3 of 6
3
What’s with the scientific fixation on the Carbon Theory?
Posted: 06 July 2017 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who’s signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian “theory” or challenge to the physics that hasn’t been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around, you’ll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.   
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

The list:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Weather satellites that can image heat and moisture and wind’s effects into comprehensible images.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Precipitable water. Contrast brightness temperatures measured via oxygen emissions and via H2O emissions to back calculate how much water is present.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Heat seeking air to air missiles, they would not function if those guidence computers didn’t have a complete description of how heat moves through the atmosphere.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
* Early-Warning satellites.  How are they going to distinguish between a missile launch from lightning, over Siberia?  Better look at IR in DETAIL!

Spectroscopic Databases such as HiTran and Geisa have military origins. Going back to WWII and the desire to do Night Bombing better. Then this continued during research programs in the 50’s & 60’s, with a lot of it through the Cambridge Research Laboratory.

The program ModTran that is an example of a narrow band Radiative Transfer Code, for calculating radiative transfer. Half the patents for this are held by the Pentagon. The company that develops it - Spectral Sciences Inc - does so under license to the United States Air Force.
http://modtran5.com/
http://www.spectral.com/MODTRAN.shtml
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

For 20 years developments to ModTran were signed off by the Commandant of the USAF GeoPhysics Laboratory, Hanscom AFB, Ma. These days it is the responsibility of the Commandant, the USAF Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, NM.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*  Lasers wouldn’t work if we had radiative physics wrong.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*  The detection of specific chemicals in the atmospheres of exoplanets:
By modeling the gases at high pressures, you can produce an expected absorption for infrared from the planet and compare the model to the spectra recorded by the Spitzer space telescope.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*Spectroscopy includes measurement of absorption of IR wavelengths
eg measurement of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and ice cores relies on IR absorption. (that would make using ice core records to “prove” GHE doesn’t exists amusing)
“Each sample has a volume of 4~6 cm3. CO2 concentration was measured with IR tunable diode laser spectroscopy, scanning a single vibrational-rotational absorption line.”  https://nsidc.org/data/docs/agdc/nsidc0202_wahlen/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*  And it’s not just physics of the standard GH gases.
Microwave emissions of oxygen molecules gives us satellite temperature sensing of the atmosphere.
Nitrogen - Nitrogen collisions form part of the basis of the GH effect on places like Saturn’s moon Titan.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*  Getting out of the IR range, but the Dobson spectrophotometer designed in 1924 to measure ozone (and the standard instrument for doing so, for many years) is based on the application of Beers Law. Using two close wavelengths that differ mainly in their O3 absorption coefficients, total column O3 is determined by the difference in transmission (sun view).
Careful selection of wavelengths allows measurement of many atmospheric gases.
IR instruments for CO2 and H2O are off-the-shelf items.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But wait, there’s more . . .
Check out this power point for a complete review of what scientists understand, it’s first class - perhaps the best summation for nonscientists I’ve seen:

Greenhouse Gas and Climate Science Measurements
The SIM Metrology School October 28 – November 1, 2013

James Whetstone
Special Assistant to the Director for Greenhouse Gas Measurements
National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA
http://www.nist.gov/iaao/upload/SIM_School_Climate_Final_James_Whetstone.pdf

Outline
• The Sun and The Earth
–Protection Mechanisms for Life on the Surface
• Properties of Earth’s Atmosphere
–Earth’s energy budget and greenhouse mechanisms – Greenhouses
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Atmospheric Propagation and Effect
The Atmospheric Propagation and Effect department focuses on laser applications in the open atmosphere. Main topics are the use of laser radiation over long distances, such as optical energy transmission (laser power beaming, laser-based air defence) and the remote detection of pollutants and hazardous substances.

Home:  Institute:Departments:Atmospheric Propagation and Effect
http://www.dlr.de/tp/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2789/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“CHRONOLOGY From the Cambridge Field Stations to the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory 1945-1985”.
Liebowitz, Ruth P.  |  Hanscom Air Force Base Geophysics Laboratory.
Bedford, Massachusetts

(For highlights link to http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Rise and Fall of Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories.
Edward E. Altshuler |  January 2, 2013.
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Force-Cambridge-Research-Laboratories/dp/1481832514
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

History of Australian research into Airborne Laser weapons systems
HIGH ENERGY LASER WEAPONS
Australian Aviation & Defense Review
by Carlo Kopp, December, 1981
http://www.ausairpower.net/AADR-HEL-Dec-81.html

Courtesy of http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

cheese

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2017 06:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Okay Doug, or any other takers,

Riddle me this.  Why isn’t this common knowledge?
Why hasn’t there been a movie and documentary about the intrepid young cold warrior scientists striving to develop the magical ability of getting bombs to fly faster than air planes in order to fire up some exhaust hole and blow up.
Yes, heat seeking air to air missiles.
Very complex machines,
very complex environment they must navigate through.

