has to raise enormous questions about whether the pattern will continue to repeat ... since the pattern has already been broken I'd suggest that common sense would indicate that it won't continue to repeat.
Sod the AGW understanding of CO2, Alan, it doesn't have any and until one gives up thinking in the AGW paradigm there can't be any.
When I read, for example, 'that CO2 remained at 280 for the last 600,000 years' and 'now our rise in industrial emissions is raising global temperature', I said, What??!?
If there was no change in C02 levels in all that time it certainly had eff all to do with the MASSIVE REGULAR CYCLE of coming and going of ICE AGES and GLOBAL WARMING INTERGLACIALS.
CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY seen in the Vostok data.
And then I asked myself. Where does this disjunct come from?
And you weren't interested in exploring that with me.
So, back to the Vostok graph.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
...you may find that people listen to your points.
There is a kind of track record here, IBP. If you have the time, and haven't looked too much recently at this evidence ...
Yeah, I know. I was here last time, and the time before that. It's just that this time I was struck by one of my semiannual attacks of bonhomie and decided to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, won't happen again.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
AGW, like the lie of Agion Phos, is a simple fact that only an irrational disposition can oppose.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, IBP
I knew you were around but if you're anything like me, life moves on and the past becomes part of our own personal mythologies. So I look at what's been said - and wonder, sometimes.
BTW I never discourage charity - there just isn't enough of it around - but sometimes its exercise is more difficult than others.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
What Alan has said is spot on. But what we can learn from the Vostok data is how long the descent into a glacial has taken in the past.
So here is the period from 110,000 BP to 120,000 BP from the Vostok data I linked to earlier, showing the descent into the last interglacial:
GRAPH.
(Note the present would be a long way off the left hand side of the graph.)
What you see is that the temperature drops (reading right-to-left) from about -1 to -6 over the period from 119,000BP to 113,000BP. That's 5 degrees (a big drop) over a period of 6000 years, i.e. a rate of ~0.08 deg/century.
Now, here's the instrumental temperature record I got from doing my own run of Clear Climate Code on the compiles weather station and sea surface temperature data from 1880 to the present:
GRAPH
Now the warming trend on this graph is ~ 0.57 deg/century over the past 130 years, and ~ 2 deg/century over the past 30 years, i.e. 25 times greater than the cooling rate down into an interglacial.
Which is why I don't understand why the Vostok data is even relevant. Assuming that we are heading into a glacial at the moment, the cooling process is so (ahem) gacially slow that it wouldn't even show up on the instrumental temperature record, and will have no impact on the human race for at least a millenium.
If you'd like me to graph the descent into the other glacials for comparison I'm happy to do that, but on first glance the one before is a drop from +2 to -7 between 238,000 and 229,000, and the one before that is +3 to -5 from 322,000 to 307,000, so the rate of descent is similar.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When I read, for example, 'that CO2 remained at 280 for the last 600,000 years' and 'now our rise in industrial emissions is raising global temperature', I said, What??!?
And, you'd be quite right to ask "what???". And, then consider whoever said that to be potentially unreliable. You need to assess waht people say, and when they state something demonstrably false then the credibility of the rest of their argument is reduced. Of course, the rest of what they say may be true ... but it would be really good to find a more credible source.
Anyone who has seen the Vostok data knows full well that over the last 600ka CO2 concentrations have fluctuated between 180 and 280ppm. We can probably safely assume that the CO2 concentrations varied within that range for the whole of the ice age, the last few million years. Which, of course, makes the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 380ppm highly anomalous in Earths recent history.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Petaflop
Thanks for that. My previous post was not intended as a discouragement, regardless of its wording!
We may be jousting with hockey sticks very shortly.
If the record re previous descents into glacials is similar, I for one can take that as read.
I agree with your conclusions re both the relevance of Vostok and Alan's comments. I loved the "glacially slow" BTW.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
When I read, for example, 'that CO2 remained at 280 for the last 600,000 years' and 'now our rise in industrial emissions is raising global temperature', I said, What??!?
And, you'd be quite right to ask "what???". And, then consider whoever said that to be potentially unreliable. You need to assess waht people say, and when they state something demonstrably false then the credibility of the rest of their argument is reduced. Of course, the rest of what they say may be true ... but it would be really good to find a more credible source.
Anyone who has seen the Vostok data knows full well that over the last 600ka CO2 concentrations have fluctuated between 180 and 280ppm. We can probably safely assume that the CO2 concentrations varied within that range for the whole of the ice age, the last few million years. Which, of course, makes the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 380ppm highly anomalous in Earths recent history.
Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
So what the heck does this have to do with anything in our understanding of the 100,000 years cycle of ice ages and interglacials?
