http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
During the Ordovician, CO2 was more than ten times higher than at present. Global temperatures ranged between very hot and an ice age. We can state with 100% certainty that as CO2 increases, temperatures will either go up, go down, or stay the same.
CorrelatingCO2AndTemperatureInTheGeologicRecord|RealScience, real science co2 real levels
So, it looks like for the last few million years there’s been barely enough CO2 to keep plants alive.
False. We are at 380 co2 ppm. That’s a low on that chart. The other shows 100 ppm(guess). That’s enough for plants, just fewer ones.
Exactly where does this chart come from and what is the validity of it?
I heard that H. H. Lamb may have contributed to this graph but it’s over 2 decades old. Has the research ever been updated?
Is this graph peered reviewed in any science journal?
I think you may be thinking of the schematic diagram of the medieval warm period from the first IPCC report (which was actually based on the Central England Temperature data) which was based on a figure from one of Lamb’s papers.
I would also be interested in the origins of this figure. The temperature data is definitely a little odd, I can’t see any good reason for the Earth to have a stable maximum temperature from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous. The idea of a minumum temperature of 0C is alittle odd given that there were global glaciations during the Ordovician, where the global temperature would be well below that.
The argument in the above article is specious though. For a start it assumes that CO2 is the only thing that causes changes in temperature, it isn’t. For a start the sun has been brightening by about 10% per billion years, so it would have been considerably dimmer in the Ordovician than it is now. This leads to the Faint young Sun paradox, i.e. it is difficult to explain why the Earth was so warm in the Cambrian without the greenhouse effect, given that we recieved so much less energy from the Sun.
Dikran – Note the “estimate of uncertainty” on the graph. Also keep in mind plate tectonics and how different quantities and distributions of land masses over the eons can affect climate itself.
Yes, there are big error bars on the CO2 (which appears to be from a reputable source), but none on the temperatures.
Plate tectonics also have a big effect on CO2 as well, as chemical weathering rates increase when the continents are near the equator (as the rocks are warmer, so they react faster with the disolved CO2 in rain IIRC), which tends to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. This in turn tends to reduce global temperatures (as CO2 is a GHG). This is known as the “chemical weathering thermostat”.
The CO2 data looks like it comes from GEOCARB project (paper here).
Looks like the temperature data is from this paper.
The temperature appears to be based on a plot from that paper, but it isn’t data, it is just a schematic drawing illustrating the approximate timings and temperatures of warm and cold periods. As it isn’t based on proxy data or model data (like the CO2 plot) it isn’t really sensible to try and correllate it with anything (note my comparison with solar activity is just a demonstration that the argument is specious, I am not seriously suggesting that global temperatures are not affected by solar activity!)
To demonstrate why the argument is specious, consider correllating temperatures (according to the figure) and solar activity. The sun has warmed by about 7% since the Ordovician (by comparison the difference between the maximum and minimum of the 11 year solar cycle is a change in TSI of about 0.1%). So has the climate warmed over that period in response to the increase in solar forcing? No.
Following the same logic as that used in the above article “We can state with 100% certainty that as
CO2solar activity increases, temperatures will either go up, go down, or stay the same.” ;o)While I was looking for the data sources, I found this paper
CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic
Dana L. Royer
abstract:The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my). For periods
with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below 500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below 1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature
is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic.
Note last line of abstract.
So in other words you agree with the graph but not what this webmaster implies.
yes and no. The temperature plot isn’t actually data, just a drawing (from a reputable source) designed to illustrate the existence of warm and cold periods, so I wouldn’t agree that it was in any way a useful quantative description of temperature changes over geological time.
However the main thing I disagree with is that there should be a good correllation between CO2 and temperature over this time scale. This isn’t even true for solar activity, which I would have thought was the dominant climate focing over geological time, so I don’t see why it should be true for CO2.
All temperature plots of anything are “just a drawing”.
Don’t forget, the Earth was a very different place. It was smaller, lower gravity, the moon was much closer and we had shorter days and higher geologic activity. The air was far more dense and CO2 averaging 2kppm, very accessible. The whole globe was warmer but for the hellish cold times like now but I will directly argue with you either way over Solar temperatures because we cannot ascertain where the Earths orbit lay. Only geological warmth.
However, there was no “tipping point” of CO2. It did not burn out all the corals. There is direct evidence that argues with your beliefs over CO2/temperature. Venus and Mars are perfect examples. Gas pressure is a far larger force than radiation. So is the Earth’s magnetosphere on Solar highs.