Why not explain the basics of the math and then explain the serendipity realization about why this had huge things to tell us about why our planet remained warm.

Namely the anatomy of our atmosphere, etc, etc,
or
The fact that independent teams in all the major countries, mostly working in secret, developed the same damned understanding and numbers.
etc, etc

(typo)


So damned much more that could be said, but gotta run and play wage-slave.

[ Edited: 08 July 2017 05:48 AM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2017 06:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

instead we repeat the same disingenuous contrived debate game going on since the 80s/90s and the oligarch constructed rightwing christian political machine, dedicated to profits over all else.

nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 July 2017 06:39 AM

instead we repeat the same disingenuous contrived debate game going on since the 80s/90s and the oligarch constructed rightwing christian political machine, dedicated to profits over all else.

nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it

Is it really that people don’t want to learn? Or take the time to learn? That just doesn’t sound correct. What is going on is that the pushers of deniers have lost any credit that they may once have had. The IPCC still has credit because they have not taken the stance that seems to be a left movement on global warming.
 
CC, you are more into this than I am so let me ask you for your opinion on an article that came out just a couple days ago.
 
First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets. The article was posted in many trade magazines like Science Daily and phys.org for example. Is this a type of article that you would back up?
 
It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts. They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.
 
“Climate evolution shows some regularities, which can be traced throughout long periods of earth’s history. One of them is that the global average temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere usually go hand-in-hand. To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”
 
Second question. Are they saying that the CO2 is following the temperature of the heat? Because if the heat goes down the CO2 has in the past also gone down too. If people read articles like this and they don’t blindly agree with what you want them to think. I don’t think that is people not wanting to learn or understand. I think it is too much garbage to pick through to have a clear perspective. 
 
The next question is outside of the article. And that is, if at the top of every 100,000-year climate cycle we have record heat and the extinction of species. We are now thirty years past the top of the 100,000-year cycle. What should we be expecting as far as record heat and extinctions without the Climate Change? One would think that it would be much worse than it is right now without mankind’s contribution.

Added
//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170706113244.htm
and
//phys.org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos.html

[ Edited: 10 July 2017 12:08 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 04:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

WTF is

MikeYohe:
pushers of deniers

MikeYohe - 10 July 2017 12:05 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 July 2017 06:39 AM

instead we repeat the same disingenuous contrived debate game going on since the 80s/90s and the oligarch constructed rightwing christian political machine, dedicated to profits over all else.
Nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it

Is it really that people don’t want to learn? Or take the time to learn? That just doesn’t sound correct.

Yes, all indications point at people not being interested in learning about climate science.
Considering the transparent, childish lies they continue to embrace no matter how many times the details get explained to them.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy 

MikeYohe:
First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets… It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts.
They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.

NO!  You are relying on the big Lie of Omission.

This is talking about measuring, recording, processing overwhelmingly complex information.
You also hide how small these differences in numbers being argued over are, worst you avoid the bottomline truth that:
EVERY MOLECULE OF CO2 ADDS TO OUR ATMOSPHERE’S INSULATION ABILITY.
NOTHING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THAT GEOPHYSICAL REALITY FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Proof positive that the physical understanding is exact and unavoidable (even if deniable) can be found in the list of modern marvels that would be impossible without an exquisitely accurate understanding of Earth’s atmospheric profile and greenhouse gas behavior within all its layers.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Labhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

MikeYohe:
“Climate evolution shows some regularities, which can be traced throughout long periods of earth’s history. One of them is that the global average temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere usually go hand-in-hand. To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”

No!  It shows that people don’t appreciate all the different elements that influence climate and the details of how it plays out during any particular epoch.

Understanding the past is fun and slightly informative, but it’s not the key understanding by a long shot.  Also, past climate makes absolutely not sense if you don’t understand the greenhouse component - which you are deliberately trying to muddle up with that scientifically ridiculous paragraph up there.