(And, to prevent another tangent, I'm using ice ages here as in common use, we both know it is still the same ice age.)
And so, by the same infallible logic, what the heck has this figure of 380ppm to do with the 100,000 cycle of ice ages interspersed with the dramatic GLOBAL WARMING periods of our interglacials?
These GLOBAL WARMING interglacials are dramatic. We're coming to the end of ours now. At the beginning, temperatures soared. The ice melted and raised sea levels dramatically hundreds of feet in a decade even. We became cut of from France, we got ourselves a North Sea. Massive GLOBAL WARMING melted most of the mile++ high ice covering most of the northern hemisphere. Which raised land masses because they began to bounce back up after the weight of ice was lifted from them. Scotland is still doing so as are other lands which were under the ice for so many thousands of years, trapped under it. Frozen out.
CO2 was obviously irrelevant to all this happening.
That's why I asked myself the question. Why this disjunct?
Between what the data actually shows and the AGW story.
Look at the Vostok graph, the time lag for CO2 is c800 years. CO2 has nothing at all to do with driving these dramatic global warming interglacials for the last million of years. It's an effect.
But it's a good effect, because when the dramatic GLOBAL WARMING interglacials appear, regular cycles give or take fine detail, the ice goes and food arrives to feed the plants that now start trecking back up north..
That's our Carbon Life Cycle, we are carbon life forms, CO2 is our food.
It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
So, I assessed what people in AGW said, and when I saw they kept stating something demonstrably false, time after time after time, then the credibility of the rest of their argument disappeared, and I saw it for what it was really, junk science, but more importantly, a con.
Bearing absolutely no relation to the reality of this, our real world, at least as far as science was concerned..
So, forget about CO2, it happens when it happens, and let's see what we can make of the Vostok data in regard to what does matter. When will our current global warming spell of interglacial actually end?
quote:
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing.
..
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
On the Brink of an Ice Age
There's a link from that page to the Vostok graph. It does look like a heart beat trace.
We've already begun our slide down from the peak at the beginning of our own interglacial global warm, which is around zero on the graph. Hiccups up and down since, but still on the slide down, we're on the brink of going back into the ice age for another 100,000 years.
Will look for a more detailed one of our interglacial.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
Not relevant??? That's in excess of a 20% variation about the mean (which would be somewhere around the 200ppm mark, since the Vostok data shows that the lower concentrations are more common - though I admit I've not put the numbers into anything to calculate the mean). It also means that we're currently approaching twice the mean concentration of the last million+ years. Such very large changes in concentrations of a gas with large greenhouse potential can not be anything but relevant.
quote:
So what the heck does this have to do with anything in our understanding of the 100,000 years cycle of ice ages and interglacials?
Quite simply because the variation in solar energy input from Milankovich cycles is insufficient to account for the observed temperature changes, so there must be an amplification mechanism. Greenhouse gases provide an amplification mechanism by allowing that extra solar energy to be trapped near the surface, and there needs to be a mechanism to adjust greenhouse gas concentrations. The "heart beat" pattern of the Vostok temperature data shows that there are several such mechanisms at work, with differing response times and magnitudes. There's no way to get the complex pattern observed from only one mechanism (eg: Milankovich) or two (eg: Milankovich with single source CO2 amplification).
quote:
Look at the Vostok graph, the time lag for CO2 is c800 years. CO2 has nothing at all to do with driving these dramatic global warming interglacials for the last million of years. It's an effect.
Look at Vostok more carefully. The peak of CO2 concentration lags behind the start of the interglacial by c800 years. Which means that the largest CO2 source operates with a response time of upto 800 years. There's one source we know of with that response time - deep ocean currents that hold CO2 when cold and release it when warmer and circulate with periods of 100s of years. But, remember what I said earlier. There are several CO2 sources with different response times. All it takes is for some of those sources to respond very much quicker and amplify the Milankovich driving signal. Science is pretty much there on understanding the natural cycle - not quite there enough to be able to predict exactly how long interglacials will last, it's not as clear how CO2 concentrations fall to allow an interglacial to end as it is how they rise to start interglacials.
But, we've been over that before. And, it's largely irrelevant as we've artificially inflated CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) concentrations well above the natural range in the middle of an interglacial ... the chances of the relatively small natural variations to significantly offset the anthropogenic are vanishingly small.
quote:
That's our Carbon Life Cycle, we are carbon life forms, CO2 is our food.
It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
And, we've covered that ground too. CO2 is a constituent of air not some seperate part that can be easily seperated by simple diffusion. In a still air column, given sufficient time, there will be a slight increase in CO2 concentrations at the bottom compared to the top. But, the atmosphere is rarely a still column of air. So, such partial differentiation doesn't happen.
