Expert: We must act fast on warming

[Earthling]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

I think that you are building straw men again. Tell us who has stated that all the warming is from AGW?

If you haven't seen them posting here, it's time for you to gave up commenting.

[Brian_G]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

Nature did not push CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm. And as we DID, we have to accept the consequences...

We all accept that the climate has been warming since the end of the last ice age. That warming appears to be at the rage of 1°F per century. As the climate warms, the oceans warm and when they do CO2 is released into the air, like an open soda pop going flat as it warms. This is simple physics, all the increase isn't man made.

[NobodyYouKnow]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your math is off a bit.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/arti...

Good reference. Thanks.

[NobodyYouKnow]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
We all accept that the climate has been warming since the end of the last ice age.

Not. The end of the last ice age was a steep rise but the interglacial has been up and down ( nearly level but cooling very slightly over the last millenia at least)

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
That warming appears to be at the rage of 1°F per century.

Not. The last millenia was about -0.02C per century.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
As the climate warms, the oceans warm and when they do CO2 is released into the air, like an open soda pop going flat as it warms.

Not. The CO2 rise from fossil fuel emissions is well documented and isotope analysis proves that the additional 120 ppm comes from fossil fuels. THe oceans have been ACIDIFYING because they are taking up the OTHER half of the combustion emissions by taking IN CO2, not releasing it.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
This is simple physics, all the increase isn't man made.

Simple physics is that higher partial pressure from adding CO2 to the air will increase levels in the ocean, and there is NO presssure decrease as with a pop bottle fizz.

Simple MINDED physics is a playground for idiots. As you demonstrate. i.e. If we ignore all the FACTS you can make very silly statements.

[Fair Game]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your math is off a bit.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/arti...
A bit short of the three percent that you projected for the past 60 years.

That site is chock-full of good science. Thanks.

[ephotonic]

As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, it is expected that more should dissolve in the ocean (Henry's Law). However, as the global temperatrure heats up, or the ocean heats up, the solubility of CO2 should decrease. Im not sure what the balance is, but it is plausible that as things heat up, more CO2 is realeased as well as more water vapor, causing even more warming.

[litesong]

ephotonic wrote:

If your (sic) going......... Ill (sic) bet ther (sic).... your (sic) now...... your (sic)......., your (sic)........

Are you sure, you're (not your) NOT tina anne?

[Jon24]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
I & several AGW advocates have reported the answer to your question 20 or 30 times.........
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/...

And as I have pointed out to you, and you have ignored because you have no answer, your link refers to antarctic ice.

My question revolves around THE ARCTIC not the antarctic. You conveniently trot out this story every time I bring up the fact that ARCTIC sea ice is larger now than it was 2 years ago. Again if mans CO2 output is causing the ice to melt, temps up everywhere,(except in the US 2nd largest emmission culprit of the globe, because of as aka puts it drift) How is any gain in the ARCTIC possible?
As for the south
" Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very odd" things occurring in recent years. The Southern Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory, says Michaels. "The models predict a warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate model, Michaels adds."

[Jon24]

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
The part where you start talking about real world atmsopheres and the real effects of their constituents.
Do you know the 'black body equilibrium' temperature for the Earth at 1au?
How does it compare to the surface temperature?
What is the effect of the earths albedo?

You are splicing hair here, you said I didn't mention water in the air blah blah
Now you are asking about studies based on the suns radiation visa ve greenhouse gasses.
A fraction of the sun's radiation is immediately reflected back into space, either from the atmosphere, clouds, or the Earth's surface. The Albedo () of the Earth is the fraction of the Sun's radiation which is reflected back into space. Thus, the net amount of solar radiation arriving on a 1 m2 area (perpendicular to sun) on the earth's surface is:

So(1-).
something like that?

[Jon24]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your math is off a bit.
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/arti...
A bit short of the three percent that you projected for the past 60 years.

Again, you avoid answering the questions and attack some other way. So this "assessment of the likely increase of CO2" you are attempting to change the subject, yet you prove my point.

If you use the assessments own presumptions of "Now 26.7 billion (the weight in tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, see (A) above), divided by 4.41 million billion gives the fraction 6 /one million which means that the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels is equal to 6 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere by weight.(6 millionths)"
I think your right, my math is a little low for the last sixty years. It would be much higher! Which we all know is total BS.
by the way, "the Amazon rainforest is probably absorbing 2 billion tons of carbon per year" is "probably" low

" the level of fossil fuel burning rises by say only 25%(a much bigger rise is predicted)"
Who predicted this, and where? This whole thing revolves around the US and the rest of the world increasing fossil fuel by 25%.
But hey, don't answer those questions I posed to you, we all know the answer anyway. You can't answer them, because your models say they aren't so.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you avoid answering the questions and attack some other way. So this "assessment of the likely increase of CO2" you are attempting to change the subject, yet you prove my point....