MikeYohe:
  Second question. Are they saying that the CO2 is following the temperature of the heat? Because if the heat goes down the CO2 has in the past also gone down too. If people read articles like this and they don’t blindly agree with what you want them to think. I don’t think that is people not wanting to learn or understand. I think it is too much garbage to pick through to have a clear perspective. 

IT’S THE INSULATION STUPID !

SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT GREENHOUSE GASES HOLD IN X AMOUNT OF HEAT.

What happens with that heat and how it gets circulated around our planet and its climate gets exceedingly difficult to track, quantify and process. 

You and your treasonous slimy gold and blood soaked crowd have managed to convince petty self-centered humans that difficulties in drawing the map means you could ignore the territory 

Come on, how stupid can you get?  Of course people don’t want to know about it, it’s shit news.  It means the party was over and living was going to demand a little serious forethought and moderation.  Moderation in the amount of babies we pumped out and moderation in our expectations of the world.

Instead, Reaganomics, “Too Much is Never Enough” - “He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins” mentality and faith-based thinking won the race of how to meet the inevitable human/societal challenge of reckoning with a shrinking EARTH and The Limits of Growth.
And now Trump the American glorification of Me First infantilism is occupying the White House like the Joker he is and the GOP is tearing down our government as fast as possible while the children of the enlightenment stand by watching.

Oh but I digress.

MikeYohe:
The next question is outside of the article. And that is, if at the top of every 100,000-year climate cycle we have record heat and the extinction of species. We are now thirty years past the top of the 100,000-year cycle. What should we be expecting as far as record heat and extinctions without the Climate Change? One would think that it would be much worse than it is right now without mankind’s contribution.

How many times are you going to repeat that totally irrelevant question?  You’ve been provided the answer a dozen times by various posters here.  Earth would be ever so slowly phasing into a glaciation.  That transition takes place over centuries, millennia and longer. 

What we have done to our atmosphere has an impact NOW, every impact isn’t recognized, but we know the increased warming is relentlessly spreading throughout the system.  Current weather events already prove plenty well that a warming Earth is going to become an increasingly hostile place to live.

MikeYohe: Added
//www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2017/07/170706113244.htm
also {the two articles are the same press release}
phys. org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos. html

“Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava- and carbon dioxide emissions.
The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system’s
descent into the last ice age,” adds Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR.
The investigations suggest that close interactions between the solid earth and the climate system exist also on geologically relatively short time scales of about 5,000 to 15,000 years. …

So what the hell is that supposed to do with understanding the necessary fundamentals of climate science?  It’s an obscure brick in the edifice of today’s complex understanding.  Interesting for sure but an absolutely disingenuous distraction if a serious discussion about the “Carbon Theory” is what you’re here for.

But, I know that’s not what your here for.  This is an interesting game, nothing more, you are on the winning side, enjoying the fruits of your efforts, mark my words you will find them bitter fruits indeed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 July 2017 04:07 PM

WTF is

MikeYohe:
pushers of deniers

MikeYohe - 10 July 2017 12:05 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 07 July 2017 06:39 AM

instead we repeat the same disingenuous contrived debate game going on since the 80s/90s and the oligarch constructed rightwing christian political machine, dedicated to profits over all else.
Nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it

Is it really that people don’t want to learn? Or take the time to learn? That just doesn’t sound correct.

Yes, all indications point at people not being interested in learning about climate science.
Considering the transparent, childish lies they continue to embrace no matter how many times the details get explained to them.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy 

MikeYohe:
First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets… It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts.
They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.

NO!  You are relying on the big Lie of Omission.

This is talking about measuring, recording, processing overwhelmingly complex information.
You also hide how small these differences in numbers being argued over are, worst you avoid the bottomline truth that:
EVERY MOLECULE OF CO2 ADDS TO OUR ATMOSPHERE’S INSULATION ABILITY.
NOTHING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THAT GEOPHYSICAL REALITY FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Proof positive that the physical understanding is exact and unavoidable (even if deniable) can be found in the list of modern marvels that would be impossible without an exquisitely accurate understanding of Earth’s atmospheric profile and greenhouse gas behavior within all its layers.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Labhttp://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

MikeYohe:
“Climate evolution shows some regularities, which can be traced throughout long periods of earth’s history. One of them is that the global average temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere usually go hand-in-hand. To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”

No!  It shows that people don’t appreciate all the different elements that influence climate and the details of how it plays out during any particular epoch.