Plants are near the ground because the energy expenditure required to grow tall is too much. Even if there was a slight increase in CO2 concentration at the ground it would make little difference because plant growth is, in almost all natural systems, constrained by water and nutrient restrictions rather than CO2. Farmers are able to supply water and nutrients to crops such that an increased CO2 concentration can increase growth.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Myrrh: It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
She's a witch, she floats! BURN HER!!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Between 180 and 280 ppm, so what?? There's not even an inkling of it being relevant.
Not relevant??? That's in excess of a 20% variation about the mean (which would be somewhere around the 200ppm mark, since the Vostok data shows that the lower concentrations are more common - though I admit I've not put the numbers into anything to calculate the mean). It also means that we're currently approaching twice the mean concentration of the last million+ years. Such very large changes in concentrations of a gas with large greenhouse potential can not be anything but relevant.
It's got negligible greenhouse potential.. AGW is Con. Water vapour is the only greenhouse gas of any importance, and we're talking about the ICE AGE and GLOBAL WARMING INTERGLACIALS - which show that CO2 isn't relevant to these changes.
Look at the Vostok graph.
CO2 isn't relevant to these changes.
quote:
So what the heck does this have to do with anything in our understanding of the 100,000 years cycle of ice ages and interglacials?
quote:
Quite simply because the variation in solar energy input from Milankovich cycles is insufficient to account for the observed temperature changes, so there must be an amplification mechanism. Greenhouse gases provide an amplification mechanism by allowing that extra solar energy to be trapped near the surface, and there needs to be a mechanism to adjust greenhouse gas concentrations. The "heart beat" pattern of the Vostok temperature data shows that there are several such mechanisms at work, with differing response times and magnitudes. There's no way to get the complex pattern observed from only one mechanism (eg: Milankovich) or two (eg: Milankovich with single source CO2 amplification).
I'm not arguing for mechanism.. But to keep regurgitating AGW science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
CO2 lags 800 years behind Global Temperature Changes. It shows no inclination to do anything else but lag behind.
quote:
Look at the Vostok graph, the time lag for CO2 is c800 years. CO2 has nothing at all to do with driving these dramatic global warming interglacials for the last million of years. It's an effect.
quote:
Look at Vostok more carefully. The peak of CO2 concentration lags behind the start of the interglacial by c800 years. Which means that the largest CO2 source operates with a response time of upto 800 years. There's one source we know of with that response time - deep ocean currents that hold CO2 when cold and release it when warmer and circulate with periods of 100s of years. But, remember what I said earlier. There are several CO2 sources with different response times. All it takes is for some of those sources to respond very much quicker and amplify the Milankovich driving signal. Science is pretty much there on understanding the natural cycle - not quite there enough to be able to predict exactly how long interglacials will last, it's not as clear how CO2 concentrations fall to allow an interglacial to end as it is how they rise to start interglacials.
Alan, please, AGW does not understand CO2. AGW can keep pretending that CO2 does all these things, but it has never been able to show it has any such effect. And then it wonders why none of its models have never been able to match historic data.., none have ever been able to predict the future climate.. Because it's giving CO2 qualities and abilities it just does not possess.
This is classic garbage in garbage out.
That's why AGW spends most of its time creating new temperature 'adjustments' to hide the fact that all its temperature data is crap and scientific fraud.
quote:
That's our Carbon Life Cycle, we are carbon life forms, CO2 is our food.
It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level..
quote:
And, we've covered that ground too. CO2 is a constituent of air not some seperate part that can be easily seperated by simple diffusion. In a still air column, given sufficient time, there will be a slight increase in CO2 concentrations at the bottom compared to the top. But, the atmosphere is rarely a still column of air. So, such partial differentiation doesn't happen.
As I said, I'm not going to continue arguing this ridiculous AGW CO2 with you past this post. Keeling had to throw out all the data which showed it wasn't as you say, the only reason you think it is, is because he created another CO2 from cherry picking his data.
Don't even think of organising a piss up in a brewery, dead drunk takes on a different meaning in the real world where CO2's properties are well understood..
[quot]Plants are near the ground because the energy expenditure required to grow tall is too much. Even if there was a slight increase in CO2 concentration at the ground it would make little difference because plant growth is, in almost all natural systems, constrained by water and nutrient restrictions rather than CO2. Farmers are able to supply water and nutrients to crops such that an increased CO2 concentration can increase growth. [/QUOTE]
Plants grow at ground level because that's where their food supply is.
Plants surrounded with higher levels of CO2 are found to be healthier, more drought resistant.
