What happens when the CO2 level increases?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Durandal, Aug 16, 2014.

  1. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,518
    Likes Received:
    27,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    According to this NOVA show about the evolution of size, increased CO2 leads to... an explosion in plant growth! Here's a link to the show that should take you right to the relevant time (24 minutes in):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCJHr4BCLgM&t=24m0s

    We've had Al Gore trying to scare us all and fleece the public with carbon taxes and what not, yet according to this video, increased CO2 recorded in the ancient past did NOT cause any runaway greenhouse effect. So, why are people expecting this to happen today? Is it actually reasonable to be afraid of having such a thing happen? Or, would it be more reasonable simply to expect the same thing to happen with vegetation?

    Seems to me that history has already taught us that we have nothing to fear from CO2. Meteor strikes and volcanism, yes, but not CO2.
     
  2. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually there are a couple of greenhouse gasses to consider a bit more than Co2.

    First of all methane, methane [produced also by animals, humans included] is a well more effective greenhouse gas than Co2; then there is water vapor, which is not that efficient, but it's present in very large quantities in the atmosphere.

    What can happen if the level of Co2 arises?

    In the brief term, not that much, the level of Co2 has been arising in the last decades and we are not seeing coastal cities submerged by the oceans ...
    In the mean term it could generate a little increase in the temperature with a change in the composition of the atmosphere. More Co2 means not only that vegetables will live better, but it means also that the little increase in the mean temperature will generate more evaporation of the waters of seas and oceans, with more water vapor in the air. This will accelerate the process of "global warming" to the point that the water of the oceans will become warmer. This could affect the depots of frozen methane in the deep waters. If that methane will be released, just in little part, could have a very visible effect on the temperatures around the planet.

    If we take a look at the history of the planet, where there were the dinosaurs the ice caps weren't, or they were tiny, and the level of Co2 was very high [in comparison with today, but the oceans were higher. During the last glacial era the oceans were 120mt lower than today and it's probable that the myth of the flood have got also very far roots in what happened when the temperature became to arise and the ice melted ...
     
  3. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    While methane is about 30 times more effective per unit volume, there is about 200 times more carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. And while water vapor is responsible for a large portion of the total greenhouse effect, it hasn't changed significantly over the last few centuries so it cannot explain the recent warming trend. CO2 is still the primary reason temperatures have increased over the last century, and humans are the primary reason CO2 has increased.

    http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/radiativeforcing.html

    It's not the absolute temperature or level of CO2 that is the problem, but the rate at which they are changing, which is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
     
  4. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Take a look also to this NASA page

    http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
     
  5. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
  6. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CO2 has been exaggerated for the harm it is assumed to cause. Margret Thanther was the first to politicize it to scare the UK into nuclear power.

    Those with the alarmist views tell us the effect is 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. They greenhouse effect is 340 watts per square meter, therefore it cannot be anywhere close to the high end if you believe the experts. Something you rarely see are the absolute values for radiative forcing. They only like to show us the changes from a given point in history. The AR4 gives CO2 a value of 1.66 W/m^2, the AR5 if I remember right, 1.83 W/m^2. One of James Hansen's papers has it around 2 watts for totals levels, and on a log curve, gives CO2 a value of around 30 w/m^2. With climatologists telling us the greenhouse effect is 340 W/m^2, this 8.8% is less than the 9% they claim for a minimum.

    Hansen paper CO2.JPG

    Pic is from this paper, page 5:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~drdrapp/LGM.pdf

    I have a challenge for those of you believing the alarmist view of climatologists.

    Find any paper that gives a sensitivity value for CO2. They have defined sensitivity as the temperature change for a doubling of a greenhouse gas. Look at the source paper referenced for this number. You will end up going through 2 or more sequentially referenced papers until you find work done in the 70's, where they are using poor science to lay the foundation for CO2 sensitivity. They use correlation of temperature to CO2 values, not properly accounting for other variables. Especially solar. In the so's they were unaware in their calculations of the approximate 1900 to 1950 increase in solar average output. Such accurate papers did not come out till the 80's and later.

    A video for the fun of it, my view on those I call climastrologists:

    [video=youtube;yXbMWdl0Cds]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbMWdl0Cds[/video]

    When considering only the two primary greenhouse gasses, CO2 has increased by 43%, but since there is so much more H2O, it only increases these combined greenhouse gasses by 0.6%. Even less when considering all the greenhouse gasses combined.

    The greenhouse effect is said to be 33 degrees. It follows a log curve. When we start on a log curve that gives us 33, and add that 0.6%, we get a value of 33.02.

    Now of course, this value would require that CO2 and H2O have equal sensitivity, so it isn't accurate, but it gives an indication that the climatologists with alarmists views are wrong.
     
