I'd just like to point out that Obama has presented all the required proposed budgets to Congress. Of course the Presidents budget is just a wish list and it's up to Congress to actually develop and pass one.
Comparing the earth's atmosphere to the human body is like comparing apples and giraffes. Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
I am not comparing the atmosphere to the human body, I'm merely pointing out that the size of a number is meaningless without context.
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption.
No, again, the question makes no assumption other than that it can be answered accurately! Either there is a positive lag time, a negative lag time, or no lag time. Which is it? You are the one making assumptions and refusing to look up the answer!
The lag time for increased CO2 at the end of glaciations is something like 300-700 years although some recent work indicates it might be as low as 100 years.
Since we are not now coming out of a glaciation (that period ended around 10,000 years ago) what's causing the current increase, the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago? If so then how come we don't see a similar spike caused by the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago.
No, you need to show how a "simple lab experiment" accurately reflects the enormity and complexity of the global atmosphere.
I wasn't trying to imply a lab experiment reflects the atmospheric effects, just that we know CO2 absorbs IR. Spectroscopic measurements in the atmosphere show that CO2 is there and having an effect greater than zero. Its overlap with water vapor modifies the effect some but there are bands where water vapor is not a factor but CO2 is. We can observe and measure that.
I answered some of your arguments here over on the other post of mine you responded to so I'm not going to repeat them.
CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now (400 ppm) for at least 5 million years and maybe as long as 15 million years. That's before humans of any kind existed. CO2 levels have not been over 1000 ppm since before the K-T event 65 million years ago. As the Sun ages it gradually gets brighter by about 10% every 1.1 billion years so it was cooler in the past. The layout of the continents was different in the past. All of those things are factors in why we haven't been cooked already.
The amount of CO2 being produced by humans is minuscule compared to what the earth itself produces. It's as simple as that.
No, it's not as simple as that. You are completely ignoring the other side of the equation, the Earthly sinks of CO2. Have you ever heard of the Carbon Cycle? For the past 10,000 years the CO2 level was stable at around 280 ppm varying up and down by around 10 ppm in the yearly biosphere cycle. For the past million years or more CO2 levels have remained between 180 and 300 ppm depending on the stages of glaciation. In the past 100+ years CO2 levels have risen from under 300 ppm to 400 ppm all of a sudden. What changed? The obvious answer is that by burning fossil fuels humans are adding carbon that was sequestered for 10's to 100's of millions of years to the active carbon cycle. It gets distributed among the various carbon sinks like the atmosphere, the oceans (thus causing ocean acidification), the land and the biosphere but the relative balance between them remains about the same. That's why only 40-45% of human emissions remain in the atmosphere.
If you want to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources then you have to explain what changed to cause a sudden, rapid rise in CO2 to levels unseen for millions of years. You have to explain why the release from natural CO2 sources increased suddenly and/or the uptake of natural carbon sinks decreased suddenly. Without that explanation you're just blowing smoke.
That's funny. In my experience the gas in Oregon is generally cheaper than either California or Washington. I don't think self-serve makes that much of a difference in prices.
In Oregon there is no general inspection required. Vehicles in the Portland and Medford metropolitan areas require a DEQ inspection when they reregister because of air quality concerns but that's only every 2 years. When I reregister I write down the (unverified) odometer reading and my insurance information on the registration card, mail it in with my $86 payment and I'm good to go for the next 2 years.
Aren't the odometers on most modern vehicles electronic now? If you want to change those you're going to need an app but I think the electronic odometers are built to preclude being reset (and I'm not talking about the trip odometers).
There is an Oregon gas tax but it's a bit lower than Washington's or California's. Oregon's gas tax proceeds are strictly limited (by voter passed initiative) to only being spent on highway projects. But I have a neighbor who owns a Nissan Leaf and another that owns a Volt and neither of them are paying any gas tax to help cover the cost of the roads they use. A general sales tax would not change that.
BTW, I like that Oregon doesn't have sales tax and have voted against implementing them when it's come up.
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
The energy coming in that the top of atmosphere (TOA) can and is being measured. The energy leaving at TOA can and is being measured. From the conservation of energy the difference has to be the change in energy within the system. The difference is positive meaning more energy is being retained. It's as simple as that.
A lot of people died of cancer before we figured out the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. We've only got the one Earth so if we screw it up there's no quick fix.
Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?
The term "climate change" has been there from the beginning as evinced by a paper published in 1970 by George Benton titled "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change". I believe the term was used at least as far back as the 1950's but I'm too lazy to track down a cite.