The lack of tropo heating and what little they can muster in the data is not enough to warm the oceans averaging 3.5 mile deep and a 1000x more specific heat density of air at sea level. The numbers are simply not there!
In the past 5M yr’s there was as much as 15C/century temperature fluctuations. We are still here! This century must be noted as one of the most stable in the known history of man!!!
Your theory is dead.
This answers my question as to where the graph came from. I will ask Scotese about the background.
Both AndyJ and Marsupial have valid points. However the extreme levels of CO2 during the early period of the Earths climate strongly suggests that CO2 forcing has been highly overrated.
And looking at the recent temperature trends from NASA’s own site:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
Shows that temperature increases prior to the Industrial ramp-up where just as strong as after, showing that human emissions have had little effect on overall climate change. And that’s negating the comment that the temps where ‘adjusted’!
And how can you get accurate surface temps with this business going on:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25940
Global Temperature And Data Distortions Continue
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/the-impact-of-urbanization-on-land-temperature-trends/#more-52564
The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
NCDC Data Shows USA has not Warmed in the Past Decade, Summers are Cooler, Winters Colder
So a so called peer reviewed paper depends on where the authors or author got it’s data from and where it got peer reviewed,….. as many scientists have recently come forth and exposed the ‘pal’ review process of bureaucratic science panels to influence the continuation of grant monies. The climate gate emails are of a prime example of this Pal review process.
So sources are important.
Temperature is the cause, CO2 is the effect.
No matter how the game is played…… It is the indisputable fact which is the fly in the ointment to the warmist agenda..
Right now, after the extra cold global half year, the UK is now having freezing nights in May and the average daytime high refuses to go above 12C no matter the direction of the wind or the amount of Sunshine and this is on the Solar high!
People can quote themselves clever but reality always comes to smite them.
As goes CO2 forcing temperatures. Ironically, I use Venus as a prime example that it barely exists at all. If one is 55Km up in the skies of Venus, we will see the Sun is twice the area yet the temperature is 22C at 1 atmosphere pressure. In an atmosphere of almost pure CO2.
Interesting Andyj
I’m not astutely knowledgeable about physics to compare different lapse rate profiles, but I have read where much of the temperature differences is do to adiabatic heat compression of the dense CO2, Venus is closer to the sun, and the SO2 clouds act as a very efficient heat insulator.
When you compare combined atomic weights of the atmospheres, Venus has a much denser atmosphere and therefore the atmospheric pressure at sea level is crushing for for most life. And it lacks the all important moderator- H2O.
So that’s why Venus is so much hotter than the Earth, not really due to CO2 forcing claims. Venus developed differently from Earth.
It’s very simple. The “air” on Venus’ surface is a gas at 93 atmospheres and 462 °C.
The Earth’s average temperature is around 14C (291K). Compress this 93x and you get a far higher temperature than Venus.
No need to complicate things with history or other warming effects on Venus. Save the ammo for later.
Andyj
Not very scientific, I’d rather hear it from a physicist, preferably one who knows atmospheric physics.
But the relationship is quite plausible .
Scott Brooks,
Nothing off anyone here is “scientific”. But can be proven. Accept that.
……and you want to hear it off a physicist???
Venus ain’t hot because of C02, its hot because of the pressure. Schoolkids stuff.
Saying you’d prefer to stick to the past 1M yr’s when its not the subject, does not a point make. i.e. Past high C02 did not kill off the corals. The bigger picture needs to be held in view. How can your suggested timescale answer this? It serves no function.
We will all agree the more recent the reading the more accurate it is.
The fact that only 5M yr’s ago the Earth’s air was 2Kppm C02 before it stared to plummet up to -5C/100yr’s. Since then we had many recorded cycles of near Earth death as airborne C02 empirically dropped to +30ppm of plant life shutdown (in air) several times during the ice ages. The last million has been bubbling on the edge of catastrophe for the higher order lifeforms that live on the ground.
The MWP is not the only warm time. Lets not forget all the other warm periods (Minoan, Roman etc.) when mankind made advances and those cold times when the horrors of death and desperation came. Our very language came from people fleeing deadly winters for the UK and displacing the real Britons.
The last mini ice age resulted in the deaths of over 10M Europeans.
>
> Author: Andyj
> Nothing off anyone here is “scientific”. But can be proven. Accept that.
> ……and you want to hear it off a physicist???
> Venus ain’t hot because of C02, its hot because of the pressure. Schoolkids stuff.
