The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

CO2 & temperature don't correlate......................!!!!!!

 

Residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere.................!!!!

 

Granny says, "Dat's right, it's the end times - we all gonna die...

Study: Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Threaten Human Nutrition
May 07, 2014 ~ Climate change is threatening human nutrition, according to experts, who say rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are robbing the global population of vital plant nutrients.

 

To join the usual two-atom molecules, in Earth's atmosphere comes a lot of CO2.

When that happens, fast enough, a mass extinction event always occurs.

Humans not only emit CO2, but also NO2, SO2, CH4, and loads of non-degradable, industrial GHGs.

Humans also trash degradation and respiration media.

Some humans SPAM lots and lots of rambles, about how humanity does not neatly emit enough CO2, to cause disaster.

SO WHAT? Humans also happen to trash degradation and respiration media.

As a consequence, Obamanazis are all over the ambiguous media channels, enjoying gridlock.

Seems wasteful, to me.

 

SO WHAT, if temps see-saw, upward, SLOWLY?

Most of the warming goes, into the oceans, which are on the order of 93.6%, of all climate-interactive mass.

When a well-defined El Nino spike comes along, the surface temps and troposphere will show a hot spike.

Next . . .

 

Correlate? I don't think it means what you think it means.

[video=youtube;G2y8Sx4B2Sk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/video]

Nothing in this study is even remotely surprising. If you think it is, then you're just making the Murry Salby error all over again.

 

False.

False.

False.

False.

False.

If you don't understand why what you posted is completely and utterly false, just let me know and I would be happy to explain it to you.

 

Wow let's have some fun!!!!

 

Let's. Since you are now defending dumbanddumber's false statements and claiming that they're true, let's start at the top. Since you now believe (falsely) that "Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC," perhaps you can back up your false claim with evidence. What does the IPCC actually say about CO2 residence times, and where do they say it?

Put up your evidence, or admit that you're just plain wrong.

 

evidence!...you're gonna be waiting a very, very, very, very, long time....

 

Yeah, the amazing thing was that I caught him actually making a statement. I never imagined he was capable of having a real thought.

 

When you start your analysis with a differentiated time series that essentially removes long term trends like those from CO2, it's not surprising that you don't find a connection.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

 

As I've said before, peer-review is a pretty low bar. Sometimes crap (like Humlum et. al) get past it. But when that happens, you can count on it being jumped on pretty rapidly by people who know what they're talking about.

 

What's really funny is that the two articles refuting Humlum et. al are right there in the link dumbanddumber cut and pasted from, but he didn't bother to check them out.

 

So, I was out on vacation. I'll follow this up with the evidence you're looking for. But, while i'm doing that, please explain how it is that you know CO2 causes an increase in temperatures? I'm still waiting on that one. Or, you just ignore it because you don't have the evidence.

 

Ok, here you go:

From their own glossary, look up lifetime in the glossary and read.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/tar-ipcc-terms-en.pdf

snippet:

"Carbon dioxide is an extreme example. Its turnover
time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between
atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a
large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a
few years. Thus, the adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere
is actually determined by the rate of removal of carbon from
the surface layer of the oceans into its deeper layers. Although
an approximate value of 100 years may be given for the
adjustment time of CO2 in the atmosphere, the actual
adjustment is faster initially and slower later on. In the case of
methane, the adjustment time is different from the turnover
time, because the removal is mainly through a chemical
reaction with the hydroxyl radical OH, the concentration of
which itself depends on the CH4 concentration. Therefore the
CH4 removal S is not proportional to its total mass M."

 

Gee, let me just explain it to you again. For the third time. Because apparently deniers can't read. Or can't think.

First time I explained it and you ignored it:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=353353&p=1063833435#post1063833435

Second time I explained it and you ignored it:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=353653&p=1063847904#post1063847904

So here it is again:


CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.

So go right ahead and keep ignoring it. Because every time you do, you just prove how willfully ignorant you are.

 

So, when dumbanddumber said that a 5-year residence time was "much shorter" than claimed by the IPCC, I guess he was just plain wrong, according to your own analysis. Which means you were just plain wrong to defend his statement.

 

Considering that we've been pumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere for decades now, do you think we're past the 100 year adjustment rate yet?

 

Hey, I applaud your knowledge of the internet and being able to surf and find papers, but as I have stated, the fact is the data doesn't line up with the theory. And I've asked and you still haven't provided the evidence that all of what you pain stakingly looked up is happening the way all of that explains it. You see, it isn't, hasn't and history backs me up. 1940 to 1970 cool, It didn't do what all of that said was supposed to happen.

You claim to have mountains of evidence and instead have mountains of theory. So show the evidence that proves all those theories. It ain't in any of the links nor papers. IPCC AR5 report tells me so.

 

So I like how you completely ignored the reference to 4 years. How do you just do that?

"Carbon dioxide is an extreme example. Its turnover
time is only about 4 years because of the rapid exchange between
atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biota. However, a
large part of that CO2 is returned to the atmosphere within a
few years."

 

Yes, I will admit that on that I was in error. I missed the 4 year reference before. however, the IPCC's reference of 100 years is somewhat confusing.

 

Data? You've got data? That's news to me, because I've certainly never seen you post any.

Then you're just not reading what I've posted. Because among those references you repeatedly ignore are the ones showing that it is in fact happening just the way I've explained it. Increased downwelling infrared in the greenhouse bands has been observed, as my references show. What do you think happens to that extra energy? Do you just wave your denier wand and make Conservation of Energy disappear?

CO2 isn't the only anthropogenic forcing agent. Burning fossil fuels also releases sulfate aerosols which cool the planet. Starting after WWII, fossil fuel burning ramped up rapidly, but the long-term warming effect was masked by cooling sulfates. When acid rain became a problem, we began scrubbing sulfur from smokestacks and removing it from gasoline. Sulfate emissions have been flat or declining since 1973. No more acid rain, and no more sulfate masking of CO2 warming since then.

I just did a few paragraphs ago. I did yesterday. I have done so over and over and over, and you simply ignore it and fail to address it. I guess we'll just call you jc-there-is-no-conservation-of-energy-456 from now on.

 

What data do you want me to post? I never said Temperature follows CO2 increases. So, you can merely provide that proof and we're good.

So what. So the forcing is there, the temperatures are not. So you have a problem that the observed is not supporting the theory.

Oh come on now. Now again there you go off of the CO2 band wagon. So, which is it? is the fossil fuel good or is it bad or does in itself compensate for the distribution of CO2 in the air. Which is it, it can't be both ways?

No, theory is not evidence, I repeat, theory is not evidence, never will be and will be my answer every time you post it. Get proof, you know that mountains of proof. You have mountains of theory. All disproved by the data.

 

It's not confusing if you actually read the definition you posted. The oceans and the air both hold CO2 and they stay in equilibrium. In order to stay in equilibrium, they exchange massive amounts of CO2 every year. When the ocean absorbs a molecule of CO2, it nearly always (98% of the time) emits a molecule of CO2 as a replacement. So if you follow any individual molecule of CO2, it will take four or five years (on average) for it to be absorbed by the ocean. But since that molecule is nearly always replaced, ocean absorption has only a small effect on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. For atmospheric CO2 to decline, you have to wait centuries.