Ocean currents.
Weather pattern.
Yes
No correlation
Many years. Some say up to 100 years.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
...

" the level of fossil fuel burning rises by say only 25%(a much bigger rise is predicted)"
Who predicted this, and where? This whole thing revolves around the US and the rest of the world increasing fossil fuel by 25%.
But hey, don't answer those questions I posed to you, we all know the answer anyway. You can't answer them, because your models say they aren't so.

You left out the conditional "if".

"If[the conditional] the level of fossil fuel burning rises by say only 25%(a much bigger rise is predicted) and if natural processes do not increase their rate of absorption then the rate of increase will become 3 + 25% of 6 = 4.5 ppm per year"

So you see, it is not a prediction but a conditional. It may or may not be true, but if it does (If the growth of fossil fuel use rate were to continue it certainly would!) this much more CO2 would be added to the atmosphere.

[Jon24]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You left out the conditional "if".
"If[the conditional] the level of fossil fuel burning rises by say only 25%(a much bigger rise is predicted) and if natural processes do not increase their rate of absorption then the rate of increase will become 3 + 25% of 6 = 4.5 ppm per year"
So you see, it is not a prediction but a conditional. It may or may not be true, but if it does (If the growth of fossil fuel use rate were to continue it certainly would!) this much more CO2 would be added to the atmosphere.

Yes, but you have "Fair Game" and the k-nuck thinking it's "good science" , when it's filled with assumption, and if's and probably.
You say that wind drift is the reason that AGW lets us have the 3 coldest October EVER RECORDED. It has been said that CO2 stays in the air anywhere from 100 to 1000 years. Why does it not collect in one area of the world? How does it dissipate? does it just float down, burn off?

[LessHypeMoreFact]

ephotonic wrote:

As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, it is expected that more should dissolve in the ocean (Henry's Law). However, as the global temperatrure heats up, or the ocean heats up, the solubility of CO2 should decrease. Im not sure what the balance is, but it is plausible that as things heat up, more CO2 is realeased as well as more water vapor, causing even more warming.

It may be plausible to YOU but it is certainly not true.

The isotopic composition shows that the additonal CO2 in the air comes from combustion of 'fossil carbon' with atmospheric oxygen, and not CO2 from ocean storage.

We also have the fuel receipts that tell us where the CO2 came from, but it's nice to have a secondary check.

You can tell the difference because act

[Jon24]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
That site is chock-full of good science. Thanks.

If,assume, and probably, is not good science. It's a theory that includes a 25% increase in fossel fuel. Sure! You wouldn't know good science if it landed on your house..

[Jon24]

ephotonic wrote:

As the partial pressure of CO2 increases, it is expected that more should dissolve in the ocean (Henry's Law). However, as the global temperatrure heats up, or the ocean heats up, the solubility of CO2 should decrease. Im not sure what the balance is, but it is plausible that as things heat up, more CO2 is realeased as well as more water vapor, causing even more warming.

Except, as more water vapor saturates the air, the more dense it becomes. Which would mean more rain, that would create a cooling effect.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
which means that the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels is equal to 6 parts per million (ppm) of the atmosphere by weight.(6 millionths)"

About right I think for the recent decades. The fact that actual levels only rise by about 2.6 ppm or so is due to the fact that a lot of it goes into ocean and land 'sinks' such as woody growth and increased ocean acidity.

This has been known and studied since before the first IPCC report.

but 6 ppm times a century is only 600/1,000,000 or 6/10,000 or 6/100(/100)=.06 percent so even with no sequestration, your 'calculated' value of 3% is total nonsense.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
If,assume, and probably, is not good science. It's a theory that includes a 25% increase in fossel fuel. Sure! You wouldn't know good science if it landed on your house..

Are you Big Goof's brother? You have the same adolescent reasoning ability.

[Jon24]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you Big Goof's brother? You have the same adolescent reasoning ability.

Who?
I'm not the one claiming wind is saving the states

[Toni]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Try to gather what few neurons you possess and look at the science instead of bringing sacrifices to the alter of Beck!
It is the right wing folks that have attempted to turn science into politics. By propagandizing they have turned scientific advances into liberalism in their camp. The reason is two fold, they wish to protect their capitalists buddies over the public good and second, by continual demonizing a complex subject like global warming, they can throw doubt on it and by association belittle the liberals. Neither is for the common good and the latest PEW report shows that it is not working. The report shows that 77% of the people believe global warming is happening, in spite of the radical RW propaganda, and that we need to limit CO2.

Your polls is faulty. Dust off that crusty ole brain Banjo lips!