Plants do not grow spread out in the atmosphere wrapped in their blanket of CO2..
Forget that AGW CO2, it's an illusion.
And anyway, CO2 is irrelevant to the 100,000 year cycles of Ice Age and Interglacials.
It lags by 800 years and shows at no point any inclination to drive temperatures higher because it gets greater in amount. It is irrelevant.
Look at the Vostok data without the CO2, real or the imagined AGW, confusing the issue.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
She's a witch, she floats! BURN HER!!
I recognise (all too well) the provocation, Martin, and the (probably) humourous intent. But please don't go there again, Shipmate. A line cross is a line cross. There is a thread in Hell if you really need it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Shipmates
Just to let you know that following recent exchanges I am taking to H & A the issue of the effects of Myrrh's posts on serious discussion and debate (the purpose of Purgatory).
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
That's simply because science knows that CO2 does not behave in the way you claim. Constituent molecules of the atmosphere do not spontaneously seperate into seperate layers based on their molecular mass. That goes for oxygen, nitrogen, argon etc as well as CO2. Mixed gases simply do not behave that way except under very unusual conditions - such as totally still air conditions that last for days.
CO2 that's produced in large quantities very rapidly (eg: in volcanic eruptions or some industrial processes such as fermentation) can produce local atmospheres (ie: the air in the room, mine, other enclosed place) with enhanced concentrations of CO2, even at toxic levels. But, we're still talking about a well mixed local atmosphere.
Here's a little experiment you might want to try. Find a source of CO2 (maybe dry ice, if you can get it, or some Soda Stream canisters) and take it into your garage or any other enclosed room. You'll need some instrument to measure CO2 concentrations - I know you linked to a site selling CO2 monitors, so buy one or more of them. Now, let the CO2 out of it's container. I'll guarantee that you will not get a layer of pure CO2 on the floor with normal air above it. What you will get is that very quickly (probably faster than you'll be able to measure) the whole air mass will increase CO2 concentration, and that that increased concentration will be present everywhere in the room. Oh, and one more thing if you want to try it, as CO2 displaces oxygen and is toxic to human life in high concentrations, set up your experiment so that it can be initiated and monitored remotely so that you're not in the room at the time - or take a breathing mask and oxygen supply in with you.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
OK, I can see the argument you are making Myrrh, and I think it's a rational one, but I don't think it goes far enough. Can I summarise, to make sure we are on the same page?
AGW proponents claim that rising CO2 causes greenhouse effect which causes rising temperatures (based on some physics from 1896). They point to the temperature record which shows a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 over the last 400K years.
The Vostok data shows that the start of the CO2 rise lags the starts of the temperature rise by ~800 years. Thus the CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature changes - it is more likely to be the result of the temperature changes.
That's a reasonable argument. To say that temperature drives CO2 is a model - a very symple model, but a model nonetheless. It also fits some of the data. We like simple models - Occam's razor tells us that if we have two models which fit the data equally well, we should pick the simpler one.
So, why is there any debate? The problem is that the model isn't good enough. The lag is present at the beginning of recent deglaciations, but only at the beginning. Why? Also, if temperature drives CO2, what drives temperature?
That's where orbital precession and the amount of sun hitting the earth comes in. This graph of the Vostok data adds that into to the plots - at the bottom.
But that doesn't work either: the variation of insolation is far smaller than the variation in temperature, and doesn't show the big glacial/interglacial cycles. The only correlation is that each deglaciation is preceded by a peak in insolation.
So we've got several simple models, and all of them are wrong. Why? Because we've oversimplified. If A and B vary together, it is tempting to say that A causes B or B causes A. But it could be that both are caused by C, or both are interelated with other variables in some much more complex way.
Unfortunately that means we need a more complex model. At which point intuitive arguments like the one we are having here become insufficient.
So how do we make a better model? There are two approaches:
- A statistical model, where we just take as many datsets as we can and try to find the relationships by working out how to combine them in different ways.
- A physical model, where we try and model the processes involved using our knowledge of basic physics.
We can do both. Here is a paper about a statistical model. More recently people have been making physical models which actually fit the data too.
And what do the models say? The physical models which best fit the data are those in which deglaciation is triggered by a peak in insolation, but which in turn triggers both CO2 release and albedo changes which causes further warming. That's what climate scientists actually believe happened. And now we see that the characterisation at the top - that CO2 drives temperature - was wrong. The actual claim of climate scientists is that CO2 and temperature are interrelated as part of a complex system with nonlinear feedbacks.