We have had a 50 meter rise in sea level in about 20,000 years
Sea level has risen over 120 meters (390 ft.) in the last 20,000 years. But only about 2 meters in the last 8,000 years and in the past 2,000 years about 0.4 meters and in the past less than 200 years about 0.2 meters. So after an average rate of sea level change of +/- 0.1 millimeter/year or less for the past 2000 years (and probably the last 6,000 years) in the past century sea level rise averages over 2 mm/year, a pretty drastic change.
Vary the sun up or down.01-.02% and the earth has large changes.
Considering that the sun output normally varies about 0.1% during the 11 year solar cycle and we don't see "large changes" because of that your wild ass guess has be be off by more than an order of magnitude. Solar variation.
Sheesh! Why should I believe anything you say when you get such basic things wrong?
Based on lack of Sunspots of late, we may have an inordinately cold hard winter (climate change?) and some areas in the upper midwest already had 20,000 steers freeze to death. Climate change? Well, the same thing happened back in the 1960s, so was it climate change? Tell me when the next Maunder Minimum will occur?
You're conflating weather with climate. What happens this year is weather. What happens over the next 30 years considered as a whole is climate. Scientists have said that the effects of a new Maunder Minimum like period from the Sun would only be to delay global warming by 10 or 15 years. I haven't found any reason to disbelieve that.
All of those things you mention require energy to function but there's no law of the universe that says that energy has to be generated by burning fossil fuels
Because the raw data and computer models used are not published and quite jealously guarded...
What a pile of crap by someone who is too lazy to look into it yourself. There is tons of both raw and cooked data and the code for climate models available if you just seek it out. I suggest you start by looking here.
This overshooting is by almost all of the prediction models. It is consistent with a systematic error in all model building.
Or it's consistent with our understanding of natural variability in the climate system that there will be periods when temperatures are under the smoothed trend line that climate models produce and there will be periods like the late 1990s when they are above the trend line and the models are just projecting what the expected long term average and trend will be, not the short term natural variability. What could be more telling about the skill of a climate model would be to go back and rerun it with actual input of the variations that occurred in the major sources of natural variability such as ENSO, solar variability and volcanic eruptions. There has been some recent work in that direction (see Kosaka and Xie, 2013). Unfortunately when a typical GCM model run takes 2 or 3 weeks on large expensive supercomputers it's not practical to do a lot of that.
This is one of the reasons I advocate waiting rather than acting on the alleged AGW threat.
That's rather like a smoker saying "I'll wait until I get lung cancer before I quit."
Answer to the first question is 0.04% or about 400 parts per million. And if you're trying to make a point about how small that number is I'll just note that a concentration in the air of just 0.025% of cyanide will kill you within minutes. By itself the number is meaningless until you connect it to the effects it has.
The rest of your questions are poorly formed as they make assumptions that aren't warranted.
If you ask what percentage of annual global CO2 emission is produced by humans you also need to look and both the non-human sources and sinks of CO2. A better, more informative question to ask would be "How does the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere compare to human emissions of CO2?" The answer to that is "The year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 40-45% of yearly emissions from human sources."
It would be also helpful to note that for about 10,000 years since the end of the last glaciation CO2 has hovered around 280 ppm. Only recently has it risen to such a large amount. So what changed? The obvious answer is fossil fuels are being burned.
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption. It's a simple lab experiment to show that CO2 can capture infrared energy so you really need to show my why that doesn't work in the atmosphere too.
If you insist on ignoring scientific facts that are inconvenient to your argument then we don't really have much to talk about.
Considering that temperatures are still within the 95% uncertainty range I don't think it's justifiable to say the model projections are overshooting temperatures yet. If the situation remains that way for another 20 years then you may have some justification for saying they're overshooting.
Chaos in climate is a completely separate thing from chaos in weather. At its base climate statistically describes of the chaos of weather. I'm not convinced that climate is all that chaotic. On any short term basis it's primarily an energy balance problem. Energy in minus energy out equals energy retained by the system. Everything that happens in climate comes down to energy.
All we've done so far is slow down and maybe stopped further depletion of ozone. Ozone levels in the ozone layer are not expected to return to pre-1980 levels until the 2160-2175 period. That's a long lifetime for an individual.
The ozone hole over the Antarctic is a problem but ozone depletion in general has also been an issue. To quote the article referenced:
In middle latitudes it is preferable to speak of ozone depletion rather than holes. Declines are about 3% below pre-1980 values for 35–60N and about 6% for 35–60S. In the tropics, there are no significant trends
Dobson started measuring atmospheric ozone in the 1920's so we have a reasonably long period of measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just like to point out that Obama has presented all the required proposed budgets to Congress. Of course the Presidents budget is just a wish list and it's up to Congress to actually develop and pass one.
Comparing the earth's atmosphere to the human body is like comparing apples and giraffes. Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
I am not comparing the atmosphere to the human body, I'm merely pointing out that the size of a number is meaningless without context.
