Lungs of the planet reveal their true sensitivity to global warming

Feb 6, 2013 Full story: Science Daily 38

But the amount of carbon dioxide that rainforests absorb, or produce, varies hugely with year-to-year variations in the climate.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
PHD

Overton, TX

#22 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
He took it from the IPCC. Know him through another forum by the way.
Yeah -- knew you wouldn't like these facts.
It's what convinced the scientific agencies.
Again, no I donít have a degree in BULL S. only you qualify for that type of degree. So do to your limited mental capacity let me repeat. No I don't have that degree in Bull S. only you could qualify fort that type of degree. You do show all that you are the best and was top of your class. I bet they gave you that Bull S. Medal of Honor.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#23 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
He took it from the IPCC. Know him through another forum by the way.
Yeah -- knew you wouldn't like these facts.
It's what convinced the scientific agencies.
So go back and debate him. No wonder you don't respond, a response requires some level of knowledge. You can't just cut and paste your end of a discussion.

Try again. Tell me something you know and can support with scientific evidence.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#24 Feb 17, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
So go back and debate him. No wonder you don't respond, a response requires some level of knowledge. You can't just cut and paste your end of a discussion.
Try again. Tell me something you know and can support with scientific evidence.
Sure. I'm going to guess where you want the citations. Am happy to cme back and find you the graph if you disagree with what I state.

#1 I think it is agreed TSI has been roughly steady over the last 50 years. Iíve put this graph out before.
#2 If you pull RSS graphs on the stratosphere and troposphere, it is easily confirmed the stratosphere is cooling and the troposphere is warming [a unique signature of CO2 warming -- predicted from the models and confirmed]
#3 To me, the physics explained here holds.
If it was sunlight, sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles.
Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambertís cosine law). Instead we see ďpolar amplification,Ē another thing predicted by the climate modelers. For those who don't know Lambert's cosine law, it's:

I = Io cos &#952;

where Io is the radiation measured perpendicular to the surface in question and &#952; is the angle the surface is turned away from that radiation. For the Earth, &#952; is the latitude. So you can see that at latitude 0 (the equator), the solar constant hits full on, whereas at latitude 90 (the poles), there's no illumination at all. Clearly this is an ideal case and applies strictly to a planet with no axial tilt which only gets illumination from the sun, but on average it's still true for the Earth.

So why polar amplification? There are two reasons. One is "ice-albedo feedback"--as more bright polar ice melts, more dark land or seawater is revealed to the sun, and dark things absorb light better than bright things. Another is that colder air holds less water vapor. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. In cold regions with less water vapor in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide accounts for proportionally more of the greenhouse heating. So with carbon dioxide rising, you get faster global warming the closer you get to the poles.

#4 Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures
Citation:
4.2.2. Trends in Climate, Sea Level, and CO2
Summary:.... Mean temperatures have risen by up to 0.1C per decade over the past century; nighttime temperatures have risen faster than daytime temperatures; and the past decade has seen the highest mean annual temperatures ever recorded

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/...

#5 Increased sunlight would increase summer more than winter temperatures
Citation:
The numbers I show measures the actual results (only over the US from 2000 )

,,
Since 2000, in the average month, record highs (high maximum temperature) beat out record lows (low minimum temperature) by a two to one margin. This is exactly what has been found in previous peer reviewed studies ó including this study, published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2009...

Interestingly, when I looked at different months of the year, I found that the nighttime warming was even greater during the summer. During June, July and August, record high minimum temperatures outnumbered record low minimum temperatures by about three to one.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/record-wa...

[This is explained from the impact of clouds]

Tell me if you need more. Was watching the size of the post.
PHD

Overton, TX

#25 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
He took it from the IPCC. Know him through another forum by the way.
Yeah -- knew you wouldn't like these facts.
It's what convinced the scientific agencies.
You canít even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#27 Feb 17, 2013
Are you going to call yourself dirtling?
PHD

Overton, TX

#28 Feb 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Are you going to call yourself dirtling?
Why that would be a great name for you. That bottle thing you hit may go away.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#29 Feb 17, 2013
Call yourself, degreeless!!! All lower key.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#30 Feb 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Call yourself, degreeless!!! All lower key.
I don't care she has no degree.
I do care she is on some anti-science rampage to try and prevent anyone else from learning.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care she has no degree.
I do care she is on some anti-science rampage to try and prevent anyone else from learning.
You canít even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.
Your wrong you don't have a character to insult.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#33 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. I'm going to guess where you want the citations. Am happy to cme back and find you the graph if you disagree with what I state.
#1 I think it is agreed TSI has been roughly steady over the last 50 years. Iíve put this graph out before..
I've shown you papers and graphs. Let me try to explain it a different way.

