The Science.

[johnofgwent]

This is interesting



https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.amp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/n ... e-junk.amp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.amp



Now, it seems that while CO2 acts as an efficient heat trap at the lower atmosphere, in the upper atmosphere where less air pressure allows molecules to separate, it actually works as a coolant, dispersing heat. So there is concern the troposphere above which our satellites orbit is shrinking, and hard vacuum starts lower than it used to.



Which is apparently destabilising to satellites. First I've heard of that, mind. And I've helped out a few up, admittedly 30 years ago...

[Baron von Lotsov]

Would it though ?



I'm supposed to be the mathematical modeller in this household given my work on transport of materials into cell membranes broke the university mainframe ... yet ironically it's my youngest whose stolen that crown, and from the stuff she was doing years ago the atmosphere really is a bugger to model. Yes C02 levels should accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, but all that will do is increase the oxygen level near the ground

Ah yes the so called micro climate, i.e. oxygen rich next to the leaves. Point accepted, but we do have wind and diffusion as well. I guess I should have said, "its a bit more complicated than that". Plant growth is affected by the light, the CO2, the nutrients + temperature + a whole load of other lesser factors, and it turns out the rate of growth is the limiting factor. So more CO2 without the light is not going to make any difference if the light is the current limiting factor, and ditto for the other factors too. One point about fumes from burning hydrocarbons is they give off some rather noxious gasses which plants really hate.

 and convert atmospheric carbon into leaf matter at the cost of nitrogen and phosphporus ... increasing leaf litter in wooded areas which will increase the water absorbency in those wooded arteas denying the rainfall the means to drain into watercourses, reducing groundwater levels and the consequent risk of flooding...



And the extra heat would rise into the atmosphere where the one thing it would certainly impact is the water cycle by messing with the ability of water vapour to condense as rain to a tiny degree the significance of which is hard to guesstimate.

hmm, so are there actually studies on this?

On the old forum one of the rabid europhiles accused me of being a climate change denier. I'm not a climate change denier, I'm a caller out of gonzo scientists and my qualifications for doing so are years of trying to apply mathematical models to biological systems, albeit a long time ago, the main conclusions of that work being it's effing hard to do, and the world is notoriously bad at sticking to such models...

I can't remember offhand, but without global warming the earth would be minus an extremely cold temperature. So cold in fact that it is considered that life would probably not have existed without it. It's given me an idea for a poster to promote the the benefits of global warming! It's just another hobby of mine creating surreal signs amongst all the propaganda posted about in our town.

[johnofgwent]

Maybe but I don't need the science explained to me as if I was a six year old by certain individuals  :rant:





A question for you then. Seeing as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and the amount we produce is negligible and that CO2 weighs 30% more than air, how is CO2 a driver of temperature? How does it get up there when it is so heavy?



Also the Earth has had many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now and been much much warmer. See below.



https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/080417_0233_paleoclimat1.jpg?w=720">

I'll think on that a bit and get back to you once I've grilled my youngest - whose just pissed off to work - about the atmospheric cycle.

[johnofgwent]

Crop production will go up with increased CO2 and temperature. People say it will make the human race extinct, but what if it actually saved lives? I mean it could help famines. The extra heat also causes the water to evaporate from the oceans more. It could increase rainfall in tropical and otherwise arid areas.

Would it though ?



I'm supposed to be the mathematical modeller in this household given my work on transport of materials into cell membranes broke the university mainframe ... yet ironically it's my youngest whose stolen that crown, and from the stuff she was doing years ago the atmosphere really is a bugger to model. Yes C02 levels should accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, but all that will do is increase the oxygen level near the ground and convert atmospheric carbon into leaf matter at the cost of nitrogen and phosphporus ... increasing leaf litter in wooded areas which will increase the water absorbency in those wooded arteas denying the rainfall the means to drain into watercourses, reducing groundwater levels and the consequent risk of flooding...



And the extra heat would rise into the atmosphere where the one thing it would certainly impact is the water cycle by messing with the ability of water vapour to condense as rain to a tiny degree the significance of which is hard to guesstimate.



On the old forum one of the rabid europhiles accused me of being a climate change denier. I'm not a climate change denier, I'm a caller out of gonzo scientists and my qualifications for doing so are years of trying to apply mathematical models to biological systems, albeit a long time ago, the main conclusions of that work being it's effing hard to do, and the world is notoriously bad at sticking to such models...

[Nick]

In this particular case though, I think the point has some merit. I speak as one whose first paycheck was earned in part measuring the effect of higher than atmospheric CO2 on capture of radiant energy in a cold frame as part of a three month stint as a research tech looking at levels of solar energy hitting the ground ... In 1979.



I am absolutely convinced an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in capture of the solar energy passing through the atmosphere, warming the ground and the resulting heating effect not being fully dispersed back into space. .



But the model is insanely complex.



I am not remotely convinced of the figures being put forward by the climate change fundamentalists.