  7. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I come back to this thread.

    Venus model is to be forgotten.

    The incoming troubles will be of several different nature.

    * local problems
    Local problems will be related to the quality of air and water and connected with the level of pollution [which is in relation with the emission of Co2].
    Then there will be changes in the level of energy available for local atmospheric events [I personally saw a twister tow years ago, near my home, on the lake, where twister were only part of TV news ... we have never had similar phenomenons here]. With increasing rains hurricanes, floods, but also periods of dry climate ...

    * deserts will be advance
    Africa is already in a bad situation, but next future will reserve to that continent an increasing desertification and this is not so nice ...

    * ice caps will melt, a bit ...
    this is probably the most interesting aspect in the brief / mean term. North ice marine cap can melt or not, nothing will change [that ice floats on the water, so that melting the level of the waters won't change].
    The "shells" to fire for the climate change are the ice cap over Greenland and over Antarctica. Those ice caps are on dry lands [in part: the ice cap of Antarctica stays also on the ocean ... that continent is geologically fragmented]. If a part of those ice caps melt the effects will be ...

    - in the brief term an increase of evaporation of water [less ice means less solar light reflected to the space] with an increase of rains, overall in the Northern hemisphere.
    - then also the higher quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere will affect the mean temperatures, rain will go back to a more normal cycle, but the oceans will arise. No more than 1mt. But a 1mt could force billions of persons to spend the impossible to defend coastal urban areas.
    - then, after about 1/2 century the temperature of the oceans will arise at a point to deviate streams and to affect the density of the water in the deep layers, this could allow the release of the methane imprisoned there. If with more Co2, more water vapor, also methane enters the atmosphere, the Earth will know a greenhouse gas effect with no precedent.

    Again: don't think to Venus!
    Think to Earth in the age of the dinosaurs.
     
  8. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  9. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    According to studies I read, it has increased, but not significantly. Something like 0.14% increase if I recall correctly. I would have to look it up to be sure.

    It would have to increase significantly for CO2 to have a meaningful water feedback response, but it is just another fantasy of the climastrologists.
     
  10. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was referring to the 'significant' warming of the earth (we are told is happening by 'experts') and its effect on water (which is to evaporate it). In my mind, a warmer earth should cause higher overall humidity. Therefore IF increased CO2 is causing significant global warming then water vapor should also increase significantly.
     
  11. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are in agreement. That's why I said":
    I find the idea that CO2 is causing a water feedback to increase the effect of CO2 as insanely laughable.

    Let's face it. Those that I will call "alarmists" in the field of climatology are not really understanding enough of the geosciences. It appears to me they are indoctrinated to a false science, that doesn't fully take into account aerosols and spectral changes of the sun. they have been on a "political science" mission to focus their effort on one culprit only. CO2!

    In get leught at by those who I will call "true believers" because the climate sciences as taught today require as much faith as any religion. Anyone who points out a failing in a model, or any other aspect that sheds light on the IPCC ideas being wrong, are effectively called heretics.

    The climate sciences have effectively become a religion. Skeptics are labeled deniers, but it is these true believers who are the deniers of real science.

    A true scientist always remains skeptical, until he can no longer disprove his own theory.

    I have studied the climate sciences for many years now. I firmly believe that the biggest AGW component is soot on ice. I firmly believe the largest natural component in our recorded history is the natural solar cycle.

    I'm sure at some point, I will see a proper thread to elaborate my viewpoints.

    I am not one to believe some paper just because it was peer reviewed pal reviewed. I have diligently learned several aspects of the geosciences to actually understand this global warming problem.

    edit; is there a strike function in this forum?
     
  12. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point is the word "significance".

    At global level 0.2 degrees of increase means already something. At local level it means ... something else!

    For example, after 2003, among the Alps summers are less hot, while autumns are curiously warm [like in Scotland, I travel to that land, in Autumn, to discover that it's warmer than here in the same period of the year].

    If I should focus my attentions on data, I would underline more the matter of pollution than the matter of warming in the brief term.

    Since in EU we are endorsing environmentalist laws, our air is more clean, less polluted [and this is positive!].

    Are we breaking Global Warming? Well, I being to suspect that some effect are already visible. This doesn't allow us to stop with environmentalist laws and go back to be rude polluters, but this should make us realize that it's possible to keep a sustainable level of human activity without damaging the biosphere of the planet.

    The hypothesis of the solar cycle is interesting and I considered it years ago. It's true that it influences the temperature of the surfaces of the oceans [and so the cycle of the rains and the climate at global level], but this cycle is quite limited in time [11 years], so that we should have noted something different from the trend we can observe in the graphics about the global mean temperature [like in the one on the NASA site].

    So the cycle of the solar spots can affect the global change of the climate on Earth, but it's not its leading mechanism because the trend of the process in the long term is not following the function of the solar cycle.
     
  13. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What happens when the CO2 level increases? Simple answer...there's more CO2
     
  14. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I have a really hard time accepting anyone who calls published science "alarmist".

    You're only looking at one side of the equation. The greenhouse effect is the difference between heat emitted from the surface (~396 W/m2) and the heat which escapes into space (~239 W/m2), for a net effect of ~157 W/m2.

    That 30 W/m2 actually represents about 20% of the greenhouse effect, which puts it closer to the top end of the 9% to 26% range.

    Svante Arrhenius estimated the climate sensitivity of CO2 at between 5 and 6 °C back in 1896. Care to explain how this was based on "poor science" from the 1970's?

    Since global humidity has remained basically constant, that extra water vapor is a result of the increase in temperature, so how could it be the initial cause?

    I think you've answered your own question there. CO2 and H2O do not have equal climate sensitivity. While there is about 50 times more water vapor, it cannot force climate change because it doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough. When you consider that CO2 is probably responsible for 20% of the 33°C greenhouse effect, or about 6.6°C, does a sensitivity of 2°C from doubling seem unreasonable?
     
  15. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what do you call it where science has been turned upside down for political agenda?

    Not according to the IPCC AR5:

    [​IMG]

    I suggest you reevaluate your position.

    He also used steam as a blackbody source for his testing.

    His work was superseded. The foundational sensitivity studies used today are from the 70's. I thought I already explained why.

    I'm claiming the extra water vapor is insignificant. The climatologists suggest there is enough extra H2O to boost the CO2 effect significantly. They are full of horse pucky.

    Have you seen the percentage increase of water vapor? It's negotiable. It's laughable when they speak of H2O feedback as causing extra warming. Where are you getting initial cause from?

    Yes, 2 degrees is laughable. Your 20% is completely wrong.

    If you agree with H2O not causing extra warming, then why do you agree with those who suggest global warming cause by mankind is something to be alarmed about? One of their primary arguments of CO2 sensitivity is the H2O feedback response.
     
  16. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You're right, I picked a bad source which failed to account for all of the atmospheres heat sources.

    And you know this how?

    I didn't say H2O was not causing extra warming, just that it couldn't be a cause of the initial warming. With a residence time around 10 day, even if you doubled the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, it would all rain out before temperature changed significantly. The only way to increase water vapor quantity over long periods is to raise the temperature first.

    Going back to your previous post, I have a question about your math.
    How do you get from the radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m^2 to a total greenhouse effect of around 30 W/m^2? Radiative forcing is only the change in heat transfer for a given agent, not the absolute value of that agent's heat transfer. Knowing how fast one is accelerating doesn't tell you how fast they were going to begin with. Wouldn't a better way of determining each agent's global warming potential be to measure the radiation spectrum of the heat emitted and then subtract out the absorption pattern for each agent?
     
  17. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read some of the works of the past as well as the present.

    When evaluating the sciences, we need to know the zero points, and how they respond. What good is a change in value without a baseline? If I'm driving down the road and increase my speed by 10 MPH, what meaning does it have? If I started at 5 MPH, then I tripled my speed. If I started at 100 MPH, then I only increased it by 10%. The so-called experts say CO2 as a total greenhouse effect of around 30 W/m^2. If we use 29 as a starting point, these numbers represent a 5.7% and 6.3% increase in CO2 radiative forcing from a 38% and 40% increase in CO2. The effects are not linear. This is also assuming we accept the amount of forcing claimed by the so-called experts.

    Here is the graphic Al Gore used in his Inconvenient Truth:

    [​IMG]

    Here's from my earlier post:

    [​IMG]

    Please note that the CO2 on the first chart shows an approximate 27 W/m^2 total CO2 forcing in 1750 (257 - 230), the other about 29. Again, percentage increases are necessary to know, and these come from the works of the climate scientists. I don't agree with all their finding, but anyone wanting to debate global warming needs to know the reality of what they debate, or they are just believing what the preachers of AGW say, as if a priest was teaching the Bible.
     
  18. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Except that the 30 W/m^2 value for CO2 quoted in your link is its contribution to total longwave radiative forcing, not the down surface radiation from greenhouse gases. The standard definition of radiative forcing is "the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W/m2) at the tropopause." According to EarthÂ’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl & Trenberth (1997), total radiative forcing is calculated by integrating the difference between surface and top of atmosphere upward longwave emissions, giving a value of 155 W/m^2 instead of the 340 W/m^2 you use. Hence the statement that CO2 contributes to 20% of the warming is completely accurate.
     
  19. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is the CO2 forcing element of the 342 total. the rest is H2O, CH2, N2O, etc.

    If you want to focus on the technicalities of definitions and challenge terminology, fine. It doesn't change the fact that the total forcing caused by CO2 is around 30 W/m^2 of the 342 W/m^2 that the experts claim for the greenhouse effect.

    And no. The 20% cannot be correct by the literature the so-called experts put out.
     
  20. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The same literature which says the total forcing caused by CO2 is around 30 W/m2 also says H2O is around 75 W/m2, O3 is about 8 W/m2, and CH4 & NO2 combined are about 8 W/m2. Even ignoring overlaps between these, they barely add up to 120 W/m2. Where is the rest of the 342 W/m2 total then?
     
  21. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those are shortwave absorption numbers you are quoting, not the greenhouse effect, or net downforcing. It appears we found a discrepancy in that paper.

    Are you denying the fact that the AR5 uses the 342 W/m^2 for the greenhouse effect downforcing? (Wild et. al. 2013 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/Wild_et_al_ClimDyn_2013.pdf,) used in AR5, figure 1 in linked paper.

    Are you denying that Kiehl & Trenberth uses 324 W/m^2 for the greenhouse effect downforcing in figure 7?

    Again, the experts are giving us values of around 30 W/m^2 for the CO2 component of the greenhouse effect, which they are telling us is a total of about 340 W/m^2.

    As for the discrepancy, read what is says before table 3. Page 202 c; shortwave radiation.
     
  22. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
  23. contrails

    contrails Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2014
    Messages:
    4,454
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Kiehl & Trenberth describes them as contributions to the total clear sky radiative forcing of 125 W/m2, which is derived from longwave absorption. If their contributions to the 342 W/m2 total greenhouse effect are larger, then wouldn't the contribution from CO2 also be proportionally larger?

    No, I'm only denying the relationship you're attempting to make between the 30 W/m2 forcing from CO2 and the 342 W/m2 total greenhouse effect.

    You mean this quote?
     
  24. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said, there is some discrepancy in that paper where in the abstract is says:

    "The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water
    vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m-2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m-2."

    These values are in table 3. The text is calling for shortwave radiation, not describing the greenhose radiation:

    "For the shortwave spectral region, we employ a
    detailed adding–doubling model to determine the
    fluxes in the model atmosphere. The model includes
    the absorbing effects of H2O, CO2, O3, and O2;"

    It is mentioning shortwave, those molecules, and Table 3. It appears the abstract was written wrong saying longwave where it should have said shortwave, and passed the peer review incorrect.

    You can find the approximate 30 value in several texts, and that is what I an driving at. It is less than 10% of the greenhouse value, no matter who's recent papers you use.

    No.

    Starting later in the same page, starting at:

    "c. Shortwave radiation"

    It starts as the last paragraph on page 202, all of 203, and most of page 204. All dealing with "shortwave" and your values in the abstract are in table 3, which are for shortwave as well.

    If you take the IPCC AR4 values for CO2 changes, and place them on a log curve, you get this, high to low and the 1.66 value:

    [​IMG]

    Now those are fit to a plain log curve. Three other CO2 forcing formulas are used by the so-called experts:

    [​IMG]

    Using Myhre (98), the total CO2 forcing is indeterminate as the number is infinite trying to use a span to zero. However, the 1 to 278 ppm is 30.1 W/m^2 and the 278 to 379 value yields 1.66 W/m^2. The second of the three CO2 formulas is Shi (92). It too is indeterminate for a span to a zero value and yields 1.75 W/m^2 for the 278 to 379 ppm range. 1 to 278 ppm yields 28.66 W/m^2. The third is Hansen (88). 278 ppm is 22.18 W/m^2 and 379 is 23.89 W/m^2 for a change of 1.71 W/m^2.

    I have done a great deal of research on this topic. When do the numbers, I use a variation of Hansen's formula without the squared and cubed functions, but I can get a zero value for zero ppm. The formula I use in excel:

    =C$2*(LN(1+A88)-LN(1+A$17))

    Column A is my ppm level, C2 is my coefficient of 5.37388 which matches AR4 and AR5 value changes, and cell A17 is my zero ppm value.

    Hansen's formula looks like this in excel:

    =I$2*(LN(1+(1.2*A88)+0.005*A88^2+0.0000014*A88^3)-LN(1+(1.2*A$17)+0.005*A$17^2+0.0000014*A$17^3))
     
  25. Lord of Planar

    Lord of Planar New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, it is describing shortwave only.
     

Share This Page