Understanding the past is fun and slightly informative, but it’s not the key understanding by a long shot.  Also, past climate makes absolutely not sense if you don’t understand the greenhouse component - which you are deliberately trying to muddle up with that scientifically ridiculous paragraph up there.

MikeYohe:
  Second question. Are they saying that the CO2 is following the temperature of the heat? Because if the heat goes down the CO2 has in the past also gone down too. If people read articles like this and they don’t blindly agree with what you want them to think. I don’t think that is people not wanting to learn or understand. I think it is too much garbage to pick through to have a clear perspective. 

IT’S THE INSULATION STUPID !

SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT GREENHOUSE GASES HOLD IN X AMOUNT OF HEAT.

What happens with that heat and how it gets circulated around our planet and its climate gets exceedingly difficult to track, quantify and process. 

You and your treasonous slimy gold and blood soaked crowd have managed to convince petty self-centered humans that difficulties in drawing the map means you could ignore the territory 

Come on, how stupid can you get?  Of course people don’t want to know about it, it’s shit news.  It means the party was over and living was going to demand a little serious forethought and moderation.  Moderation in the amount of babies we pumped out and moderation in our expectations of the world.

Instead, Reaganomics, “Too Much is Never Enough” - “He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins” mentality and faith-based thinking won the race of how to meet the inevitable human/societal challenge of reckoning with a shrinking EARTH and The Limits of Growth.
And now Trump the American glorification of Me First infantilism is occupying the White House like the Joker he is and the GOP is tearing down our government as fast as possible while the children of the enlightenment stand by watching.

Oh but I digress.

MikeYohe:
The next question is outside of the article. And that is, if at the top of every 100,000-year climate cycle we have record heat and the extinction of species. We are now thirty years past the top of the 100,000-year cycle. What should we be expecting as far as record heat and extinctions without the Climate Change? One would think that it would be much worse than it is right now without mankind’s contribution.

How many times are you going to repeat that totally irrelevant question?  You’ve been provided the answer a dozen times by various posters here.  Earth would be ever so slowly phasing into a glaciation.  That transition takes place over centuries, millennia and longer. 

What we have done to our atmosphere has an impact NOW, every impact isn’t recognized, but we know the increased warming is relentlessly spreading throughout the system.  Current weather events already prove plenty well that a warming Earth is going to become an increasingly hostile place to live.

MikeYohe: Added
//www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2017/07/170706113244.htm
also {the two articles are the same press release}
phys. org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos. html

“Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava- and carbon dioxide emissions.
The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system’s
descent into the last ice age,” adds Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR.
The investigations suggest that close interactions between the solid earth and the climate system exist also on geologically relatively short time scales of about 5,000 to 15,000 years. …

So what the hell is that supposed to do with understanding the necessary fundamentals of climate science?  It’s an obscure brick in the edifice of today’s complex understanding.  Interesting for sure but an absolutely disingenuous distraction if a serious discussion about the “Carbon Theory” is what you’re here for.

But, I know that’s not what your here for.  This is an interesting game, nothing more, you are on the winning side, enjoying the fruits of your efforts, mark my words you will find them bitter fruits indeed.

You need to re-look at the article. What I think it is saying is that during our last Ice Age the CO2 did not drop because of the temperature drop because there was CO2 being released into the atmosphere. If that is true. Then the latest articles being released today are saying that the CO2 is following the temperature. You are telling me that the people are stupid because they don’t understand the Carbon Theory. All I am saying is just look at what is in the media for the people to read today. The problem is not the people.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  855
Joined  2016-01-24

feeding a climate change troll makes you a climate change troll.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Doug, sometimes ...

DougC - 10 July 2017 06:50 PM

feeding a climate change troll makes you a climate change troll.

MikeYoke might well be a troll, but if you call this

Yes, all indications point at people not being interested in learning about climate science.
Considering the transparent, childish lies they continue to embrace no matter how many times the details get explained to them.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy 

MikeYohe:
First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets… It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts.
They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.

NO!  You are relying on the big Lie of Omission.

IT’S THE INSULATION STUPID !

SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING THAT GREENHOUSE GASES HOLD IN X AMOUNT OF HEAT.

