CO2 'cools' Earth's atmosphere?

[cyclonic happiness]

I like to read the website 'Iceagenow' because I like to get both sides of the story.

Well this article has popped up today and I want to know how credible it is?

It's a NASA study, so should hold water...anyway.

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/

[BornFromTheVoid]

I like to read the website 'Iceagenow' because I like to get both sides of the story.

Well this article has popped up today and I want to know how credible it is?

It's a NASA study, so should hold water...anyway.

http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/

 

Read the actual NASA report. It says nothing of the sort claimed by Iceagenow.

 

That site won't give you any side of any story, just fantasy!

[UV-RAY]

Read the actual NASA report. It says nothing of the sort claimed by Iceagenow.

 

That site won't give you any side of any story, just fantasy!

I would say read all sites pro and anti, but take them at face value only as they are both manipulative and economical with truth.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I would say read all sites pro and anti, but take them at face value only as they are both manipulative and economical with truth.

 

Just wondering, but what "pro" site would you consider the equivalent of iceagenow?

Edited April 21, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[ANYWEATHER]

It feels like the" Lions Den"     In this part of the forum!!!

[BornFromTheVoid]

If only we had the wealth...

[Methuselah]

Oh dear! That's hundreds of years' physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics overturned then...What'll it be next - the laws of thermodynamics?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Oh dear! That's hundreds of years' physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics overturned then...What'll it be next - the laws of thermodynamics?

 

Good ol' Joe B has already been there...

 

Fox's global warming expert, Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the WeatherBELLmeteorological consulting firm, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/08/09/a-fox-news-science-lesson/185961

[Methuselah]

Good ol' Joe B has already been there...

 

Fox's global warming expert, Joe Bastardi, who is employed by the WeatherBELLmeteorological consulting firm, declared that the theory of human-induced climate change "contradicts what we call the 1st law of thermodynamics. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So to look for input of energy into the atmosphere, you have to come from a foreign source."

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/08/09/a-fox-news-science-lesson/185961

If he's a physicist, he's telling porkies; if not, rubbish like that can only come from a corporate crib sheet...

Edited April 21, 2013 by Rybris Ponce

[Gray-Wolf]

If you use 'foriegn source' as energy that , up until now, has not been available for use then he's right?

 

If it's albedo then the energy once' safely' bounced back into space and is now readily absorbed by the planet is a 'foriegn source' seeing as it used to play no part in the 'then' workings of our climate?

 

If we look at the carbon cycle then the 'foriegn source' is all the carbon that used to play no part in the climate system and now does. Our releasing of carbon pollution from 'old' carbon systems of the planet, that had been safely removed from it's workings millions of years ago, then we have a 'foriegn source'. the same for the portion hidden away from the climate system within the permafrost whilst temps were not high enough to 're-introduce' that section of our carbon cycle back into the climate system.

 

The portion of the planets climate system that was 'hidden' from other tasks, by being fully employed in ice melt for instance,( at either ends of the planet during their summer seasons) that now find the ice has melted for a quater of the year could be viewed as a 'foriegn source' as it's recent introduction into the climate system (to do other tasks other than ice melt).

 

All of these examples show portions of 'energy', that was always 'potentially' able to interact with the climate system , now free to interact with the climate system.

 

J.B is right, you can't get away from cause and effect or energy neither being created or destroyed. With so much 'new' enegy now within the climate system we should expect to see 'effect' it has within that system. A system that was 'quasi stable' throughout the period of our 'civilisation' within it's 'natural' variations. We are now in a period where we have the old 'quasi stable'' system having to adapt to 'extra' forcings from 'new energy' that we have helped unleash into the climate system.

 

The planet has far more of this 'hidden energy' ready to be introduced into the climate system.

 

Be it from permafrost melt (far more carbon to enter the climate system than we were able to introduce).

 

Or albedo flip (all the major ice sheets have yet to show the type of 'flip' that the Arctic ocean has been able to do though Greenlands looks to be 'on with it' with recent dips in the ice surface albedo over summer!)

 

Re-deployed energy (plenty more areas that could lose ice for a portion of the year!)

 

Fossil fuel use (plenty more coal oil and gas to burn)

 

And also a wallop of energy we have managed to 'hide' from the climate system ourselves over the past 50yrs or so. When top of atmosphere TSI near matches the amount we get at the surface some areas stand to see Surface TSI increase by up to 10%!!!

 

All in all we are on a path that seems certain to see the planets climate system 'realise' the potential of all the 'hidden energy' that our past climate state kept out of service.

 

The best way to imagine this is to look at past 'albedo flips' at the end of glacial periods. When Ice has waned enough we reach a 'threshold' where positive feedbacks drop off ice coverage (land and ocean) so fast that we then get the rapid warmings, taking a matter of years to complete, that we see in the climate record.

 

If we accept that Arctic ice losss is messing with our hemispheres circulation then what when Greenland begins a rapid decline in it's ice? The recent reduction in mass loss 'doubling periods' and albedo crash would appear to signal the beginning of this decline with upslope ice waning and top down melt combine tobring about partial melt out of the sheet. If it's messing with our climate having only half the basin ice free a small portion of the year then what when it's all open water (doubling the climat 'push' it gives today?) and what when this is a year (four times the push of ice free a bit of the year???) and what of Greenlands ice sheet waning (another push?)

 

And what of this warming on the major ice sheets of Antarctica? how much ocean/land surface do we need to reveal to match the albedo flip up north and what will this 'warming' do to the ice that is left??? If we look at the area of' ice free' and the length of time 'ice free' then we can see what we need to drive the changes we see today but the final loss of sea ice is now upon us (just not ficed a dat!) near doubling the area impacted. How much 'fringe melt of Greenland need we see to achieve an area of albedo flip big enough to wrought it'sown impact? And how much of the Antarctic Peninsula is going to suddenly decome another 'absorber' instead of reflector? We've seen the ice shelfs go so part of the ocean has already 'flipped' for part of the year.....

 

The planet is positioned so as to be happily 'ice free' were there not the albedo loss of current ice cover. remove that cover and you effectively bring about just that and all with energy already available to the planet. all it needs is a coaxing push in the right direction and mother N. will do the rest!

Edited April 21, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[cyclonic happiness]

It feels like the" Lions Den":sorry:     In this part of the forum!!!

Know what you mean, sometimes one has to be so careful what one says for fear of being savaged by the 'intellegencia' :-D

[Methuselah]

Except that no-one's ever suggested that CO₂, manmade or otherwise, creates energy at all, just that a warmer troposphere is counterbalanced by cooler temperatures higher up...Nowt more than redistribution...? It certainly doesn't violate 1LOT...

[syed2878]

reading this part of the forum it seems that if any1 who doesn't agree with globle warming that most banging on about then these peoples views becomes fantercies.

[Methuselah]

reading this part of the forum it seems that if any1 who doesn't agree with globle warming that most banging on about then these peoples views becomes fantercies.

Never make the mistake of ignoring the laws of physics, AVFC. There are many perfectly cogent criticisms of AGW Theory around but this, unfortunately, isn't one of them...It's sleight of hand.

[stewfox]

Never make the mistake of ignoring the laws of physics, AVFC. There are many perfectly cogent criticisms of AGW Theory around but this, unfortunately, isn't one of them...It's sleight of hand.

 

I thought there is a theory nothing came before the big bang ?

[Methuselah]

I thought there is a theory nothing came before the big bang ?

And?

[Gray-Wolf]

How do you know that stew?

 

I thought that the flowering of our universe was just one amongst many over what we are forced to understand as a bound infinity within an infinate time loop?