Apparently so. But other blogs have scientists responding. Us armchair scientists can rationalize but not confirm nor debunk a rouge scientists claim like Hansen or Mann, except by other credible science articles. Then you have the flat brained zombies that believe Algore is an expert. ROTFALMAO
So you need references that support your claims or just present it based on my research and findings. But the chart presents an range of uncertainty the further back in time you go. Scientists have admitted to that, even the skeptics who I label dissenters. They dissent from the establishment, bureaucratic scientific claims. But recent short term evidence shows the CO2 forcing is not really there.
By just blatantly making claims is not good for the cause unless your some kind of expert in the field, and that does not mean you have to be a climatologist, climatologists get their info from other scientific fields, so there is an overlapping of the fields. My understanding is many climatologists rely too much on computer models. They can’t accurately predict the weather a week out so climate, I don’t think so.
> Saying you’d prefer to stick to the past 1M yr’s when its not the subject, does not a point make. i.e. Past high C02 did not kill off the corals. The bigger picture needs to be held in view. How can your suggested timescale answer this? It serves no function.
More accurate proxies and enough time to establish probable cause.
>
> We will all agree the more recent the reading the more accurate it is.
> The fact that only 5M yr’s ago the Earth’s air was 2Kppm C02 before it stared to plummet up to -5C/100yr’s. Since then we had many recorded cycles of near Earth death as airborne C02 empirically dropped to +30ppm of plant life shutdown (in air) several times during the ice ages. The last million has been bubbling on the edge of catastrophe for the higher order lifeforms that live on the ground.
I believe you but for other readers you need a link of peer review evidence. Of course there are those that will throw the Exxon collusion claim, kind of like people flipping the race card in the Zimmerman case.
>
> The MWP is not the only warm time. Lets not forget all the other warm periods (Minoan, Roman etc.) when mankind made advances and those cold times when the horrors of death and desperation came. Our very language came from people fleeing deadly winters for the UK and displacing the real Britons.
I already mentioned that in my final comment. This goes toward more accurate geo-records and historical info. Many archeologists show that humans advanced significantly during warmer periods. But the warmista bureaucrats will come up with cherry picked studies that support their agenda. They have a joke peer review process, it only goes if they have reviewed and approved it regardless of credentials.
>
> The last mini ice age resulted in the deaths of over 10M Europeans.
I don’t dispute this. But the warmistas will always demand proof. Science articles will deflate their hearsay claims.
You can be right but shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.
The problem with this chart is the zone of uncertainty with CO2 in the slightly darker colored area. I would rather stick to the last 1 million years or at least to the last iceage.
Proxies records indicate there where 3 other warm periods after the last great iceage, including the well known medieval period followed by little ice age cold periods.
But all the evidence I have read outside of the IPPC and it’s fellows, indicates CO2 is not the cause of these warmings, including the present one. Even the IPCC admits to it’s own ambiguity on climate change and warming
Carbonazi’s do throw back the onus of proof. This proves beyond any doubt their knowledge of common things are lacking. It can get so stupid with these people until they demand you give a peer reviewed thesis of an origin of a word! Like children who keep on asking “why?” when they are really taking the p*ss.
I wouldn’t worry about Hansen, Jones or Mann. Those emails proved beyond any reasonable doubt they are a bunch of money grubbing shysters with zero credibility..
If you have a volume of a specific gas at one temperature and then you squeeze it to half volume, the temperature doubles because you have double the energy in half the volume. Is there a peer review on this???
You are trying to compare a mechanical process to an atmospheric process. Like comparing the greenhouse to greenhouse effect. Similar but not the same and much more complex although the Venusian atmosphere physics is probably simpler without water present.
Arrogance preceedif before a fall into a big hole of regret.
Define your statement.
If I’m wrong offer facts we can use and see. You can’t just go “NER, NER. See yor wong ‘n I’m right”
Hey AndyJ,
Not implying your wrong, just telling you when you make claims, support it with facts relevant to the claim, not hearsay or poorly related factoids. Be more relevant.
You just can’t go ranting claims without credible references. I have some stuff on Venus but I will have to dig up the articles and science papers. One was from NASA, it was the original report from one of their probes. Don’t know if the paper can still be found after Hansen inquisitors filtered through the science articles.
You will always run into some propagandists that will challenge you with alleged peer review science articles that got blessed from the likes of IPPC and affiliates. One such propagandist goes by the handle of caerbannog. I had a confrontation with him on the rottentomatoes .com website over Algore’s Inconvenient Truth movie. He was very good with the peer review material references, excellent debater.