I also note the higher level of CO2 in the age of the dinosaurs and note we did not run away then. But we had a "nuclear winter" courtesy of the dino killer asteroid



Maybe we need another of those ...

Maybe but I don't need the science explained to me as if I was a six year old by certain individuals  :rant:





A question for you then. Seeing as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and the amount we produce is negligible and that CO2 weighs 30% more than air, how is CO2 a driver of temperature? How does it get up there when it is so heavy?



Also the Earth has had many times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now and been much much warmer. See below.



https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/080417_0233_paleoclimat1.jpg?w=720">

[Baron von Lotsov]

Crop production will go up with increased CO2 and temperature. People say it will make the human race extinct, but what if it actually saved lives? I mean it could help famines. The extra heat also causes the water to evaporate from the oceans more. It could increase rainfall in tropical and otherwise arid areas.



It's just that if the climate changers are allowed to make productions then we can too!

[johnofgwent]

Have you never noticed that many threads you post in come to a grinding haunt? I almost never answer a post that you have commented on because it is either something condescending, like a junior school teacher explaining science to 6 year olds or something misogynistic containing 'My Woman'. Just something to ponder.

In this particular case though, I think the point has some merit. I speak as one whose first paycheck was earned in part measuring the effect of higher than atmospheric CO2 on capture of radiant energy in a cold frame as part of a three month stint as a research tech looking at levels of solar energy hitting the ground ... In 1979.



I am absolutely convinced an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in capture of the solar energy passing through the atmosphere, warming the ground and the resulting heating effect not being fully dispersed back into space. .



But the model is insanely complex.



I am not remotely convinced of the figures being put forward by the climate change fundamentalists.



I also note the higher level of CO2 in the age of the dinosaurs and note we did not run away then. But we had a "nuclear winter" courtesy of the dino killer asteroid



Maybe we need another of those ...

[Baron von Lotsov]

Have you never noticed that many threads you post in come to a grinding haunt? I almost never answer a post that you have commented on because it is either something condescending, like a junior school teacher explaining science to 6 year olds or something misogynistic containing 'My Woman'. Just something to ponder.

I've noticed that you never have anything scientific to say which goes beyond that. Perhaps you are struggling to keep up.

[Nick]

The model uses the transmission characteristics of C02 gas + all the other gases. Specifically it is wavelength dependant, and this is what causes the greenhouse effect. We can get these figures very accurately here on earth in laboratory experiments. Actually you can even go a stage further and calculate it exactly using quantum mechanics. I have a book on this very subject so I'm convinced this is OK.



So the more CO2, the more radiation from the sun is kept as heat on earth rather than to disappear off into space. It does the same as the insulation around your boiler, so that is easy to understand. What we wonder about though are things like will the CO2 just carry on building up or say will it make all the vegetation around the world think ooo lovely, just what i like to breathe and then grow faster than before, and with extra warming this will also promote growth, thereby causing the CO2 level to reach a new equilibrium and stick there happily.

Have you never noticed that many threads you post in come to a grinding haunt? I almost never answer a post that you have commented on because it is either something condescending, like a junior school teacher explaining science to 6 year olds or something misogynistic containing 'My Woman'. Just something to ponder.

[Baron von Lotsov]

All these models are built on the premise that an increase in CO2 increases temperature. So what a shock that when they increase CO2 the output is a temperature increase. This isn't science, this is a child's toy.

The model uses the transmission characteristics of C02 gas + all the other gases. Specifically it is wavelength dependant, and this is what causes the greenhouse effect. We can get these figures very accurately here on earth in laboratory experiments. Actually you can even go a stage further and calculate it exactly using quantum mechanics. I have a book on this very subject so I'm convinced this is OK.



So the more CO2, the more radiation from the sun is kept as heat on earth rather than to disappear off into space. It does the same as the insulation around your boiler, so that is easy to understand. What we wonder about though are things like will the CO2 just carry on building up or say will it make all the vegetation around the world think ooo lovely, just what i like to breathe and then grow faster than before, and with extra warming this will also promote growth, thereby causing the CO2 level to reach a new equilibrium and stick there happily.

[Baron von Lotsov]

The ice core records show quite clearly that CO2 is a product of temperature and not a driver of temperature. CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.



The great big burning ball in the sky is what drives our climate, as our orbit through space changes slightly so does the temperature of the earth. In 8 thousand years Europe will be under a mile of ice as we are back in an ice age.

Yes but that does not answer this specific question and nor did the professor.



This is how you are supposed to test your theories, by finding odd situations and seeing if they model them as well. If they don't then we know they are in error. You can't go on without fixing errors! That's my motto anyway.

[Nick]

I've decided we are being hoodwinked upon a grand scale. It's all about taking money out of our pockets.

There was evidence that the earth was warming, but it has stopped. There is definitely evidence that CO2 levels are rising, but they are still only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

There is evidence of an increase in the numbers of polar bears, is this related?

There is a massive amount of evidence of lying and tampering with data, manipulation and massaging of figures.