What happens with that heat and how it gets circulated around our planet and its climate gets exceedingly difficult to track, quantify and process.

This is talking about measuring, recording, processing overwhelmingly complex information.
You also hide how small these differences in numbers being argued over are, worst you avoid the bottomline truth that:
EVERY MOLECULE OF CO2 ADDS TO OUR ATMOSPHERE’S INSULATION ABILITY.
NOTHING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THAT GEOPHYSICAL REALITY FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Proof positive that the physical understanding is exact and unavoidable (even if deniable) can be found in the list of modern marvels that would be impossible without an exquisitely accurate understanding of Earth’s atmospheric profile and greenhouse gas behavior within all its layers.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, 
Cambridge Research Lab
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

 

feeding a trolling   smirk 

WTF is the matter with you Doug, did the whole scope, substance and trajectory of this thread so totally go over your head?
No wonder we keep loosing so horribly.
Did you really not get the message here?
While the rest of gallery looks on in stone silence.   LOL 
. . .    blank stare

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2017 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7695
Joined  2009-02-26

@ CCv3, et al

In context of the OP, this may be of crucial importance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzgHZBr_m1Y

It is truly amazing in scope and implication.

[ Edited: 10 July 2017 09:57 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2017 06:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Thank you Write4U, at least you link indicates you were catching my drift.

Write4U - 10 July 2017 09:55 PM

@ CCv3, et al

In context of the OP, this may be of crucial importance.

Robert Hazen: Unanswered questions in deep carbon research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzgHZBr_m1Y

It is truly amazing in scope and implication.

Published on Jun 3, 2013
Dr Robert Hazen’s lecture at the annual Molecular Frontiers Symposium at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm, May 2013.
The topic of the 2013 symposium was “Exploring the boundaries: the science of the extremes”.
Check our YouTube channel for more exciting science videos!
For more information, visit http://www.molecularfrontiers.org

Why Deep Carbon?
Robert M. Hazen and Craig M. Schiffries

Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington

All chemical elements are special, but some are more special than others. Of the 88 naturally occurring, long-lived elements on Earth, carbon stands alone. As the basis of all biomolecules, no other element contributes so centrally to the wellbeing and sustainability of life on Earth, including our human species.

The near-surface carbon cycle profoundly affects Earth’s changeable climate, the health of ecosystems, the availability of inexpensive energy, and the resilience of the environment. No other element plays a role in so diverse an array of useful solid, liquid, and gaseous materials: food and fuels; paints and dyes; paper and plastics; abrasives and lubricants; electrical conductors and insulators; thermal conductors and insulators; ultra-strong structural materials and ultra-soft textiles; and precious stones of unmatched beauty.

No other element engages in such an extraordinary range of chemical bonding environments: with oxidation states ranging from −4 to +4, carbon bonds to itself and more than 80 other elements. Carbon’s chemical behavior in Earth’s hidden deep interior epitomizes the dynamic processes that set apart our planet from all other known worlds.

Past consideration of the global carbon cycle has focused primarily on the atmosphere, oceans, and shallow crustal environments.
A tremendous amount is known about these parts of Earth’s carbon cycle. By contrast, relatively little is known about the deep carbon cycle (Fig. 1). Knowledge of the deep interior, which may contain more than 90% of Earth’s carbon (Javoy 1997), is limited (Table 1).
Basic questions about deep carbon are poorly constrained:

• How much carbon is stored in Earth’s deep interior?
• What are the reservoirs of that carbon?
• How does carbon move among reservoirs?
• Are there signi cant carbon uxes between Earth’s deep interior and the surface?
• What is the nature and extent of deep microbial life?
• Are there deep abiotic sources of methane and other hydrocarbons?
• Did deep organic chemistry play a role in life’s origins?

Key unanswered questions guide research on carbon in Earth. ...
http://www.minsocam.org/msa/rim/RiMG075/RiMG075_Ch01.pdf


I’m happy to report I’m familiar with this talk and totally agree it’s a must see -
and a fascinating look at both the complexities and importance of Carbon (it’s good for plants tongue wink is only a small part of it.) and the way real science operates.

Thanks for posting the link!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2017 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 10 July 2017 04:07 PM

Yes, all indications point at people not being interested in learning about climate science.
Considering the transparent, childish lies they continue to embrace no matter how many times the details get explained to them.
//skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy 

MikeYohe:
First question. The article was posted in the news media and made it to the top of the news outlets… It seems that they are admitting that there are still many problems with the carbon and temperate charts.
They are saying that CO2 and global average temperature (GAT) go hand and hand.