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Peta - majestic
I think the problem is that Myrrh shows no understanding of the fact that much science is counter-intuitive.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
An excellent summary of a clear and thought-provoking analysis.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Acknowledged Barnabas62
Might I explain my 'reasoning' ?
Myrrh's was Aristotelian: completely fallacious: "It's heavier than air because, what a coincidence, plants are at ground level.."
CO2 is not heavier than air (which is nearly as irrelevant as saying alcohol is heavier than water) because plants are at ground level.
I replied in kind, using medieval Aristotelian 'logic'.
I'm not attacking Myrrh ad hominem. I'm exposing her fallacious reasoning.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks Martin - perhaps it read worse than it meant? Explanation accepted.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
An excellent summary of a clear and thought-provoking analysis.
Seconded. Great post.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
science which doesn't even know that CO2 is heavier than air and pools is not going to impress me.
That's simply because science knows that CO2 does not behave in the way you claim. Constituent molecules of the atmosphere do not spontaneously seperate into seperate layers based on their molecular mass. That goes for oxygen, nitrogen, argon etc as well as CO2. Mixed gases simply do not behave that way except under very unusual conditions - such as totally still air conditions that last for days.
So you keep saying. Even when I have shown you proof to the contrary.
This is serious debate, from my point of view.
If you continue to ignore my sources of information from the real physical world which knows and understands the real physical properties of CO2, you are not listening.
My reference to you not to even try organising a piss up in a brewery is reference back to my real source of information in this from people in the real world who work with CO2, which I posted to be read as support for my argument. To belittle the source because they 'sell monitors' is ad hominem. They sell monitors because they understand the properties of CO2 and have produced a monitoring device to measure danger levels because knowledge of this is life and death critical in real industries in the real world. That they've created a business out of it doesn't have any bearing on the physical science of this.
The real world contradicts your AGW claims about CO2.
quote:
CO2 that's produced in large quantities very rapidly (eg: in volcanic eruptions or some industrial processes such as fermentation) can produce local atmospheres (ie: the air in the room, mine, other enclosed place) with enhanced concentrations of CO2, even at toxic levels. But, we're still talking about a well mixed local atmosphere.
Again, you're making claims that there is still some "well mixed local atmosphere" without proof (and in the "experiment" as you described in your post).
You have not yet acknowledged that your previous AGW assertion that CO2 does not pool is shown to false, by the information I posted from the real world.
CO2 is One and a Half times heavier than air. That is a fact.
Carbon Dioxide displaces Oxygen, that is another fact in the real world.
How precisely do you account for this "well-mixed" property you claim is physics? Is it the gravitational pull of the Oxygen and Hydrogen molecules attracting the heavier Carbon Dioxide molecules into their orbit and keeping them "well-mixed" in their atmosphere?
As for your experiment.. Please read and absorb what I have picked out in bold above.
To tell me to conduct an experiment which supports my argument and shows your claim false, appears a tad ridiculous to me..
..especially as you're using it as an ad hominem attack, in bolstering support for your claims here that your AGW knowledge is superior in this matter.
You can hardly say 'be careful because it displaces oxygen' to me, when that is precisely the argument I have given against your claim that "CO2 doesn't pool".
So, how does the one and a half times heavier than air Carbon molecule which displaces oxygen then rise and become well mixed in the atmosphere?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Petaflop, interesting post. Just to let you know, I'm not able to concentrate on it until later today, will endeavour to come back to it tomorrow .
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
The most hilarious and unbelievable thing about your claims here Myrrh, is that if they were true, YOU WOULD BE DEAD! No animal could live in such a system!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Myrrh. Approximately 0.039% of the atmosphere by volume is CO2, and the atmosphere is approximately 100km thick. If you are correct about the behaviour of CO2 then the bottom 3-4km of the atmosphere would be pure CO2. (And we would all die.) Why, in your view, does this not take place?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
BroJames, your arithmetical slip is showing ..
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Deja vu all over again. We had pretty much exactly the same thread a while back, with the much same participants rising to Myrrh's infodump of the same fictional pseudoscience.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Hmm, yes, you are right. Do you think anyone has noticed? I should have said 39 metres. The difference is neither here nor there really for me as I am a non-flying biped who requires oxygen to stay alive and I am only about 1.93m tall!
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Deja vu all over again. We had pretty much exactly the same thread a while back, with the much same participants rising to Myrrh's infodump of the same fictional pseudoscience.
Ah, but it is the small variations which have such piquancy! A bit like Pachelbel's Canon .. No - come to think of it, nothing at all like Pachelbel's Canon.
Seriously, Petaflop's complexity post says something I don't recall being said before - at least not with such backing and clarity. Thought it was helpful. There is a problem of accessibility.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Can someone please come and pinch me? - I'd like some proof it's not all a bad dream.
Did they stop teaching the kinetic theory of gases at school?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I think Myrhh may have missed that lesson, along with the one about basic observation, the exam for which goes as follows:
Question 1: Do you leave at the bottom of a 39m layer of CO2?
Question 2: If you do, what the hell are you breathing?
Question 3: And why aren't you dead?
[ 15. September 2010, 22:26: Message edited by: JonahMan ]
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Hmm, yes, you are right. Do you think anyone has noticed? I should have said 39 metres. The difference is neither here nor there really for me as I am a non-flying biped who requires oxygen to stay alive and I am only about 1.93m tall!
The thing I noticed was that your calculations assumed an even density for the whole 100km.
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
I think Myrhh may have missed that lesson, along with the one about basic observation, the exam for which goes as follows:
Question 1: Do you leave at the bottom of a 39m layer of CO2?
Question 2: If you do, what the hell are you breathing?
Question 3: And why aren't you dead?
On an earlier thread I did reassure people that they would not be asphyxiated by CO2 if they visited the Dead Sea as indicated by Myrrh's science. Myrrh said she had survived the trip too.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Myrrh: You can hardly say 'be careful because it displaces oxygen' to me, when that is precisely the argument I have given against your claim that "CO2 doesn't pool".
Your ignorance runneth over doesn't it old girl.
In an unsealed garage where a block of dry ice is exposed or some Agion Phos miraculously ignites, what will happen to the concentration of CO2 as opposed to the concentrations of all the other gases in that space, including oxygen ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Can someone please come and pinch me? - I'd like some proof it's not all a bad dream.
Did they stop teaching the kinetic theory of gases at school?
Been there, done that, Honest Ron. Plus PV =rT, Boyle's Law etc. Last thread for sure, probably the one before as well. There is a certain imperviousness on these points, with wriggling associated with the use of terms like "ideal gas" etc.
One of the points which may help to explain ken's comment.
But of course new Shipmates are joining all the time, so a few hardy souls keep up the good work of challenging yet again the unjustified assertions.
Petaflop's points re complexity are worthy of serious consideration. I think you have to be able at least to comprehend kinetic theory and the gas laws before moving onto more complex modelling, multiple causation etc. An essential initial part of the journey of understanding, I'd say.
But not everyone even gets that far. My physics teacher told me that the concept and nature of pressure defeat a quite high proportion of students.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Myrrh. Approximately 0.039% of the atmosphere by volume is CO2, and the atmosphere is approximately 100km thick. If you are correct about the behaviour of CO2 then the bottom 3-4km of the atmosphere would be pure CO2. (And we would all die.) Why, in your view, does this not take place?
And you're all so much in agreement with each other that your grasp of science is better than mine..
There is nothing counter intuitive about basic physics, it's logical. That's why the claims made for CO2 by AGW are understood by those in the real world, the logical physical world, to be irrational.
So, let's begin by getting a grasp on the concept of something being heavier than air. If you throw something into the air that is one and a half times heavier than air, it will do what?
When Hydrogen is described in real physics as being lighter than air, do any of you have a problem understanding what this means? Think Hydrogen balloons. That Hydrogen is bouyant in air is because it is lighter than air, it is bouyant in air because it is less dense than air.
Carbon Dioxide however is not Hydrogen, Carbon Dioxide is Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is one and a half times heavier than than air. It is not bouyant in air. It is not a molecule of Hydrogen which is lighter than air, it is a molecule of something different which is heavier than air and therefore not bouyant in air like Hydrogen. Carbon Dioxide is a gas which is denser than air. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, therefore it sinks.
Carbon Dioxide is not a poison. Death by Carbon Dioxide is fairly common in certain real world situations where sufficient amounts of it are produced at one time to form huge pools, whole rivers of it flowing down into valleys. These pools are formed because Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and therefore because it is heavier than air its characteristic is to sink through air to the ground where it pools. Carbon Dioxide is denser than Oxygen and displaces Oxygen. In large enough pools it will asphyxiate by displacing Oxygen. Carbon Dioxide is not a poison, but in sufficient quantities it can asphyxiate by depriving the body of Oxygen.
It is odourless and tasteless, it can be dangerous not to know this if one is thinking of organising a piss up in a brewery.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas and the essential food for us and all other animal and plant life and through plant life producing oxygen for us all. All the green you see around you has been created by Carbon Dioxide. If the levels get too low to feed plant life then plant life will die and so will we. We are part of the Carbon Life Cycle, we are Carbon Life Forms.
If you talk to your pot plant it will thank you for it by growing stronger and healthier ..