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption.
No, again, the question makes no assumption other than that it can be answered accurately! Either there is a positive lag time, a negative lag time, or no lag time. Which is it? You are the one making assumptions and refusing to look up the answer!
The lag time for increased CO2 at the end of glaciations is something like 300-700 years although some recent work indicates it might be as low as 100 years.
Since we are not now coming out of a glaciation (that period ended around 10,000 years ago) what's causing the current increase, the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago? If so then how come we don't see a similar spike caused by the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago.
No, you need to show how a "simple lab experiment" accurately reflects the enormity and complexity of the global atmosphere.
I wasn't trying to imply a lab experiment reflects the atmospheric effects, just that we know CO2 absorbs IR. Spectroscopic measurements in the atmosphere show that CO2 is there and having an effect greater than zero. Its overlap with water vapor modifies the effect some but there are bands where water vapor is not a factor but CO2 is. We can observe and measure that.
I answered some of your arguments here over on the other post of mine you responded to so I'm not going to repeat them.
CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now (400 ppm) for at least 5 million years and maybe as long as 15 million years. That's before humans of any kind existed. CO2 levels have not been over 1000 ppm since before the K-T event 65 million years ago. As the Sun ages it gradually gets brighter by about 10% every 1.1 billion years so it was cooler in the past. The layout of the continents was different in the past. All of those things are factors in why we haven't been cooked already.
The amount of CO2 being produced by humans is minuscule compared to what the earth itself produces. It's as simple as that.
No, it's not as simple as that. You are completely ignoring the other side of the equation, the Earthly sinks of CO2. Have you ever heard of the Carbon Cycle? For the past 10,000 years the CO2 level was stable at around 280 ppm varying up and down by around 10 ppm in the yearly biosphere cycle. For the past million years or more CO2 levels have remained between 180 and 300 ppm depending on the stages of glaciation. In the past 100+ years CO2 levels have risen from under 300 ppm to 400 ppm all of a sudden. What changed? The obvious answer is that by burning fossil fuels humans are adding carbon that was sequestered for 10's to 100's of millions of years to the active carbon cycle. It gets distributed among the various carbon sinks like the atmosphere, the oceans (thus causing ocean acidification), the land and the biosphere but the relative balance between them remains about the same. That's why only 40-45% of human emissions remain in the atmosphere.
If you want to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources then you have to explain what changed to cause a sudden, rapid rise in CO2 to levels unseen for millions of years. You have to explain why the release from natural CO2 sources increased suddenly and/or the uptake of natural carbon sinks decreased suddenly. Without that explanation you're just blowing smoke.
That's funny. In my experience the gas in Oregon is generally cheaper than either California or Washington. I don't think self-serve makes that much of a difference in prices.
In Oregon there is no general inspection required. Vehicles in the Portland and Medford metropolitan areas require a DEQ inspection when they reregister because of air quality concerns but that's only every 2 years. When I reregister I write down the (unverified) odometer reading and my insurance information on the registration card, mail it in with my $86 payment and I'm good to go for the next 2 years.
Aren't the odometers on most modern vehicles electronic now? If you want to change those you're going to need an app but I think the electronic odometers are built to preclude being reset (and I'm not talking about the trip odometers).
There is an Oregon gas tax but it's a bit lower than Washington's or California's. Oregon's gas tax proceeds are strictly limited (by voter passed initiative) to only being spent on highway projects. But I have a neighbor who owns a Nissan Leaf and another that owns a Volt and neither of them are paying any gas tax to help cover the cost of the roads they use. A general sales tax would not change that.
BTW, I like that Oregon doesn't have sales tax and have voted against implementing them when it's come up.
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
The energy coming in that the top of atmosphere (TOA) can and is being measured. The energy leaving at TOA can and is being measured. From the conservation of energy the difference has to be the change in energy within the system. The difference is positive meaning more energy is being retained. It's as simple as that.
But man, it's an awesome religion with actual empirical evidence to back it up.
What makes you imply the early measurements are faulty? Certainly since the 1950's atmospheric ozone has been measured regularly.
A lot of people died of cancer before we figured out the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. We've only got the one Earth so if we screw it up there's no quick fix.
Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?
The term "climate change" has been there from the beginning as evinced by a paper published in 1970 by George Benton titled "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change". I believe the term was used at least as far back as the 1950's but I'm too lazy to track down a cite.
We have had a 50 meter rise in sea level in about 20,000 years
Sea level has risen over 120 meters (390 ft.) in the last 20,000 years. But only about 2 meters in the last 8,000 years and in the past 2,000 years about 0.4 meters and in the past less than 200 years about 0.2 meters. So after an average rate of sea level change of +/- 0.1 millimeter/year or less for the past 2000 years (and probably the last 6,000 years) in the past century sea level rise averages over 2 mm/year, a pretty drastic change.
