DC Tom Posted January 10, 2015 Posted January 10, 2015 So are you saying carbonaceous aerosols don't decrease snow and ice abedos causing a climate forcing increase Seriously? You're asking that? Of course not. Someone else want to tell him why it's a stupid question?
....lybob Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Seriously? You're asking that? Of course not. Someone else want to tell him why it's a stupid question? so Tom, when you heard of the Carbon Tax were you worried that the price of your mechanical pencil refills were going up? btw does the term pencil lead annoy you? you know because there is no lead just graphite and clay- What about the carbon cycle ? or carbon based life forms? look at carbon hogging up all the glory so proud with it's four valence bonds (you know as a lib I think it should give up one of those bonds to a more deprived element)- you certainly got poor Gator who kept saying carbon instead of carbon dioxide, I bet when you were young you got after your mom when she said icebox instead of refrigerator.............yep I bet you set her straight.
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 so Tom, when you heard of the Carbon Tax were you worried that the price of your mechanical pencil refills were going up? btw does the term pencil lead annoy you? you know because there is no lead just graphite and clay- What about the carbon cycle ? or carbon based life forms? look at carbon hogging up all the glory so proud with it's four valence bonds (you know as a lib I think it should give up one of those bonds to a more deprived element)- you certainly got poor Gator who kept saying carbon instead of carbon dioxide, I bet when you were young you got after your mom when she said icebox instead of refrigerator.............yep I bet you set her straight. The difference between "carbon," and "carbon dioxide" and "methane" is the difference between knowing what you're talking about and NOT knowing what you're talking about. Hydrogen has a greater effect on climate than carbon, if you want to be that vague about it. Same with having no idea what an "aerosol" is, you idiot. Learn something, then come back to us.
....lybob Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 The difference between "carbon," and "carbon dioxide" and "methane" is the difference between knowing what you're talking about and NOT knowing what you're talking about. Hydrogen has a greater effect on climate than carbon, if you want to be that vague about it. Same with having no idea what an "aerosol" is, you idiot. Learn something, then come back to us. When you say I have no idea what an aerosol is it means you have no idea what an aerosol is
3rdnlng Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 So are you saying carbonaceous aerosols don't decrease snow and ice abedos causing a climate forcing increase What is an abedo?
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 When you say I have no idea what an aerosol is it means you have no idea what an aerosol is Then please explain how it decreases the albedo of ice...
....lybob Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Then please explain how it decreases the albedo of ice... I just hope you are not such a precious persnickety prig that you'd make an argument that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer because when it deposits the particulate matter onto the surface of the lungs it's no longer smoke- I'm really hoping your objection isn't something like that, something like " carbonaceous aerosols don't decrease albedo of ice because when the particulate matter deposits onto the ice it's a coating not an aerosol .....gotcha"
Azalin Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 Seriously? You're asking that? Of course not. Someone else want to tell him why it's a stupid question? I wouldn't think that carbonaceous aerosols actually decrease ice (or any other) albedo, but would be more inclined to absorb the diffused light, effectively removing heat potential from the atmosphere. In other words, unless the carbon actually coats the ice, the ice's potential for light diffusion shouldn't change.
TH3 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 There you go. All settled. Its a hoax. We can move along!!
