Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You understand this all depends on cloud feedback being nonnegative, right?
     
  2. yDraigGoch

    yDraigGoch Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That is a cop out to allow non believers to keep doing damage. The reality is that everyone should decrease the combustion. There is no way, at this time, to completely stop. But we should all be willing to give up a little for the good of all.
     
  3. yDraigGoch

    yDraigGoch Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Cloud feedback shifts back and forth between positive and negative. These actions are sustained with no positive effects. The net in such cases is always one sided. If cloud feedback were a constant, your premise would be correct.
     
  4. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean like lower the national speed limit to 50 mph? Yes, that would be a good starting sacrifice.
     
  5. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nevertheless, over any given period of time, averaged globally, it's either negative or nonnegative.

    What are you talking about?

    That's not a requirement, any more than constant temp increase is a requirement for AGW theory to be correct.
     
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What percentage should everyone reduce and what exactly results will that have in C02 levels?
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,147
    Likes Received:
    3,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's false. There is barely a measurable difference.
    But the effect is very small because the temperature change is very small. Water vapor CANNOT have the kind of exaggerated positive feedback effect all the alarmist climate models assume.
    No. If that were possible, it would have happened at the end of the last Ice Age. Because you don't know any science, you don't understand that the methane from melting permafrost has to come from biological processes that put the carbon and hydrogen there in the first place. But that means the net effect of melting the permafrost has to be biosequestration of carbon, not carbon release.
    No, it's quite robustly damped to the upside by the negative albedo feedback from cloud formation. The dangerous delicate balance is on the cooling side, because the ice-albedo feedback is positive.
    Only on the cooling side. That's what causes Ice Ages. Not on the warming side. The paleoclimate record clearly shows a maximum temperature due to negative feedback.
    No, that's just absurd nonsense with no basis in empirical fact.
     
  8. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Arrhenius made the first prediction of CO2's warming effect. He hand calculated a value of ~5C per doubling of concentration based on empirical data from laboratory experiments. That is a value that is surprisingly close to contemporary estimates we have today. And he did that without the knowledge of quantum mechanics or fancy computer models to assist him...in 1896! CO2 definitely has a significant effect. It's effect on the global mean temperature a per doubling basis is about 2 orders of magnitude higher than the typical precision of the global mean temperature itself.
     
  9. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,980
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't see that it was published in any respectable journal. That means it isn't science. It is just some guys talking.

    And the authors
    Jim Wallace, John Christy and Joe D'Aleo

    Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston

    Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University M.A, Economics, University of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group

    Dr. Craig D. Idso Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University M.S., Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln B.S., Geography, Arizona State University

    LOL! Give me a break!!! Do you go to a mechanic for brain surgery too?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You left out the studies author. I wonder why.
    "JosephD'Aleo is a former college professor of Meteorology at Lyndon State College.

    He is the Executive Director and Certified Consultant Meteorologist of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), an organization of climate change skeptics.

    D'Aleo was the first Director of Meteorology at the cable TV Weather Channel and was ex-Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and Senior Editor of “Dr. Dewpoint” for WSI’s Intellicast.com web site."
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,524
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And he's been on the Heartland payroll for many years.

    Most importantly, his science is awful. For example, in 2008, D'Aleo declared the earth had entered a cooling period. He gets pretty much everything wrong. Oddly, the more someone is wrong, the more credibility deniers give them.
     
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,524
    Likes Received:
    2,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In 2010, water vapor was measured at 4% higher than in the 1970s. That's significant.

    Why not? Explain the physics behind your claim. After all, the climate has already responded with something close to the 3C/doubling sensitivity predicted by the models. If water vapor had little effect, it shouldn't have done that.

    Whether melted permafrost then sequesters CO2 on the scale of tens of thousands of years has no bearing on the fact that it spits out gobs of methane and CO2 when it initially melts. Real science takes time frames into consideration.