Vary the sun up or down .01-.02% and the earth has large changes.
Considering that the sun output normally varies about 0.1% during the 11 year solar cycle and we don't see "large changes" because of that your wild ass guess has be be off by more than an order of magnitude. Solar variation.
Sheesh! Why should I believe anything you say when you get such basic things wrong?
Based on lack of Sunspots of late, we may have an inordinately cold hard winter (climate change?) and some areas in the upper midwest already had 20,000 steers freeze to death. Climate change? Well, the same thing happened back in the 1960s, so was it climate change? Tell me when the next Maunder Minimum will occur?
You're conflating weather with climate. What happens this year is weather. What happens over the next 30 years considered as a whole is climate. Scientists have said that the effects of a new Maunder Minimum like period from the Sun would only be to delay global warming by 10 or 15 years. I haven't found any reason to disbelieve that.
All of those things you mention require energy to function but there's no law of the universe that says that energy has to be generated by burning fossil fuels
Only for some unrealistic values of cooling.
Because the raw data and computer models used are not published and quite jealously guarded ...
What a pile of crap by someone who is too lazy to look into it yourself. There is tons of both raw and cooked data and the code for climate models available if you just seek it out. I suggest you start by looking here.
This overshooting is by almost all of the prediction models. It is consistent with a systematic error in all model building.
Or it's consistent with our understanding of natural variability in the climate system that there will be periods when temperatures are under the smoothed trend line that climate models produce and there will be periods like the late 1990s when they are above the trend line and the models are just projecting what the expected long term average and trend will be, not the short term natural variability. What could be more telling about the skill of a climate model would be to go back and rerun it with actual input of the variations that occurred in the major sources of natural variability such as ENSO, solar variability and volcanic eruptions. There has been some recent work in that direction (see Kosaka and Xie, 2013). Unfortunately when a typical GCM model run takes 2 or 3 weeks on large expensive supercomputers it's not practical to do a lot of that.
This is one of the reasons I advocate waiting rather than acting on the alleged AGW threat.
That's rather like a smoker saying "I'll wait until I get lung cancer before I quit."
Answer to the first question is 0.04% or about 400 parts per million. And if you're trying to make a point about how small that number is I'll just note that a concentration in the air of just 0.025% of cyanide will kill you within minutes. By itself the number is meaningless until you connect it to the effects it has.
The rest of your questions are poorly formed as they make assumptions that aren't warranted.
If you ask what percentage of annual global CO2 emission is produced by humans you also need to look and both the non-human sources and sinks of CO2. A better, more informative question to ask would be "How does the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere compare to human emissions of CO2?" The answer to that is "The year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 40-45% of yearly emissions from human sources."
It would be also helpful to note that for about 10,000 years since the end of the last glaciation CO2 has hovered around 280 ppm. Only recently has it risen to such a large amount. So what changed? The obvious answer is fossil fuels are being burned.
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption. It's a simple lab experiment to show that CO2 can capture infrared energy so you really need to show my why that doesn't work in the atmosphere too.
If you insist on ignoring scientific facts that are inconvenient to your argument then we don't really have much to talk about.
If that's the way you feel you better turn in your geek card.
Considering that temperatures are still within the 95% uncertainty range I don't think it's justifiable to say the model projections are overshooting temperatures yet. If the situation remains that way for another 20 years then you may have some justification for saying they're overshooting.
Did you not read my last sentence?
Chaos in climate is a completely separate thing from chaos in weather. At its base climate statistically describes of the chaos of weather. I'm not convinced that climate is all that chaotic. On any short term basis it's primarily an energy balance problem. Energy in minus energy out equals energy retained by the system. Everything that happens in climate comes down to energy.
All we've done so far is slow down and maybe stopped further depletion of ozone. Ozone levels in the ozone layer are not expected to return to pre-1980 levels until the 2160-2175 period. That's a long lifetime for an individual.
The ozone hole over the Antarctic is a problem but ozone depletion in general has also been an issue. To quote the article referenced:
In middle latitudes it is preferable to speak of ozone depletion rather than holes. Declines are about 3% below pre-1980 values for 35–60N and about 6% for 35–60S. In the tropics, there are no significant trends
Dobson started measuring atmospheric ozone in the 1920's so we have a reasonably long period of measurement.
The code for one of the major models, the GISS Model E is here.
Links to other models and both raw and cooked data can be found on this page.
All of what you ask for is out there, you just have to be willing to put in the time to look for it.
The climate models don't get fed much raw data, just starting conditions and whatever scenario they're evaluating for a particular run.