But since then there have been more articles and other peer reviewed stuff with more dispelling AGW proof. the last time I ran across his blog was on Amazon on Manns new book on the Hockystick fiasco. Still spewing the AGW wash and people are buying it. After all Obama sold his crap to the voter.
Found the articles:
The NASA one SP-8011
Venus Atmospheric Models
It’s a PDF file, very scientific, results from the probes dated 1972.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/venus-cool-greenhouse/
Here is a NASA document that propagandize the “runaway GH effect”
Release: 02-60AR
TROPICAL ‘RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE’ PROVIDES INSIGHT TO VENUS
Forgot to include the link. I think that PBS show Stargate got their cues from that article.
Unfortunately the other articles I have I neglected to include the source link. I have a long email rebuttal from 2 scientists but I would have to past it on this blog site.
Are we squared now?
Read the wiki on Hansen before you quote him.. EVERYTHING he guessed on has turned to shit when the real data came through. He keeps the lie going for a cool $1m/yr income.
I’m not interested in post schoolboys marking their own papers for money. I’m an engineer.
If you want to ask an engineer what happens when you compress a gas. Try me: 38 yr’s experience and everything ran as required.. I’ve made my money through being right not telling lies..
Want to prove Hansen is a lunatic? I suggest you fill a large simple canister with a bladder of 96% C02 and quickly compress it by a factor of 93. Note the temperature. Venus radiates heat very nicely all round, day and night, regardless of its gases, thank you
When I’m out paragliding, say in Spain, I often wear a four layer flying suit because its damned cold up high. Pressure is halved at 18,000′. The lapse rate is around 2C per 1,000′.
Go figure.
> Author: Andyj
> Comment:
> Read the wiki on Hansen before you quote him.. EVERYTHING he guessed on has turned to shit when the real data came through. He keeps the lie going for a cool $1m/yr income.
>
> I’m not interested in post schoolboys marking their own papers for money. I’m an engineer.
I wasn’t quoting Hansen, I referenced a NASA science report from the 70s from the Venus probes, it had nothing to do with global warming and little from Hansen (see references at bottom of report).
Your anal response is hurting the science, not helping against the distractors. I’m aware of the lapse rate but you are justifying the science by a mechanical method like the warmistas use the greenhouse and Venus to justify their rants. But the comparison fails because your dealing with 2 radically different atmospheres and 2 different development geological timelines.
That’s basically what this document brings out. I’m sure Hansen has been trying to distort or hide this document but it’s so scientific that it is beyond the scientific understanding of the mainstream masses.
This paper goes into the origin of the Venus atmosphere:
GEOLOGICAL FORCING OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES ON VENUS. M. A. Bullock and D.
H. Grinspoon, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, CB 392, University of Colorado, Boulder,
CO 80309-0392. [email protected]
So when a AGWer tries to bring up the runaway GH – Venus effect you could reference this paper to expose their misconception. Venus developed differently from Earth.
I will comment no more about this. Enough said!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
The probes in the ’70′s… He was directly in it working for NASA. He’s now applying his psychosis on altering written historical records on GISS.
Venus is too cold for its supposed greenhouse effect. How difficult is calculating the lapse rate when when its already known for C02! It has no thermal runaway. It’s stable and quite pleasant at one atmosphere. It’s the carbonazi’s who have issues with reality. Regardless what any bit of paper says.
When anyone quotes “the science” on climate, all creditability flies out of the window. Plenty of grant grabbers get a high out of gaining tenure then NLP kicks in. I hold no respect for any political construct like “scientists” or “police”. I’m a facts guy. But not so damned geeky as to collect titles of papers.
I can be as anal as I like. If the science stands up to reality, its on solid foundations. AGW is a waste of Higgs-bogus particles and Gravitons..
At end end of the day Gov’ts are attempting to keep the price of oil down and taxes up on their watch while not “providing a climate of fear” over energy shortages. So they don’t speak of it but use AGW & “green”. Can any political “scientist” get funding to create and peer review a paper for that?
> Author: Andyj
> Comment:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
> The probes in the ’70′s… He was directly in it working for NASA. He’s now applying his psychosis on altering written historical records on GISS.
For an engineer you have poor fact checking skills and reading comprehension. The document was the product of various inputs, Hansen’s name appears no where on the document!
>
> Venus is too cold for its supposed greenhouse effect. How difficult is calculating the lapse rate when when its already known for C02! It has no thermal runaway. It’s stable and quite pleasant at one atmosphere. It’s the carbonazi’s who have issues with reality. Regardless what any bit of paper says.