    Research shows cloud feedback to warming is likely to be positive.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022887

    Agreed. There's no conceivable way for Earth to have a runaway supergreenhouse effect like Venus.
     
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I want you read one of his masterpieces here. Note, that on page 22 he presents his and Easterbrook's prediction of the global mean temperature. For convenience he includes the IPCC prediction. Just check it out is all I'm going to say.
     
  14. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you have a point to make, make it
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The IPCC's prediction is nearly spot on as of the most recent year (2017). D'Aleo's prediction is off by a very wide margin. Note, that he and Easterbrook predicted that cooling would commence in 2008 and continue until at least 2050. They couldn't have been more wrong. In fact, they were so wrong that they didn't even get the direction of the temperature change correct. With each passing year their predictions get more an more wrong.

    Also, FWIW here is the computer model prediction of the global mean temperature with the observation from several sources.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  16. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spot on? You call lack of significant warming in the last decade as C02 levels have risen exponentially spot on?
     
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lack of warming? Over the last decade (2008 to 2017) the Earth warmed by 0.4C.

    Also, CO2 rise is mostly linear.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spot on? You call lack of significant warming in the last decade as C02 levels have risen exponentially spot on?
    Seems the warmers are fighting among themselves on that issue

    Global warming hasn’t stopped, the heat’s just HIDING deep within the Pacific Ocean, claim scientists
    • IPCC report last year said temperatures have barely risen in past 15 years
    • This is despite more greenhouse gases being pumped into atmosphere
    • New study claims winds in Pacific have driven heat deep underwater
    • This has had a net effect of cooling surface temperatures by 0.1°C and 0.2°C

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...DING-deep-Pacific-Ocean-claim-scientists.html





    "The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."

    https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/
     
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That article was written in 2014 and is referencing a conclusion from 2013. So the last 15 years is 1998 to 2012 from the perspective of THAT article. So yes, during that period the global mean temperature barely moved at all. You can see it in my chart below. However, note that 1998 was a really strong El Nino and 2012 was a really strong La Nina. This is a really common trick I see by deniers. They cherry pick one period of time that is strategically chosen to best exploit "the pause". The fact is that there have been many pauses in the warming. But, the thing is after each one the Earth resumes it's warming.

    Again, during "last decade" the global mean temperature increased 0.4C.

    [​IMG]

    However, the total oceanic heat content has risen considerably...without pausing. So while the deep ocean didn't warm much the upper ocean above the thermocline warmed a lot.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2018
  20. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it doesn't need to be a runaway, a 10c rise should be sufficient to end civilization as we know it...most deniers don't comprehend how tiny a temperature zone we exist in, even a small deviation in temp has catastrophic consequences to the ecosystem that sustains us and all life...just as our planet orbits in a "Goldilocks" zone around our sun all life has adapted to it's own Goldilocks temperature zone on the earth.
     
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you admit for at least that period of time, that 15 years the climate didn't warm as predicted. That's a start.
     
  22. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. That's what the data says. And it's not just that NASA GISS dataset. It's all of them. So I have no choice but to admit that there was a pause in the warming. There have actually been several pauses as is plainly obvious from the chart I posted. And I can say with near 100% confidence that there will be more extended pauses like these in the future.

    However, what is also obvious is that the secular trend is up. That is just as undeniable as the pause from 1998 to 2012. The Earth is getting warmer!
     
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113

    And has been since the end of the last ice age with the exceptions of pauses and the little ice age era.
     
  24. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if CO2 isn't a pollutant why is my nephew's engineering firm making millions removing excess CO2 from buildings, offices, schools, homes etc.? ...because CO2 play's large part in SBS(Sick Building Syndrome)...any time a gas regardless of which type reaches abnormal levels it becomes a pollutant.
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,147
    Likes Received:
    3,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And is indisputably far greater than the actual effect. Arrhenius's number implies that if CO2 were reduced by a factor of 1000, the earth would be colder than the moon! It's just idiotic nonsense with no basis in fact.
     

Share This Page