You call the public stupid, but these are simple question I am asking. Why are you giving me the two-step on this subject? Very, very simple. Read the article and come to a conclusion of the ideas the article is about. Not what you think it should be about. And do not blame the reader for not adding what you think they should be adding to the article. That is not how the real-world works. You have tried twice now and both time failed to stay on the subject of discussion.

NO!  You are relying on the big Lie of Omission.

This is talking about measuring, recording, processing overwhelmingly complex information.
You also hide how small these differences in numbers being argued over are, worst you avoid the bottomline truth that:
EVERY MOLECULE OF CO2 ADDS TO OUR ATMOSPHERE’S INSULATION ABILITY.
NOTHING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE UNTIL YOU ACCEPT THAT GEOPHYSICAL REALITY FIRST AND FOREMOST.

You are wrong. I am not relying on anything. I am making the point that people are not problem. People read the news and have realized that much of the news is fake news. Now they are beginning to realize that a lot of the science is fake science. You keep posting a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please explain how I am relying on the big lie of omission when I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Are you saying the article is fake science? Or are you saying the article is correct by does not support your political viewpoints?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2017 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1087
Joined  2016-12-24

Hell, I haven’t even seen you formulate a serious question that could be addressed, merely the nebulous implication that much remains confusing.
But my child it remains confusing to youz simply because that’s the way youz demand it to be. 

MikeYohe - 11 July 2017 10:56 AM

Why are you giving me the two-step on this subject? Very, very simple. Read the article and come to a conclusion of the ideas the article is about.

//www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2017/07/170706113244.htm
also {the two articles are the same press release}
phys. org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos. html

“Our approach has shown that the decreasing pressure at the seafloor could have induced increased lava- and carbon dioxide emissions.
The enhanced volcanic carbon dioxide flux may have stabilized the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the climate system’s
descent into the last ice age,” adds Prof. Dr. Lars Rüpke of GEOMAR.
The investigations suggest that close interactions between thesolid earth and the climate system exist also on geologically relatively short time scales of about 5,000 to 15,000 years. …

What fuk’n “question” - what does the article not make clear?

An international research team led by the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research has now discovered that a falling sea level may have caused enhanced volcanic activity in the ocean, which can explain the anomaly. The results are published today in the journal Nature Communications.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-falling-sea-volcanos.html#jCp

This has absolutely nothing to do with today’s situation.
Just as your beloved Milankovitch Cycles have absolutely no bearing on today’s situation.
Though they are important in understanding the details of past climate changes.

This study is about a unique lining up of volcanoes, ocean circulation patterns and other dynamic components of Earth’s climate system and short term temperature circulation questions - it has nothing to do with understanding CO2 physics, or the consequences of injecting getting close to 4 billion (<4,000,000,000) tons of CO2 into our atmosphere month after month after month.
but you and your type refuse to recognize such fundamental truths.

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

Mike, this discussion is about the general avoidance of learning about and acknowledging the First Order CARBON THEORY
which must be thoroughly understood before anything else in climate science can make any sense to you.

You come here with distractions that only go to underscore my assertion that most people these days, at least in this country, willfully and actively try not to seriously learn about climate science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1937
Joined  2013-06-01

Topic: scientific fixation on the carbon theory.
Then go to post #34: “nothing ever gets learned, because at the heart of the matter people don’t want to learn about it”
The debate started on post #35. I post one of the latest articles about climate change.  I ask you if this was the type of article that you would back up. No answer yet.
Next, I point out that this article was very confusing on the carbon theory. The point being was that I believe people do want to learn about climate change. But, it was the article that was confusing.
The question is serious, simple and on subject. 
The part the article is confusing about. “Climate evolution shows some regularities, which can be traced throughout long periods of earth’s history. One of them is that the global average temperature and the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere usually go hand-in-hand. To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2017 04:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7695
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike Yohe said,
To put it simple: If the temperatures decline, the CO2 values also decrease and vice versa.”

That may be correct, but we are in the man-made vice versa cycle, thus the CO2 values increase and may lead to a domino effect, which will make the earth’s ecosphere unlivable for humans.  Is that simple enough?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3