Tiberius Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 The difference between "carbon," and "carbon dioxide" and "methane" is the difference between knowing what you're talking about and NOT knowing what you're talking about. Hydrogen has a greater effect on climate than carbon, if you want to be that vague about it. Same with having no idea what an "aerosol" is, you idiot. Learn something, then come back to us. Oh whatever, you are just being a douche! Anyway, great blog post by Don Paul: http://blogs.wivb.com/2013/06/28/climate-change-nonlinear-but-ultimately-global-warming-will-continue-to-grow/ A few basics: CO2 is indisputably a greenhouse gas, which traps heat which would otherwise radiate back into space. Without water vapor and CO2, the earth would be a frozen ball. The basic physics are known, and not in dispute. CO2 has been increasing since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The burning of fossil fuels produces CO2. The increase has now taken us to 400 parts per million in the atmosphere, the highest level in at least 800,000 years and probably more than 1 million years. http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide Other greenhouse gases such as methane, also increasing, are much stronger as greenhouse gases. But the sheer volume of CO2 has far outstripped the capacity of methane in warming capacity. In addition, CO2 has a long, stable shelf life in the atmosphere once it’s released. Methane, which may increase more rapidly due to the melting of the Arctic permafrost and the possible release from slowly warming seabeds, has a life of just 14 years in the atmosphere. - See more at: http://blogs.wivb.com/2013/06/28/climate-change-nonlinear-but-ultimately-global-warming-will-continue-to-grow/#sthash.g3EgK8df.dpufThe warming is “nonlinear” in that it will occur at an uneven pace. There can be embedded within the long term warming cooler periods, and some periods in which warming accelerates. Such a chart looks “spikey” with ups and downs, while the median continues to inexorably climb. We have, in fact, seen a slowing of the warming between 2000-2010. The best theoretical evidence on what caused that slowdown involves the oceans acting as a carbon and heat sink. That is, the ocean has been taking up a good deal of the extra carbon in the atmosphere (leading to acidification of sea water, having increased about 30% in recent decades) and the extra heat in the atmosphere. As seas have warmed, sea levels continue to rise even while atmospheric warming has temporarily slowed. Water expands as it warms, and there have been huge depositions of freshwater from the melting of the Greenland glaciers and most glaciers around the world. The reduction in arctic sea ice (the greatest) and antarctic sea ice secondarily has increased the ability of the high latitude seas to absorb more solar energy and warm, as well. Ice reflects solar energy. Dark sea water absorbs it. Global warming has been greatest in the Arctic region, just as climate models have predicted. At some point, the ocean’s capacity to absorb heat and carbon will begin to level off, and atmospheric warming will begin to accelerate again. The “spikey” appearance of global average temperatures can be easily observed in this graph: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png- See more at: http://blogs.wivb.com/2013/06/28/climate-change-nonlinear-but-ultimately-global-warming-will-continue-to-grow/#sthash.g3EgK8df.dpuf
DC Tom Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I wouldn't think that carbonaceous aerosols actually decrease ice (or any other) albedo, but would be more inclined to absorb the diffused light, effectively removing heat potential from the atmosphere. In other words, unless the carbon actually coats the ice, the ice's potential for light diffusion shouldn't change. And they increase cloud creation. Aerosols have a negative climate forcing effect, between direct scattering and absorbtion and increasing albedo. Anyway, great blog post by Don Paul: http://blogs.wivb.com/2013/06/28/climate-change-nonlinear-but-ultimately-global-warming-will-continue-to-grow/ What's your point, dipshit?
OCinBuffalo Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) We do know there is a lot more carbon in the atmosphere and that it causes warming, though, right? Dev/null....classic ignorant Conservative retard We know all of that, except the Dev/null part. Dev/null has demonstrated a subtle wit on this board for years, but, that is beyond your ken. Does carbon cause warming, of course. If it didn't we wouldn't be alive. But, other things cause warming too...it's called: living on a planet with an atmosphere, near a sun. The central issue that ALWAYS gets passed over, especially by the left who seek to use this issue solely as a political/fundraising tool, is climate: SENSITIVITY. I'll say that again so that you are sure to get it: CLIMATE SENSITIVITY. Defined: how sensitive is the climate to CO2, or anything else? The AGW theory(you know, the one that the, debunked, "consensus"...all agree is cause for alarm, because it makes them $/scares voters? Yeah, that theory.) has always assumed a high level of sensitivity to CO2 increases, only. There is NOTHING standing behind this assumption. Nothing at all. The only reason it exists is because: political $ that comes from assuming it is high. It's exactly like a math equation where sensitivity is represented by an X variable. We always assign an extraordinarily high value for X, and never back up why. Nor do we ever see if lowering X's value puts our modeling more in line with the global temperature observations from the last 25, never mind 18, years. It's entirely possible, and we've probably moved from possible to likely, that either today's climate, or the earth's climate in general, just isn't anywhere near as sensitive to CO2 as assumed, and the value of X needs to be lower. There could be all sorts of reasons why X needs to be lower, but nobody is investigating that...because if they did, and found something, the ass falls out of the alarm-->money-->power-->socialism machine. In every single long term model: the assumed increasing rate of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere when the model begins, is much less than what is actually being dumped today. NOBODY