If you went away from home and turned the furnace down to 50*, when you returned home you reset the thermostat to 70*. The furnace is going to turn on and produce the same amount of heat at the same rate until the temperature detected by the thermostat reaches 70*.

The amount of heat the furnace produces doesn't change, the temperature in the house does change. It goes up because more heat energy is being input to the system even as the amount of heat at any given minute is the same amount.

You can say the last half of the 20th century the solar output was flat, it was flat out hot. Our sun put more heat energy into our system during the last half of the 20th century than at any other time during the previously recorded 400 years. More heat energy than 90% of the proxy studies indicate for the holocene.

That heat energy does not have a 1:1 relationship with temperature. The sun produces the heat the oceans absorb the heat and make the climate. Lakes such as the great lakes also absorb heat, so do resevoirs. Land masses also absorb heat just not as much. And yes, here where I live you can really feel the sun on a hot day, in fact all that fancy egg frying on the sidewalks is possible here in the summer time (reality is it takes a while to cook but it will cook). It's also very possible to see how much of that heat energy was retained and released by the sidewalks at night.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can trap heat, it cannot make heat. There has to be heat for CO2 to trap. More heat in the system more heat for CO2 to trap, less heat, less heat trapped by CO2.

Our temperatures did not go up because of CO2. Our temperatures went up because of solar energy. Increased temperatures cause sequested greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere.

The ice core data clearly shows the relationship between temps and CO2. For the last 700,000 years, temperatures have gone up and CO2 follows. Temperatures go down and CO2 follows. In the ice core data there is about an 800 year lag time in the data sets. Temps go up and 800 years later CO2 goes up.

The 800 years is consistent but is also limited due to the distribution of data points in the ice cores. Some data points are as much as 1000 years apart and dating issues over a 700,000 year study are expected, given that 800 years is reasonable. If data points were closer we might see a different lag time. What is important is the pattern of activity 800 years or 83 years, CO2 follows temperatures.

Man has increase CO2 values in the atmosphere, but by how much? No one seems to know. Some say it all man made, others quote a very small percentage. To date no one can answer the question that isn't robustly disputed with similar data showing a different result.

We have been measuring TSI for the same amount of time UAH and RSS have been measuring temps, since 1978/80. We are making our best guesses as to what we should expect, but truth is we don't know. Lots of values were assigned to solar energy before we started to measure it, now we know what we thought we knew was wrong. We have been able to watch in real time that which we expected, not happen.

We know so much more today about how our oceans make climate than we did even 10 years ago. The PDO in 1977 was called the Great Pacific Climate Shift. Scientists didn't know what it was in 1977, the PDO wasn't even give a name until the early 90s. Now everyone is conversant in ENSO. But to be truly 'multidecadal' you need to learn AO, MOC, NAO, SOI etc, each has it's own climate impact and it's own pattern of activity.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#34 Feb 18, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I've shown you papers and graphs. Let me try to explain it a different way. If you went away from home and turned the furnace down to 50*, when you returned home you reset the thermostat to 70*. The furnace is going to turn on and produce the same amount of heat at the same rate until the temperature detected by the thermostat reaches 70*.
I've read about this one, FF.

The analogy is you turn up your furnace to 70*, like you say. You keep it set at the same for 30 years, and the heating doesn't stay steady but keeps INCREASING, even accelerating in the later years. Something else is going on.

See Deltas (changes) are an important concept.

UCAR has a great paper here on TSI.
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2505n1339
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
That heat energy does not have a 1:1 relationship with temperature. The sun produces the heat the oceans absorb the heat and make the climate. Lakes such as the great lakes also absorb heat, so do resevoirs. Land masses also absorb heat just not as much....in fact all that fancy egg frying on the sidewalks is possible here in the summer time (reality is it takes a while to cook but it will cook). It's also very possible to see how much of that heat energy was retained and released by the sidewalks at night.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it can trap heat, it cannot make heat. There has to be heat for CO2 to trap. More heat in the system more heat for CO2 to trap, less heat, less heat trapped by CO2.
They have looked for lags like this. No one can see the physics where this would be 30 years. I have seen this discussed on RealClimate.com
You must have an increasing heat source over the 30 year period too -- ELSE THE PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK!
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Our temperatures did not go up because of CO2. Our temperatures went up because of solar energy. Increased temperatures cause sequested greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere.
The ice core data clearly shows the relationship between temps and CO2. For the last 700,000 years, temperatures have gone up and CO2 follows. Temperatures go down and CO2 follows. In the ice core data there is about an 800 year lag time in the data sets. Temps go up and 800 years later CO2 goes up.
The 800 is an average. About 800 years out of the roughly 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles is about .1% of the time the CO2 and temperature do not map very closely together.