Here's a page with lots of links about Carbon Dioxide in the real physical world and you're welcome to step into it from the imaginary AGW world, any time you want.
Let me introduce you to, Caaaarbon Dioxide! Fanfare
The Real Carbon Dioxide Molecule Stands Up To Take a Bow
Round of applause, Cheers, Whistles, Bravo! Brava!
So, now, if you find yourself passing through the illusory world of AGW, or it comes into your world, and you hear someone from that AGW scientific fantasy has spoken world claiming to have its super intelligent consensually proven data and chock-a-block with initials after his or her name tell you authoritively that Carbon Dioxide "stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years"(*) you'll know they're talking bollocks. No matter how many people agree with them.
Myrrh
(*)NOAA REPORTS "It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years," Solomon said..
How?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
You still haven't explained how you're still alive when you're breathing 100% CO2 every time you're not in an airplane or skyscraper.
Please do.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If you talk to your pot plant it will thank you for it by growing stronger and healthier ..
At last! An explanation for much of the content of this thread!
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Hot air balloons contain a considerably higher proportion of CO2 than ordinary air. Or do balloonists get 'drenched' in the heavy CO2 falling out of the balloon?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You still haven't explained how you're still alive when you're breathing 100% CO2 every time you're not in an airplane or skyscraper.
Please do.
? When have I ever said anything even remotely like that?
You lot are really beginning to annoy me with your straw men arguments, as nonsensical as the rest of AGW fantasy. And that includes you Martin, I have never said that.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
You still haven't explained how you're still alive when you're breathing 100% CO2 every time you're not in an airplane or skyscraper.
Please do.
? When have I ever said anything even remotely like that?
You lot are really beginning to annoy me with your straw men arguments, as nonsensical as the rest of AGW fantasy. And that includes you Martin, I have never said that.
Explain then how when CO2 sinks below oxygen, and we have enough CO2 to cover the first ~40 meters above the ground, and you can still breathe oxygen while being near the very bottom of that. Rephrased - how there actually *is* oxygen in sufficient quantity at ground level despite it being displaced by CO2 as you claim.
I don't see any logical options other than you're wrong, or you should be dead. [Handily I live in a different universe where the ideal gas law applies, so I know why *I'm* alive]
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Carbon Dioxide however is not Hydrogen, Carbon Dioxide is Carbon Dioxide. Carbon Dioxide is one and a half times heavier than than air. It is not bouyant in air. It is not a molecule of Hydrogen which is lighter than air, it is a molecule of something different which is heavier than air and therefore not bouyant in air like Hydrogen. Carbon Dioxide is a gas which is denser than air. Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, therefore it sinks.
Is nitrogen heavier than air, or lighter than air? How about oxygen?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Petaflop, I hope this isn't going to get too unwieldy..
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
OK, I can see the argument you are making Myrrh, and I think it's a rational one, but I don't think it goes far enough. Can I summarise, to make sure we are on the same page?
AGW proponents claim that rising CO2 causes greenhouse effect which causes rising temperatures (based on some physics from 1896). They point to the temperature record which shows a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 over the last 400K years.
I have to stop you there. They've never substantiated this 1896 claim. Whenever data is requested for any of their claims based on it and which they say confirms it, it is withheld or reluctantly produced already edited. It has taken some checking the science to resort to invoking the freedom of information act in both US and Britain.
Ditto, they have never shown any such correlation of temperature with CO2 levels over the last 400k which could confirm their 1896 claim.
That there is a correlation is obvious, that the time lag is c800 years is common knowledge to both, but at no point have AGWs shown the levels of CO2 interacting directly with the temperature to change it.
quote:
The Vostok data shows that the start of the CO2 rise lags the starts of the temperature rise by ~800 years. Thus the CO2 cannot be the cause of the temperature changes - it is more likely to be the result of the temperature changes.
That's a reasonable argument. To say that temperature drives CO2 is a model - a very symple model, but a model nonetheless. It also fits some of the data. We like simple models - Occam's razor tells us that if we have two models which fit the data equally well, we should pick the simpler one.
So, why is there any debate? The problem is that the model isn't good enough. The lag is present at the beginning of recent deglaciations, but only at the beginning. Why? Also, if temperature drives CO2, what drives temperature?
The answer is simpler than that. The model isn't good enough because they create their own reality about CO2 first. The models can be tweaked to pretend they fit some of the data, (I posted something from I think NOAA last year, where they admitted because they got some property of something wrong it meant all their models of the past 30 years were junk), but that has been their method of choice throughout this saga. Their results, their models, their temperature figures and their projections can't be trusted because they are cherry picked to bolster a pre-conceived notion.