Light reading:

Ocean acidification does NOT impair the behaviour of coral reef fish.

https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/">//https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

(James Cook University falsified the original studies)



Glacier National Park to replace signs saying glaciers will be gone by 2020:   ::

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac">//https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac

Because it was a lie.



Remember the Cambridge emails scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy">//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



David Attenborough lies about Polar Bears

https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/">//https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/



Lies about walruses

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/



What I do believe is that there are many factors affecting the weather and climate on the earth. Mankind does have an effect.

However the Sun has the greatest effect as it is not a constant source of power, it varies with an 11 year cycle. There have also been some deeper lows in output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum">Maunder minimum

There are also volcanic events which cause climate change.

https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate">//https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate



97% of scientists believe the earth is warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">//https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Even though it has stopped:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/



Well done if you could be bothered reading all that!

I've read a fair bit of it, it just goes to show how gullible people are. It must be true, Attenborough said it.

[Barry]

All these models are built on the premise that an increase in CO2 increases temperature. So what a shock that when they increase CO2 the output is a temperature increase. This isn't science, this is a child's toy.

I've decided we are being hoodwinked upon a grand scale. It's all about taking money out of our pockets.

There was evidence that the earth was warming, but it has stopped. There is definitely evidence that CO2 levels are rising, but they are still only 0.04% of the atmosphere.

There is evidence of an increase in the numbers of polar bears, is this related?

There is a massive amount of evidence of lying and tampering with data, manipulation and massaging of figures.

Light reading:

Ocean acidification does NOT impair the behaviour of coral reef fish.

https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/">//https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

(James Cook University falsified the original studies)



Glacier National Park to replace signs saying glaciers will be gone by 2020:   ::

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac">//https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/8/glacier-national-park-to-replace-signs-saying-glac

Because it was a lie.



Remember the Cambridge emails scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy">//https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy



David Attenborough lies about Polar Bears

https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/">//https://www.thegwpf.org/david-attenborough-accused-of-misleading-public-about-polar-bears-again/



Lies about walruses

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/15/our-planet-film-crew-is-still-lying-about-walrus-cliff-deaths-heres-how-we-know/



What I do believe is that there are many factors affecting the weather and climate on the earth. Mankind does have an effect.

However the Sun has the greatest effect as it is not a constant source of power, it varies with an 11 year cycle. There have also been some deeper lows in output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum">Maunder minimum

There are also volcanic events which cause climate change.

https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate">//https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/how-volcanoes-influence-climate



97% of scientists believe the earth is warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">//https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Even though it has stopped:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/">//https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/the-planet-is-no-longer-warming/



Well done if you could be bothered reading all that!

[Nick]

It's based on a mathematical model. It's referred to as zero dimensional as it models the whole earth as one system and forms what is a linear sum of different functions, and these are the functions of the various sources and sinks, and the radiation balance of the earth is modelled as a sum of incoming energy and outgoing energy. The albedo of the earth is important here and I believe it is factored in.  There have been quite a few papers written on how accurately this approach works with experimental data, and t is said to be pretty good. The question really is, is it any good. I mean it is logical alright, but actually quite crude. Sometimes crude models work but then sometimes you get complex behaviours in the system which can't be modelled in this way. Perhaps also the vegetation on the earth will behave in a different way to how they expect it to. Plants are incredibly intelligent things. It's only in the last few years have scientists understood a lot about what plants do and how they know what is going on. They might genetically mutate into triffids and suck every gram of CO2 up.

All these models are built on the premise that an increase in CO2 increases temperature. So what a shock that when they increase CO2 the output is a temperature increase. This isn't science, this is a child's toy.

[Nick]

OK some professor in Cambridge, who I think was on the BBC or similar, was going on about arctic ice. This was apparently the world's leading authority on it, since only ourselves have bothered to run a great long time-frame survey of it. So we get the historical view of what is happening, and we are told the evidence states quite a lot of places show evidence that global warming has had an effect on the ice, typically that it is has melted compared to records going right back to the old days of arctic exploration. He then states there are some areas where there is zero evidence of global warming affecting the ice. Then he makes a false statement and says it is because some areas have less sensitivity to global warming than others. No they don't. He's just contradicted himself. The sensitivity is your factor in the equation, and for areas that have not seen any change then this must be zero sensitivity, which is vastly different to simply a lower sensitivity. The question is why? It is quite convincing to say there would be variability, in the geology varies and other parameters, so I would not question that, but just how some areas see zero is bewildering. A scientist would naturally see this as a serious clue. If an explanation can be found it may well reveal much more. There could be an unknown factor at play, but he is quite happy to gloss over stuff like this, and that worries me.

The ice core records show quite clearly that CO2 is a product of temperature and not a driver of temperature. CO2 lags temperature by 800 years.



The great big burning ball in the sky is what drives our climate, as our orbit through space changes slightly so does the temperature of the earth. In 8 thousand years Europe will be under a mile of ice as we are back in an ice age.