assumed China's and India's level of pollution would increase 10x more than they had factored. So, the models aren't just wrong, they are way wrong. We are dumping a lot more CO2 than they assumed, and they aren't even close to proving causation on global surface temps. Right now, the most likely explanation is not the wild-eyed, save-ass speculations I described above. Rather it is: the climate is clearly not as sensitive to CO2 as these politicized scientists would have us believe. An interesting article - still based in part on computer models, but relevant to the topic: "Because there was also less CO2 being removed from the atmosphere by vegetation and by weathering rocks than today, total atmospheric CO2 levels were probably five times higher than at the present, the researchers said. The findings suggest much higher CO2 levels than had been estimated in previous studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. That research had been based on indirect data from sea-level variations. Since then, scientists' understanding of Earth has improved significantly, and researchers already had begun to suspect that the old estimates were imperfect." http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html Yes, and show me the solar activity from the Jurassic period. Oh, you can't, well it doesn't matter, it's not like a single solar flare with the right magnitude and vector, could wipe out all life on earth or anything. Newsflash: without it, you can't predict a damn thing. These 2 unmitigated morons are doing exactly what I was talking about above: assuming a high level of sensitivity, and "extrapolating". Meanwhile, notice how the ONLY variable here is CO2? We know that there are many variables that affect climate...but...we're back to pretending that CO2 is the only one. What about methane? Nah, Volcanoes never produce methane, or anything else...just CO2. And, while we are at it: what was the ocean doing during the Jurassic period? Was it also acting as a massive heat sink....just like it is today, if you believe in AGW-save ass Speculation #1? What were the clouds doing? Were they causing a pause in Global Warming....just like they are doing today, if you believe in AGW-save ass Speculation #3? Once again, we see non-scientific method that is constantly applied to this issue on display: posit "settled" theory, and then go seek evidence to support it, and ignore all things that "deny" it. Hypothesis? Repeatable experiments? What's that? And on top of that those damn GW hoaxer's constantly cherry pick data points!!! Yeah....20 F'ing years worth of using the same methodology to collect global surface temp data is...exactly like cherry picking. I'll restate Tom's question: What kind of engineer are you? Sanitation? You may not like the facts, but you aren't entitled to ignore them. The fact is that "the pause" is just as real as anything anybody else is saying about this topic. EDIT: IF if wasn't...why then are the AGW consensus clowns scurrying about trying to find data to support these hastily thrown up speculations in response to "the pause"? Once again: behavior tells us what we need to know. One cannot discuss this topic seriously, or scientifically, unless one includes the 18 year(Seems like just yesterday it was a 10-year pause, now it's 18, and heading off to college soon ) pause in observed surface temperature in that discussion. It is empirical evidence that you simply cannot wish away. Edited January 13, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 So, the models aren't just wrong, they are way wrong. We are dumping a lot more CO2 than they assumed, and they aren't even close to proving causation on global surface temps. Don Paul said that the pause in warming is due to a regular cycle of cooling that is covering the increased warming, so once that temporary cooling passes we will get a lot more warming. I mean carbon does cause warming, you admit that, and we are dumping tons of it in the air, so it reasons to expect the higher temps
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Don Paul said that the pause in warming is due to a regular cycle of cooling that is covering the increased warming, so once that temporary cooling passes we will get a lot more warming. I mean carbon does cause warming, you admit that, and we are dumping tons of it in the air, so it reasons to expect the higher temps Now you're doing that just to piss me off. Carbon does not cause warming. CO2 causes warming. Water vapor causes more warming.
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Now you're doing that just to piss me off. Carbon does not cause warming. CO2 causes warming. Water vapor causes more warming. There isn't any carbon in CO2?
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 There isn't any carbon in CO2? No, but "carbon" doesn't cause warming. Carbon dioxide causes warming. So does methane (CH4). Carbon monoxide doesn't. Carbon-based aerosols - like graphite - have a cooling effect. The carbon in CO2 doesn't cause global warming - it's only when combined with two oxygen molecules that it does, because it absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation. The difference is IMPORTANT, believe it or not. The difference between six billion tons of carbon, and six billion tons of carbon dioxide is extremely significant.
Tiberius Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 No, but "carbon" doesn't cause warming. Carbon dioxide causes warming. So does methane (CH4). Carbon monoxide doesn't. Carbon-based aerosols - like graphite - have a cooling effect. The carbon in CO2 doesn't cause global warming - it's only when combined with two oxygen molecules that it does, because it absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation. The difference is IMPORTANT, believe it or not. The difference between six billion tons of carbon, and six billion tons of carbon dioxide is extremely significant. Ok!!
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Ok!! I really want to know...do you know the difference between six billion tons of carbon and six billion tons of carbon dioxide?
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I really want to know...do you know the difference between six billion tons of carbon and six billion tons of carbon dioxide? 3.5?
Recommended Posts