Because these are fantasy to begin with their conclusions likewise. Earlier I posted a piece on Hansen's graphs, a real scientist reading through the comparison of graphs he's produced and then doctored later, would weep.
We can't just pick a model because it's simpler, it has to some bearing on the facts, surely?
I think the problem here is that AGW has divorced itself so far from real world of science and now just plays at creating models to see if they can find one to fit. You might as well wait long enough and the monkeys will type a line of Shakespeare..
That isn't the scientific method. The scientific method has to start with reality, observable reality.
And then we get those wonderful moments when someone puts observation of what appears unconnected into connection, like that our continents were once conformed together differently. It took several decades but the first thought that Africa and the Americas were joined and moved apart came from observation, of their shapes and of the rocks being the same, and was a dramatic moment for us in science. From this we've gone leaps and bounds in our understanding of how the earth works and its history.
quote:
That's where orbital precession and the amount of sun hitting the earth comes in. This graph of the Vostok data adds that into to the plots - at the bottom.
But that doesn't work either: the variation of insolation is far smaller than the variation in temperature, and doesn't show the big glacial/interglacial cycles. The only correlation is that each deglaciation is preceded by a peak in insolation.
Oh blast, I did spot something about this in passing and can't find it now..
quote:
So we've got several simple models, and all of them are wrong. Why? Because we've oversimplified. If A and B vary together, it is tempting to say that A causes B or B causes A. But it could be that both are caused by C, or both are interelated with other variables in some much more complex way.
Unfortunately that means we need a more complex model. At which point intuitive arguments like the one we are having here become insufficient.
Yes, but. I'm not having an 'intuitive' argument. I'm being very practical here. I'm insisting that any claims made are made in real physics in the real world and with real data.
AGW has consistently failed to deliver on all three, and instead consistently delivers data that is doctored and bears no relation to the real world.
This means,
quote:
So how do we make a better model? There are two approaches:
- A statistical model, where we just take as many datsets as we can and try to find the relationships by working out how to combine them in different ways.
- A physical model, where we try and model the processes involved using our knowledge of basic physics.
We can do both. Here is a paper about a statistical model. More recently people have been making physical models which actually fit the data too.
that when you or a.n.other produce data from such a source as you've done here, I simply can't take it seriously. It is no longer worth wasting my time on it, I know that, because I have gone through so many such and the sheer deceit involved in many obvious and many subtle ways in the detail takes way too long to correct.
Look how long it's taking me to show that CO2 is heavier than air..
The paper was co-authored by Hansen. 'Nough said. It might be of historical interest one day to track how he changed his data to fit his agenda, but that's not science. Any supposed idea that he is presenting a 'solution to the problem' here is dismissed by his own proven dishonesty about the science.
quote:
And what do the models say? The physical models which best fit the data are those in which deglaciation is triggered by a peak in insolation, but which in turn triggers both CO2 release and albedo changes which causes further warming. That's what climate scientists actually believe happened. And now we see that the characterisation at the top - that CO2 drives temperature - was wrong. The actual claim of climate scientists is that CO2 and temperature are interrelated as part of a complex system with nonlinear feedbacks.
You see, from your "but which in turn triggers both CO2 release and albedo changes which causes further warming" is an acceptance of effects which have not only not been proved, but have been shown to be illusory and created out of an agenda and not out of scientific analysis.
So what kind of model is that actually producing?
As I said above, this is another example of AGW trickery. By this mix of real and fake data it gives the illusion of finding a fit, but the fit is actually the illusion creating by tweaking, creating and cherry picking data and still claiming properties and effects for the component parts which are physically impossible or have never been proven.
quote:
But now the model is too complex to deal with at the level of intuitive argument on a web forumn. So we are left with a choice. Do we want:
- Science that is simple enough for everyone to debate, but which doesn't fit the data.
- Science which fits the data but is too complex for everyone to debate.
And that becomes a problem when science interacts with public policy. Which is why the issue is contentious.
What we want, those who are fed up with the con, is for these conmen to be dismissed from having any credibilty to represent science.
That's what's really contentious here.
But I disagree that this is too complex for such a discussion forum. Because we haven't yet found, or put together sufficiently well, all the key elements to these dramatic changes doesn't mean they don't exist or won't be found.
We're not talking about the detail of weather here, although there probably is some pattern in that chaos that is repeatable..
These are huge thousands of years cycles we're looking at, this is a different category.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
(based on some physics from 1896
I have to stop you there. They've never substantiated this 1896 claim.
Yeah, the 1896 claim is bogus. The physics was known at least 50 years before that. Here is an easy to read and understand history of the development of the science starting in the 1820s.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