You see, other 99.9% of the time, temperature and CO2 from ice cores are very much synchronized.

It takes a .1% lead time for the earth's changes in orbit, wobbles, and rotational tilt (which increase sunlight) to melt sea ice and glaciers. The ice loss has a positive feedback effect because there is now less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo).
When the oceans warms, it releases more CO2 in the air, and likely decreases biological activity (from phytoplankton, etc).

This further warms the earth. The rest of the roughly 99.9% of the time the CO2 and temperature cycles are synchonized (but only about 1000 years lead time of CO2 -- ie the .1% for the time to melt the ice.)

This means it was the increase in CO2 (triggered by the initial Milankovitch cycles) that set the rest of the warming cycle going.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperat...
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>

We know so much more today about how our oceans make climate than we did even 10 years ago. The PDO in 1977 was called the Great Pacific Climate Shift. Scientists didn't know what it was in 1977, the PDO wasn't even give a name until the early 90s. Now everyone is conversant in ENSO. But to be truly 'multidecadal' you need to learn AO, MOC, NAO, SOI etc, each has it's own climate impact and it's own pattern of activity.
UCAR also has a great paper on PDOs. Check it out.
I don't think you're reading science sources.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets...
PHD

Overton, TX

#35 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read about this one, FF.
The analogy is you turn up your furnace to 70*, like you say. You keep it set at the same for 30 years, and the heating doesn't stay steady but keeps INCREASING, even accelerating in the later years. Something else is going on.
See Deltas (changes) are an important concept.
UCAR has a great paper here on TSI.
http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2505n1339
<quoted text>
They have looked for lags like this. No one can see the physics where this would be 30 years. I have seen this discussed on RealClimate.com
You must have an increasing heat source over the 30 year period too -- ELSE THE PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK!
<quoted text>
The 800 is an average. About 800 years out of the roughly 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles is about .1% of the time the CO2 and temperature do not map very closely together.
You see, other 99.9% of the time, temperature and CO2 from ice cores are very much synchronized.
It takes a .1% lead time for the earth's changes in orbit, wobbles, and rotational tilt (which increase sunlight) to melt sea ice and glaciers. The ice loss has a positive feedback effect because there is now less ice reflecting sunlight back into space (decreased albedo).
When the oceans warms, it releases more CO2 in the air, and likely decreases biological activity (from phytoplankton, etc).
This further warms the earth. The rest of the roughly 99.9% of the time the CO2 and temperature cycles are synchonized (but only about 1000 years lead time of CO2 -- ie the .1% for the time to melt the ice.)
This means it was the increase in CO2 (triggered by the initial Milankovitch cycles) that set the rest of the warming cycle going.
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperat...
<quoted text>
UCAR also has a great paper on PDOs. Check it out.
I don't think you're reading science sources.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets...
You canít even be original Commander TROLL!!!! See that Bull S. degree again got you walloped and in the crapper. That Ha HA you hear is the void between your ears called an echo.
Your wrong you don't have a character to insult.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#36 Feb 18, 2013
A nut for the spammer phd who is impersonating a poster with a degree.

LOL
PHD

Overton, TX

#37 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
A nut for the spammer phd who is impersonating a poster with a degree.
LOL
And just when I had high hopes. You toss another insult out there. See why your the commander of Trolls?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#38 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
to ph'd:
A nut for the spammer .. who is impersonating a poster with a degree.
LOL
Yeah, it's impersonating another professional degree, MD, by prescribing pills on Topix.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#39 Feb 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, it's impersonating another professional degree, MD, by prescribing pills on Topix.
Oh that was to the dinosaurs. I agree with her on that one.
HA HA. Even quoted her on it to them.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40 Feb 18, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh that was to the dinosaurs. I agree with her on that one.
HA HA. Even quoted her on it to them.
You did not notice what it is posting to me.

ph'd is angry with both of us and litesong et al.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#41 Feb 18, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You did not notice what it is posting to me.
ph'd is angry with both of us and litesong et al.
That thread was too crazy for me.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min safetypills 48,528
Conservationists sue over federal coal program 1 hr frankly 3
Global warming could undermine poverty fight: W... 2 hr IBdaMann 6
Global Warming "PREDICTIONS" 2 hr IBdaMann 90
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 2 hr IBdaMann 27,685
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr IBdaMann 33,269
Renewable Energy Will Never Work, But Can Nuclear? 3 hr IBdaMann 8

Global Warming People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE