What is cause of global warming? Heat or gases?

Hmm... I see that recovery of atmosphere is a must, at least because of UV. But would not more devices using nuclear fusion energy heat the earth too, just like the sun does (even if we had perfect atmosphere we will build up excess heat from excess fusors, heaters, lights, electronics)?

Is nuclear fusion the only solution (besides solar, wind, and few other forms of energy)?

I know what is greenhouse effect. But it can be caused by heaters too? Heat that way, or heat this way, it's same, correct? Blocking heat from dissipating into space or making more heat must be same, just like more thermal isolation or less heat can produce same temperature.

Why are not winters warmer? In my country (southeast europe) there's still winter, and it won't be gone until middle of May! Last year snow was falling in March and May. Hope it won't appear at summer!!! I was hoping that global warming will reduce cold! This never happened before!

[Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork]

Quote: Originally posted by RawWork

I know what is greenhouse effect. But it can be caused by heaters too? Heat that way, or heat this way, it's same, correct? Blocking heat from dissipating into space or making more heat must be same, just like more thermal isolation or less heat can produce same temperature. Why are not winters warmer? In my country (southeast europe) there's still winter, and it won't be gone until middle of May! Last year snow was falling in March and May. Hope it won't appear at summer!!! I was hoping that global warming will reduce cold! This never happened before! [Edited on 28-3-2018 by RawWork]

Quote: Originally posted by RawWork

It's not fair! People are freezing to death each year because of lack of energy, and then burning to death in summer because of excess of this heat. We need this energy (heat) for our lives. Why let it exit into space? Why not capture it? If they are, does it mean that the more solar cells, the better? But what about killing birds by solar cells? Can that problem be overcame?

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than that big ball of fire.

But then you have to consider that temperature and CO2 have a very strict correlation throughout the past 800,000 years, and the CO2 spike after the Industrial Revolution brought with it increases in the temperature anomalies across the globe.

Yes, the Sun is responsible for making Earth heat up as it has been for billions of years, and will do for billions more, but the concern is not where the heat comes from but where the energy is going. Because of greenhouse gases, the equilibrium between heat received by Earth and the energy it can bleed away is shifted towards the former as the greater concentration of such traps the heat in.

This shit diagram basically explains what goes on - red arrows represent emitted radiation from Earth, yellow arrows represent radiation absorbed and emitted from CO2 molecules, and blue dots are the molecules themselves. Hence, the more ‘dots’ you have, the more dense the ‘blockade’ of IR radiation since radiation will reflect in seemingly random directions according to the orientation of the molecules.

Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose   As far as CO2, the fact that it makes up .04% of air (nitrogen being about 78%, O2 21%, argon 1%, etc) and when they talk about global increases of CO2 and that it would take 100 years for it to reach .05% or something like that, I have a difficult time believing that CO2 is more of a cause than that big ball of fire. But then you have to consider that temperature and CO2 have a very strict correlation throughout the past 800,000 years, and the CO2 spike after the Industrial Revolution brought with it increases in the temperature anomalies across the globe. Yes, the Sun is responsible for making Earth heat up as it has been for billions of years, and will do for billions more, but the concern is not where the heat comes from but where the energy is going. Because of greenhouse gases, the equilibrium between heat received by Earth and the energy it can bleed away is shifted towards the former as the greater concentration of such traps the heat in. This shit diagram basically explains what goes on - red arrows represent emitted radiation from Earth, yellow arrows represent radiation absorbed and emitted from CO2 molecules, and blue dots are the molecules themselves. Hence, the more ‘dots’ you have, the more dense the ‘blockade’ of IR radiation since radiation will reflect in seemingly random directions according to the orientation of the molecules.

Regarding ozone depletion, mechanisms are the best way to explain it. Chlorine radicals are effectively recycled whereas ozone isn’t - it takes a very long time (months to years) for a species to combine in a termination step, and it finds its way back to ground level.

Aga: it doesn’t really matter on the grand scheme of things, the Earth will continue revolving the Sun in our lonely little solar system in an obscure sector of our galaxy, amongst billions of stars in trillions of galaxies. The thing is though, we have made such a huge change to the global climate in the past 300 odd years, more change than would naturally occur in thousands of years. Life evolves far too slowly to adapt as it has done over massive periods of time far longer than any single organism can live for. Global warming destroys huge swathes of forests, expanding deserts and paradoxically drying up and drowning areas of land which means species are at least displaced and some driven to extinction. Why? Like you said, because of us. It’s a change to the only planet we know holds life, a change that could potentially lead to all but the most hardiest organisms disappearing from existence leaving the lush, diverse Earth a barren rock, following in the footsteps of Venus or Mars. It’s a change that we made, and that we can halt so that future generations of life have a chance to survive in the same way that it always has done.

[Edited on 28-3-2018 by LearnedAmateur]



[Edited on 28-3-2018 by LearnedAmateur]

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

it's not clear how the author defines "temperature anomaly" - it looks like it is measured by standard deviations over the entire time period, but using which temperature readings, exactly....

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

It is my opinion that the big fireball up in the sky that hangs around about 12 hours per day, has something to do with this "global warming" thing. I know I'm not alone in saying that at least since about 2007 the sun has been A LOT brighter than it was before.

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

I give this kind of stuff about as much credibility as I do the Holy Ghost. A chlorine radical reacts with thousands of ozone molecules... really? Can you explain why?

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   I give this kind of stuff about as much credibility as I do the Holy Ghost. A chlorine radical reacts with thousands of ozone molecules... really? Can you explain why? It's called catalysis. For a detailed account, I'd suggest starting with Dessler's "Chemistry and Physics of Stratospheric Ozone".

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   it's not clear how the author defines "temperature anomaly" - it looks like it is measured by standard deviations over the entire time period, but using which temperature readings, exactly.... Temperature anomaly is the difference between measured temperature and some baseline. Here's a short explanation of how this works: https://topologicoceans.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/temperature...

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

If you don't understand the mechanism, kindly don't offer patronizing answers with a tone of false authority.

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   If you don't understand the mechanism, kindly don't offer patronizing answers with a tone of false authority. If you don't understand the mechanism, aren't willing to look it up yourself, and aren't willing to follow up on source recommendations, there's very little I can do for you. As for my alleged bad attitude.... maybe look in a mirror sometime?

Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month.

The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early data.

Does this show a significant increase in temperature? Sure. I'm pretty confident that the temperature readings here are directly correlated with industrial activity rather than CO2 levels, though.



Oh and here are some other charts:







[Edited on 29-3-2018 by JJay]

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

You suggested a piece of literature with more than 74 volumes as your source. With all due respect, no respect is due.

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month. The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early data.

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   Here's the data from that video, averaged globally and normalized by month. The data is heteroskedastic, and it probably shouldn't be... the fact that it is calls into question whether using "temperature anomalies" really has an advantage over using temperature readings directly, but I'm not going to worry about that right now... the heteroskedasticity arises from the early data. Why "should" these data be homoskedastic?

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   You suggested a piece of literature with more than 74 volumes as your source. With all due respect, no respect is due. It's a 225-page textbook. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Chemistry_and_Physi...

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

I'm probably not going to read all of that, but I do know that chlorine radicals are not incredibly destructive to ozone in all circumstances, and I don't see offhand why they would be so incredibly destructive to ozone in the atmosphere unless they have nothing else to react with....

Quote: Originally posted by LearnedAmateur

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   I'm probably not going to read all of that, but I do know that chlorine radicals are not incredibly destructive to ozone in all circumstances, and I don't see offhand why they would be so incredibly destructive to ozone in the atmosphere unless they have nothing else to react with.... The thing is though, is that the hole in the ozone layer began and rapidly expanded when CFCs were first introduced in the 1930s and has since slowed and actually began to shrink since 1996 when they’ve been pretty much banned across most of the world. The CFCs are able to rise to the ozone layer, which as the name implies contains a lot more ozone than other atmospheric layers, so yeah there isn’t a huge number of things to preferentially react with Cl• up there, plus ozone is very reactive so quite happily breaks down in its presence. Because the reactions are all facilitated by UV, which is very intense at the OL compared to sea level, this also contributes heavily. It’s an equilibrium like most other things, oxygen will undergo homolytic fission and the resulting radicals react with oxygen to create ozone, which easily cleaves by UV irradiation to make more ozone from oxygen, so on and so forth. CFCs disrupt this equilibrium by decreasing ozone levels and increasing oxygen, so more UV gets through to the ground, which means more harm for life on Earth.

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

It is my opinion that

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

I know I'm not alone in saying that at least since about 2007 the sun has been A LOT brighter than it was before. There were times when it seemed as much as 20-40% brighter than what it had been just a few years ago.

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose

So that is part of my theory why things are hotter, especially in some areas.

Quote: Originally posted by RawWork

So CFCs belong to global warming topic, but UV doesn't? It's easy for any hater or angry person or mentally diseased to release CFCs into atmosphere and cause massive damage with little effort, correct? What would be the best counterattack? Is there some chemical that would remove CFCs from the atmosphere, and not cause additional damage? Some that will itself be removed too, or act neutral on ozone after removing CFCs? Consider that sun ionizes some chemicals. [Edited on 29-3-2018 by RawWork]

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

Here, the error variance is correlated to the global temperature (which we don't know, but the correlation is still evident), and while I haven't run any diagnostics, I doubt that happened by random chance. There are ways of dealing with these things, but the heteroskedasticity suggests that converting the temperature readings to "temperature anomalies" introduces a loss of information which might actually be helpful for constructing a model.

Quote: Originally posted by nitro-genes

If CO2 and temperature are showing an not completely known interaction, why did they use CO2 measurements from icecores as a temperature proxy in the first place? Considering the inertness of noble gasses and it's temperature dependend solubility in ocean water (assuming equal salinity and volume), icecore noble gas levels make at least an interesting comparison/control. According to this article, these data may provide a much more unbiased temperature proxy than CO2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08721-4 [Edited on 29-3-2018 by nitro-genes]

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

It may be that I've badly misunderstood you, that you're actually saying that the raw temperatures don't have constant variance, and that this makes temperature anomaly an inappropriate tool. I don't see how that bird flies either.

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

If you don't know the variance, you don't know how anomalous the readings are

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

It sounds like you are saying that it is nontrivial in this case to infer V(t) from A(t) because V(t) is correlated with T(t).

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

You are saying that it is inefficient in this case to estimate V(t) from A(t) because V(t) is correlated with T(t). We can talk about that if you want, and what it means in practice, and whether it supports the hypothesis that UHI rather than greenhouse forcing is responsible for regional trends. But if it is indeed a problem, the problem stems from the raw temperatures T(t), not the process of calculating A(t). Why would it be more efficient to estimate V(t) from A(t) + B, compared to A(t), given that V(t) is equally correlated with both? [Edited on 30-3-2018 by mayko]

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

Quote: Why would it be more efficient to estimate V(t) from A(t) + B, compared to A(t), given that V(t) is equally correlated with both? I don't see any reason to assume that it is equally correlated with both.

When looking at time series data of temperature, remember that the sun's irradiance fluctuates (the sun is alive, at least for a long time to come). Sun spots, a measure of solar activity, has short term cyclic (averaging 11.1 years) properties that can introduce similar cyclic distortions in the temperature data on earth, which is separate from other global warming trends.

Some of my prior comments on SM:

"there is an interesting correlation between sunspots and climate (see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht... . To quote a few points:

"Sunspots and climate
Incidentally, the Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minima coincide with the colder periods of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1450 to 1820. More recently it was discovered that the sunspot number during 1861-1989 shows a remarkable parallelism with the simultaneous variation in northern hemisphere mean temperatures (2). There is an even better correlation with the length of the solar cycle, between years of the highest numbers of sunspots". .....
Intuitively one may assume the that total solar irradiance would decrease as the number of (optically dark) sunspots increased. However direct satellite measurements of irradiance have shown just the opposite to be the case. This means that more sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, so that global temperatures should rise.
Not only does the increased brightness of the Sun tend to warm the Earth, but also the solar wind (a stream of highly energetic charged particles) shields the atmosphere from cosmic rays, which produce 14C (radioactive carbon 14). So there is more 14C when the Sun is magnetically quiescent. This explains why 14C samples from independently dated material are used as a way of inferring the Sun's magnetic history.
Recent research (3) indicates that the combined effects of sunspot-induced changes in solar irradiance and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases offer the best explanation yet for the observed rise in average global temperature over the last century. Using a global climate model based on energy conservation, Lane et al (3) constructed a profile of atmospheric climate "forcing" due to combined changes in solar irradiance and emissions of greenhouse gases between 1880 and 1993. They found that the temperature variations predicted by their model accounted for up to 92% of the temperature changes actually observed over the period -- an excellent match for that period. Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases."

My take on this is that if one is citing temperature data, one should at least adjust the data for the impact due to solar irradiance. I would also adjust for known recent volcanic events, for example, Krakatoa, possibly using a dummy variable or a model based on volume of mass/SO2 ejected into the upper atmosphere. To quote from Wikipedia on Krakatoa (link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Glo... ) :

"In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[9] .....
The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[14]"

Another possible variable would be the change in annual sales in millions of ozone degrading chemicals, possibly at a lag (more work but better, use a percent contribution by group of chemicals rated by ability to attack ozone, and therefrom construct a potency adjustment factor). The estimated coefficient times the lagged sales figure change should correlate to reported estimates of the change in size of the ozone hole. A functional transformation to this area variable (like converting it to an ozone volume figure) may be required to obtain highest Pearson's correlation coefficient, which is a measure of linearity.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Also, as heating from whatever sources go on, it is true that heat itself becomes a major issue at a point!

When is that?

Well, for instance, when the methane hydrate at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico (and other places) hits a critical warming point to convert back to gaseous methane!

CH4 is actually much more potent than CO2 gas (like 86 times) in creating atmospheric warming, but its half life in the atmosphere is less. Source, see for example, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-gree... .

Still, that vast amount of CH4 release is going to be unpleasantly abrupt and nasty for the planet .

Like a bad chemistry experiment gone totally rogue!

[Edited on 3-4-2018 by AJKOER]

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

You're assuming that A(t) is at a constant linear offset from T(t), and it's offset by a different value at each station. In other words, your assumption is false.

!?HUH?!

It isn't an 'assumption' that A(t) differs from T(t) by a constant; that's *trivially true*, *by construction*! If you disagree, I'm not sure what to tell you, besides to look back at the definition, or maybe subtract A(t) from T(t) and see what you get.

In practice, the value of B will vary between station records (that's sort of the point), but that has no bearing on whether A(t) and T(t) are both correlated with the variance of V(t).

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

"there is an interesting correlation between sunspots and climate (see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht... . To quote a few points:

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by JJay   You're assuming that A(t) is at a constant linear offset from T(t), and it's offset by a different value at each station. In other words, your assumption is false. !?HUH?! It isn't an 'assumption' that A(t) differs from T(t) by a constant; that's *trivially true*, *by construction*! If you disagree, I'm not sure what to tell you, besides to look back at the definition, or maybe subtract A(t) from T(t) and see what you get. In practice, the value of B will vary between station records (that's sort of the point), but that has no bearing on whether A(t) and T(t) are both correlated with the variance of V(t). Quote: it's still necessary to estimate a an offset parameter, which introduces an additional degree of freedom to the model that must be estimated using non-linear techniques, introducing unnecessary bias and inefficiency. Accepting this momentarily for the sake of argument, in practice the difficulties of standardizing and combining records must surely be weighed against the difficulties of using an unmerged collection of many non-standardized raw temperature records. Some of these have already been mentioned here or in linked sites; here is another discussion from the perspective of global absolute temperature, which would presumably be implicit in any global absolute temperature time series you produced: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/08/observ... Again, if I had evidence of what you're claiming (that using anomalies instead of raw temperatures is inappropriate) I'd be licking stamps to get my manuscript to GRL.

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER   "there is an interesting correlation between sunspots and climate (see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.ht... . To quote a few points: Not everything on that site is wrong, but it is a bit dated and several of the sources aren't valid anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigil_Friis-Christensen#Solar_... As I've mentioned, observed temperature increases are difficult to explain in terms of solar activity, given that the every solar trend has been going the wrong direction to explain it, for the last several decades of the fastest heating. If we decided to "adjust" the temperature data, that is, remove everything but the greenhouse signal, it would revise things upwards (surely it would be an extreme revision if it's true that "the sensitivity of climate to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases"!) Volcanic eruptions introduce real, but short-lived perturbations which don't change the ultimate trend. It's often not necessary or informative to "adjust" the temperature data to account for these effects, but if you want to, sure, you can try to remove known non-greenhouse and internal variabilities to try to isolate the greenhouse signal by itself. Here's an example: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/0440...

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

First, even though years ago I saw a documentary showing the obvious melting occurring in the usually frozen tundras regions on earth with large methane releases occurring through the unfrozen ground, only recently do I see articles like, "Thawing permafrost produces more methane than expected"

Quote: Originally posted by JJay

With all due respect, no respect is due. https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Invention of CO2 as a cause of temperature change is not scientifical, but bureaucratical.
Facts show that:
- temperature raise causes raise in the CO2 level after thousand of years:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html


(notice X-axis going in reversed time)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-wi...
"overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate."


- concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are insignificant compared to the main earth greenhouse gas - water (H2O).

Official conclusion was made by cherry picking from available data, mostly based on medium-scale correlation, because large scale graph shows no correlation
https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-an...


and the thousand years lag of CO2 level is barely visible on medium scale:


[Edited on 6-4-2018 by byko3y]

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Invention of CO2 as a cause of temperature change is not scientifical, but bureaucratical. Facts show that: - temperature raise causes raise in the CO2 level after almost thousand of years: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html (notice X-axis going in reversed time) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-wi... "overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate." - concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are insignificant compared to the main earth greenhouse gas - water (H2O). Official conclusion was made by cherry picking from available data, mostly based on medium-scale correlation, because large scale graph shows no correlation https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres-a-better-graph-of-co2-an... and the almost thousand years lag of CO2 level is barely visible on medium scale:

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

JJay, aren't we talking about global warming? Was your message a joke?

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

] ........ Quote: So the impact of CH4 due to its reduce rate of conversion to CO2 with time is effectively increasing from hydroxyl radical loss. I make sense of the latter as more CO2 (from all sources inclusive of methane) plus water vapor means increase HCO3- ions which are scavengers of hydroxyl radicals via: HCO3- + .OH --> H2O + .CO3- creating a less powerful (than the hydroxyl radical) carbonate radical anion. So, my opinion is that the above reaction could be increasingly in competition with the action of .OH on CH4 as CO2 levels rise. In other words, a compounding effect which is apparently not baked into the current widely promulgated science. Is there any evidence that this reaction takes place at all under atmospheric conditions? ......

Yes, here is an article discussing the decomposition of .CO3- and its hydrate at sunrise, namely: .CO3- H2O, "Sunlight photodestruction of CO3−, CO3−·H2O, and O3−: The importance of photodissociation to the D region electron densities at sunrise" by James R. Peterson.

Link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA08...

More background on the carbonate radical formation, see "Rate constant for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with bicarbonate ions☆" , at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1359019786... . To quote from the abstract:

"The rate constant for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with the bicarbonate ion has been determined to be 8.5 × 10^6 dm3 mol-1s-1. This value was calculated from: the measured rate of formation of the CO-3 radical in pulsed electron irradiation of bicarbonate solutions over the pH range 7.0–9.4; the pK for the equilibrium HCO3- ⇌ CO3= + H+; and the rate constant for hydroxyl radicals reacting with the carbonate ion."
--------------------------------------

The decomposition product by sunlight on .CO3- yielding CO2 + .O-, may result upon contact with O2, some .O3- via:

.CO3- + hv --> CO2 + .O-

.O- + O2 = .O3-

where the ozonide radical may attack CH4, but the following reaction is also possible, consuming more hydroxyl radical but liberating ozone:

.O3- + .OH --> O3 + OH-

However, the carbonate radical release of CO2 with added H2O could remove more .OH via the bicarbonate path, where we started:

CO2 + H2O ⇌ H+ + HCO3-

HCO3- + .OH --> H2O + .CO3-

The net of all of the above is:

O2 + 2 .OH + hv --H2O, .CO3-, CO2 ---> O3 + H2O

which would appear to favor some possible ozone formation at the expense of two hydroxyl radicals needed for methane removal.

So, speculatively, the ozone hole gets better, but we all bake .

[Edited on 6-4-2018 by AJKOER]

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Invention of CO2 as a cause of temperature change is not scientifical, but bureaucratical. Facts show that: - temperature raise causes raise in the CO2 level after thousand of years: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

WUWT is, uh, less than reputable as far as sources go
But the quote you've pulled out is correct, to the extent that it refers to Quaternary glacial cycles. The generally accepted explanation of their driver is orbital forcing, in which small wobbles in the Earth's orbit slowly change the incoming solar energy. This small change is amplified by the outgassing feedback that you mention. There are a number of reasons that we know this isn't what's happening right now; one of them is that the ocean is currently a net carbon sink, not a net carbon source.

Another aspect discussed in the Shakun paper from the WUWT link is that the lag/lead effect differs between hemispheres. Oxygen isotope proxies from ice cores are "good enough" for many purposes, but they are regionally biased, and using Antarctic ice cores exaggerates the lag-lead in one direction, while ignoring that Northern hemisphere proxies tend to show CO2 leading and temperature lagging!

There is much more to the issue. If you haven't read the Shakun paper, I highly recommend it.

Attachment: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last degalciation - Shakun et al 2012.pdf (905kB)
This file has been downloaded 240 times

That large scale graph also doesn't account for many other confounding factors that change over geologic time, but aren't responsible for current observations. Examples include changes in solar intensity or continental arrangement.

As long as we're talking about correlations, I want to back up a bit.

Now, JJay has said a great many interesting things here, which are "huge, if true". I want to roll back to the start, leaving aside issues like his inability thusfar to relate his informal statistical musings to his mechanistic hypothesis of UHI as a temperature driver. If you'll recall, his original complaint regarding the temperature record was that its variance was not constant, and in particular, that the variance was correlated with the anomaly. I've dwelt enough for now on the often eye-bugging notion that this is a worse problem for anomalies than for raw temperatures, so I'm going to move to a different question, something I've taken at face value so far: is it even true??

Last I heard, JJay hadn't gotten around to formally testing his observation. Maybe it would be true of the data in the graph he presented, but part of my concern is the plotted data itself. Remember, he doesn't seem to be using the GISS global temperature time series. He's using a hand-rolled global time series which he constructed from "the data from that video". It's actually not obvious what his starting data even was, since it appears that several vaguely identified datasets were used in the visualization he linked to. (The most explicitly named is ERSSTv4, which is sea surface temperature data.) Now, at first I thought he was averaging a bunch of already-gridded data, which is weird when there's already a global time series available, but I didn't think he'd go too wrong. But maybe that isn't what he did, or maybe it did go wrong somehow.

(Looking back, I suspect a lot of his questions and objections are less about the practice of standardizing a station record to its reference climatology, and more about issues like "How does one combine local station records with an uneven spatial & temporal distribution into a regional or global record?", "How does one compare (mostly) fixed land stations to (mostly) transient ocean measurements?" and "How does one account for non-climatic artifacts?" These are questions very much worth asking, but they're less about what an anomaly time series is, than about what you do with one once you've got it. If he wants a soundbite answer, he's out of luck - homogenization and gridding are broad, deep, complex topics. Ordinarily, I'd suggest doing some background reading, perhaps starting with the FAQ section for the GISS data. However, even when the topic is complicated enough to be Nobel-worthy, JJay seems averse, even hostile to getting oriented ahead of time.)

I don't have the data JJay plotted handy, and I'd be disinclined to recreate it even if I thought I had sufficient information to do so. Instead, I'm using an actual global time series published by GISS (specifically, the global LOTI, here ). If it shows the behavior JJay claims, we'll know that behavior is at least somewhat robust. If it doesn't, there's a discrepancy somewhere. Maybe he isn't using the dataset he thinks he is. Maybe he dorked up the averaging process. Maybe renormalizing by month isn't a good decision. Maybe statistics-by-eyeball isn't reliable. It would be possible that it's GISS who are wrong, but without more information I find that unlikely, not because I think NASA is an unassailable, inerrant authority, but because they aren't the ones who just spent a half dozen posts telling me that two time series differing by a constant have different correlation properties.



Here's the monthly anomalies, plotted in black, and the annual in green. The data have been binned into non-overlapping 5 year windows, marked by purple lines. Line height is used to indicate the mean anomaly over this window; this is a quick and dirty estimate of both A(t) and F(t) (since the long-term mean of V(t) is zero). The vertical tick height on the window boundaries is root mean square error, though I don't think it's especially helpful here.

(A quick aside is necessary; I think I actually misstated the terms of JJay's argument earlier, when I said things like "(...) it is inefficient in this case to estimate V(t) from A(t) because V(t) is correlated with T(t). " Instead, I'm pretty sure it would have to be a time-dependent variance measure of A(t), rather than the unforced variation itself, which we were correlating with T(t). For example, we might be interested in the instantaneous standard deviation of A(t), as a function of time. Call it S(A,t). I tried to correct myself the last time I brought it up, but it deserves to have attention drawn to it, because I'm about to calculate some variance measures as functions of time. As embarrassing a flub as this is, it's worse for JJay, since he appeared to agree with the accidentally bogus statement without noticing, and because it doesn't change the trivial fact that A(t) and T(t) have the same correlation properties with *arbitrary* datasets.)

JJay has suggested that a number of variation measures are correlated with the anomalies, including variance and mean square error. These were calculated over the windows, using the window mean as an estimator, and correlations were tested via least squares linear regression. The results for mean square error are typical:

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

Yes, here is an article discussing the decomposition of .CO3- and its hydrate at sunrise, namely: .CO3- H2O, "Sunlight photodestruction of CO3−, CO3−·H2O, and O3−: The importance of photodissociation to the D region electron densities at sunrise" by James R. Peterson. Link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA08... More background on the carbonate radical formation, see "Rate constant for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with bicarbonate ions☆" , at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/1359019786... . To quote from the abstract: "The rate constant for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with the bicarbonate ion has been determined to be 8.5 × 10^6 dm3 mol-1s-1. This value was calculated from: the measured rate of formation of the CO-3 radical in pulsed electron irradiation of bicarbonate solutions over the pH range 7.0–9.4; the pK for the equilibrium HCO3- ⇌ CO3= + H+; and the rate constant for hydroxyl radicals reacting with the carbonate ion."

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

There is much more to the issue. If you haven't read the Shakun paper, I highly recommend it. Attachment: Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last degalciation - Shakun et al 2012.pdf (905kB)

CO2 might absorb more IR radiation at same concentration, yet the warter still provides the most impact in terms of absorption of thermal radiation:
(table from http://coelho.mota.googlepages.com/RadiationBudget.pdf )


Average concentration of CO2 is 400 ppm, average concentration of water is 5000 ppm ( http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html )
I can approximate ratio of specific absorption CO2:H2O as 5:1 (based on ppm concentration values (71:5000)/(29:400) ). Probably you just put excessive zero in your number. And probably you are trying to bullshit us.

A lot of crazy shit was predicted century ago, luckily most of it was rejected. That's why it's important to stick to the facts and overall picture, and not to the random statements.
I'm talking not only about cherrypicking in long and medium range, but also in short range, once again the picture:

shows no correlation, but if you pick the last 100 years only, you might find the correlation out of nothing. You can also pick another 100 years from the graph and find correlation there too, although it does not exists on the larger picture.

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER

One idea of what to do with the raw time series data augmented by actual collection data. Start by constructing a regression model where the all the raw temperature data collected at time t is subject to a transform (like log), which is then regressed against dummy variables (0 or 1) for variables like hemisphere, a land reading, a water location, month (that is, 12 seasonal dummies)..., and non-dummy variables of known estimates of active greenhouse presence minus its mean and the sun irradiance at that time (also minus its mean). This results in a standardized data value for time t and an estimate of its statistical variance for the transformed data point t (and an implied value for the untransformed data point). In other words, remove poor simple models to correct for seasonal effects and the like, and do incorporate data variance estimates (via generalized least-squares), in deriving standardizing factors. Use the above standardized data and error estimates in a generalized least-square (with likely an auto-correlation correction) trend model (or time series analysis) which incorporates variance estimates of the standardized data.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

you can actually find different sources of data providing slightly different result, all the methods are publically known https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measure...

Every single data set presented there is in temperature anomalies. Clearly, you and JJay need to sit down and get your heads together!

"Probably", part of the difference is that I used a different source for water vapor concentration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#In_Earth's_atmosphere
But accepting your figures, when I divide 5000 by 400, I get 12.5 . This still illustrates the central point: in spite of a 12-fold difference in concentration, water vapor only exerts a three-fold bigger radiative forcing.
Your calculation of 'specific absorption' seems to be premised on the misconception that the stated radiative forcings are given at equal concentration, which they aren't. Look at the units: they're Watts per meter squared, not Watts per meter squared per ppm. Or, look at the 'percent contribution to clear sky' column.
Anyway, thanks for the assumption of good faith

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

(Funny story, Ross McKitrick once did a curve-fitting exercise of the sort you describe, and found that economic activity is correlated with warming intensity, perhaps suggesting an urbanization component or other artefacts. Unfortunately for him, his result was due to a number of bungles, including forgetting to convert between degrees and radians (!)

Okay, you got me, indeed, the temperature on that graph is a local Greenland temperature. Let's look at global graphs then:

( data from http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1228026 )



Are you happy with this correlation now?

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Funny story, there are researchers that found urbanization artifact to be a valid cause of the measured temperature deviation : https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2014/374987/ They use no prediction, no models, just pure measured data. Even the critics of the theory have to accept some of the data, because the effect was well know long ago,

That's only one of the problems mentioned, but yeah, it's a little better

Yeah, that is similar to economic dimensions and tricks in other areas like health. They tell us to eat more, drink more, use pharmacy products...while exactly opposite will give us health. As Dr Ross Horne found out, on day when doctors stopped working and came on riots, number of patients decreased twice. Suddenly everybody became healthy. Also in my country one bus was in flames after being parked overnight on some location, and company said: "competition".

Haha, now I use word competition in so many funny ways. Whenever some s#*t happens either in real life or in movie, and somebody asks "what?", "why?", "who?", I say COMPETITION.

Competition everywhere. In Syria, In Korea, in food, in health, in vehicles, in sports, in games... Whenever blood gets spilled, or explosion happens, or crime...it's always they...THE COMPETITION.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Quote: Strange thing: the data from satellites and weather ballons does not show such steep rise of temperature as might be expected from greenhouse effect: https://www.americanexperiment.org/2016/11/climate-change-2-... Here's Gavin Schmidt explaining why the figure presented here is misleading, and putting it in context: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar... I don't know how you came to a conclusion about attribution from that article. They still accept the satellite data, that shows 0.3 C change in temperature anomaly globally, while the surface measurement tell us about 0.7 C raise of temperature anomaly from 1980 to 2015. They mainly debunk the comparision of modeled and measured values. Greenhouse theory suggests change of temperature in atmosphere should be larger then surface temperature, which is not the case, thus we have another argument against theory of greenhouse as a main driver of climate.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Quote: Whoa, hold on. You're changing the subject from modeled vs measured tropospheric trends, to tropospheric vs. surface trends, and making a new claim about attribution. Neither the RealClimate, nor WUWT (lol) nor "American Experiment" (LOL) posts mentioned this at all. Can you give a reputable source for where you're getting this information? Because I suspect it'll be just as questionable. The original publication from John Christy is here: http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-... You might want to plot the graphs yourself from the satellite and ballons data (the data on the graph is: "average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 climate models (red), the average of 3 satellite datasets (green -UAH, RSS, NOAA) and 4 balloon datasets (blue, NOAA, UKMet, RICH, RAOBCORE). " )

Now you're changing the subject back to satellites vs surface records. I asked you about your claim of modeled vs measured trends and attribution. We can talk about either (more on satellites here, for example, this time from Rasmus Benestad: "it is an indisputable fact that Christy’s graph presents numbers with different meanings as if they were equivalent" ) but you need to pick one. Or, if you want, we could talk about about something else entirely. For example, we could talk about the generally good agreement between modeled and measured surface temperatures

It's a good thing I know you like facts so much, or I'd have mistaken this for baseless, ideologically motivated speculation

If you look at the graph of the modern temperature global anomaly, you will find that small period fluctuations can be much more prominent than long time ones. It's even more prominent when looking at local temperatures. Thus Earth has some strong climate-driving mechanisms, and whether or not they can overcome or compensate for greenhouse effect - is one open question.
Another open question might be illustrated with picture:


The largest producers of carbon dioxide on Earth is not human's industry, but ocean and plants. So if impact of fossil fuel burn is insignificant, could it be another mechanism responsible for both raise in CO2 level and temperature anomaly?

Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist

I'm reluctant to butt in, but if I understand that picture correctly the up arrows are carbon releases into the atmosphere and down arrows are carbon sinks. The ocean and plants are nearly neutral, but there is no corresponding down arrow for fossil fuel burning. If you add up the numbers, that's still net 12 Somethings (whatever that number signifies) going into the atmosphere, all from fossil fuels. So clearly we're adding more CO2 than can be sequestered, right? And CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect and general warming, right?

This seems relevant:

http://uscentrist.org/platform/positions/environment/context...

Crazy idea probably, but... would it be remotely possible to "model" the earth as in building a large real life representation in which closely controled changes could be made to observe the effects on other parameters?

[Edited on 17-4-2018 by nitro-genes]

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

MrHomeScientistOcean contains approx 40 000 gigatonns of CO2 dissolved. Atmosphere contains 3000 gigatonns of CO2. On the picture i've posted plants and ocean absorb 17 Gt of CO2, while humanity produces 29. In fact humanity produced 10 Gt in 2015 year ( https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions ), but the CO2 level is still rising, which is consistent with theory that influence of humanity on CO2 level in atmosphere is insignificant.

Quote: Originally posted by MrHomeScientist

Can you provide the source for that picture?

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

You are making mountain out of molehill. I explaned in the very next message that "proven" means "not refuted". I tried to fall and it hurts - that's sufficient proof of gravitation to me. I'm talking about Popper's definition of scientific method. And that's the reason it is so vulnerable to cherry picking. And I know well about phylosophical, religious, and political constituents of the modern science, but I prefere to ignore them, because they have nothing to deal with scientific method. Of course I can say something is true, I can believe in god, but that's not something we like to talk about here at sciencemadness.

Asking for a reasonable, well-defined standard of evidence is not making a mountain out of a molehill. The standard of evidence you've described is not reasonable, and it's not well-defined, but I'll accept it here, because it means that:
1) anthropogenic global warming is "proven". (You yourself say: "...you might say that the theory is doubtful or incomplete. That's the case of the currently accepted greenhouse theory of climate". In other words, it hasn't been refuted!)
2) it's "proven" that you owe me $100
When are you going to pay up? I will accept cash, check, or money order.

Quote: Originally posted by mayko

Quote: Strange thing: the data from satellites and weather ballons does not show such steep rise of temperature as might be expected from greenhouse effect: https://www.americanexperiment.org/2016/11/climate-change-2-... Here's Gavin Schmidt explaining why the figure presented here is misleading, and putting it in context: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar... I don't know how you came to a conclusion about attribution from that article.

Then I've already answered that they don't question the satellite data, but rather question the model the data is compared with. Satellite data still remains reliable, and still is not fitting the currently accepted theory.

update: here's the only argument about uncertainty of data from satellites from the article, it compares the data from different observations, you can see small deviations, but overall trend is consistent, pretty much proving the reliability of the data:



[Edited on 18-4-2018 by byko3y]

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Quote: You may decide Quote: anthropogenic global warming is "proven". (You yourself say: "...you might say that the theory is doubtful or incomplete. That's the case of the currently accepted greenhouse theory of climate". In other words, it hasn't been refuted!) - that's exactly what we see today in climate committees: no extrinsical data and researchers are allowed to pass in, thus forming a separated world where every experimental data is suporting the accepted theory. [Edited on 18-4-2018 by byko3y] You mean like the chart you gave yourself that shows a net sinkage of Co2 without human influence, but a net increase with it added to the sums?

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Quote: it's "proven" that you owe me $100 You may decide anything for yourself, but nobody except you is able to verify your statement.

Quote: Originally posted by DrP

You mean like the chart you gave yourself that shows a net sinkage of Co2 without human influence, but a net increase with it added to the sums?

He (and I) are trying to point out that your chart:



clearly shows that the net movement of carbon into the atmosphere is 12 [Gt/year] , if you add up all the contributions shown. 29 + 439 - 450 + 332 - 338 = 12

It also shows that the land and sea do indeed emit a lot of carbon, but they absorb it all right back (and then some). So it makes no difference at all how big those numbers are compared to human emissions. That is irrelevant. The part that matters is net change, which is +12 into the atmosphere. Even though humans are a small contributor, we are producing more than the environment can absorb. Thus carbon builds up in the atmosphere. That was the point of mayko's bank account analogy.

Again this is all based on a piece of data that you gave. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just trying to point out that your sources might not be telling the story you think they are.

Quote: Originally posted by byko3y

Quote: it's "proven" that you owe me $100 You may decide anything for yourself, but nobody except you is able to verify your statement.

Quote:

Quote: I've posted several links about this; if that's how you feel about them, fine... but are your feelings FACTs?? Are you talking about this one: Quote: Originally posted by mayko   Quote: Strange thing: the data from satellites and weather ballons does not show such steep rise of temperature as might be expected from greenhouse effect: https://www.americanexperiment.org/2016/11/climate-change-2-... Here's Gavin Schmidt explaining why the figure presented here is misleading, and putting it in context: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar... I don't know how you came to a conclusion about attribution from that article. Then I've already answered that they don't question the satellite data, but rather question the model the data is compared with. Satellite data still remains reliable, and still is not fitting the currently accepted theory. update: here's the only argument about uncertainty of data from satellites from the article, it compares the data from different observations, you can see small deviations, but overall trend is consistent, pretty much proving the reliability of the data:

I don't really understand how that article relates to our discussion, there's much clearer fact you've stated that the change in CO2 level in the last century should be as low as 10-20 ppm, while the actual raise is measured to be 130 ppm, thus humanity probably is attributed to 110-120 ppm change (and not 100% as the author of the article wants us to believe):


But overall I agree that the present raise of CO2 level is mainly anthropogenic, environment is not absorbing the CO2 quickly enough.