That quite an Orwellian statement. The document, “Models of Venus Atmosphere” http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730008097_1973008097.pdf, is a report of Venus’s atmospheric makeup based on the data the Mariner and Venera probes gathered, it does not state or assume any connection to GW effect on Earth. It was published in 1972. I just stated that warmistas use Venus as an example of run-a-way GW through their pseudo science, not real facts. 465°C surface temp, that’s really cool! (sarc)
And it’s not a computer model, it was done the old fashion science way from raw data, Hansen had nothing to do with this paper.
As one scientist noted:
“The Venus atmosphere has 90 bar, mostly sulfur acid and CO2 and is by no means comparable to Earth.
Ok, with 90 bar my calculation changes slightly. I assumed 1 bar. Chick, I hope that your original assumption that it was 1 bar is not the same assumption being made by others who are quick to compare Earth with Venus. It’s well known in Astronomy that Venus has a super-dense atmosphere of almost pure CO2. The atmospheric pressure there is 90 times ours.
Since we only have 0.036% CO2, whereas Venus has 98% CO2 in an atmosphere with 90 times our pressure, that means Venus has 2,500 times our density of CO2, or 5.5 times our CO2 for every extra degree of temperature. I don’t think Venus can possibly be used as a surrogate comparison with Earth. The baseline parameters are so horrendously different to make all such comparisons meaningless.”
This is science based on observational fact, not assumed correlations.
>
> When anyone quotes “the science” on climate, all creditability flies out of the window. Plenty of grant grabbers get a high out of gaining tenure then NLP kicks in. I hold no respect for any political construct like “scientists” or “police”. I’m a facts guy. But not so damned geeky as to collect titles of papers.
> I can be as anal as I like. If the science stands up to reality, its on solid foundations. AGW is a waste of Higgs-bogus particles and Gravitons..
You assume, ass-u-me, a lot and fact check less. Your lack of fact checking is what gives fodder to the AGW proponents. You’d never make mainstreme with an arrogant attitude like that. There is real peer review and psudo peer review. Where do engineers get the facts but from scientist’s real peer reviewed data. Where’s your fact check, your paper? There’s still good scientists like Fred Singer
>
> At end end of the day Gov’ts are attempting to keep the price of oil down and taxes up on their watch while not “providing a climate of fear” over energy shortages. So they don’t speak of it but use AGW & “green”. Can any political “scientist” get funding to create and peer review a paper for that?
It’s the elitists not the government, the big financial moguls like Goldman Sacks. They pull the stings of government on K street. Reports of the Bilderberg conference in Virgina reveals the members are very upset their AGW-Carbon tax scheme isn’t going over. The planned recession was overkill giving them much concern on the status of the Euro. They are now trying for a international internet tax.
Long answers to no question. 1 bar is not one atmosphere.A bar is a relative pressure. You climb to zero bar.
The paper has no Hansen in it because Hansen was not part of this paper. Nor in around 5 million other papers. nor did I say he was in this paper. No paper has all the names of the machinery.
Doesn’t matter how “horrendous” “comparison” and “meaningless” you are talking about. It’s only 467C at 93 Atmospheres rapidly dropping to an Earth like pressure and temperature at a particular attitude on a planet where the Sun’s disk is substantially larger. simple factoid. Get over it!
I’ve came across arrogant scientists talking authoritatively about all sorts of shiite. higgs bogus, gravitons, dark matter/energy, the zub-zub bee, agw… You name it. Some clown has signed up for it. All very entertaining. All pathetic.
> Andyj
> Comment:
> Long answers to no question. 1 bar is not one atmosphere.A bar is a relative pressure. You climb to zero bar.
Time to step up to the bar: From Pocket Ref. 1 bar=0.98692 atmospheres of 760mm of hg@ 0C at sea level or 0.00735 force tons/in2, etc, etc.
>
> The paper has no Hansen in it because Hansen was not part of this paper. Nor in around 5 million other papers. nor did I say he was in this paper. No paper has all the names of the machinery.
According to Wikipedia he was not significantly involved until he published a paper in1974 collaborating with others that determined the atmosphere of Venus:
“Pioneer Venus project was launched in May 1978 and reached Venus late that same year. Hansen collaborated with Larry Travis and other colleagues in a 1979 Science article that reported on the development and variability of clouds in the ultraviolet spectrum. They conclude that there are at least 3 different cloud materials that contribute to the images: a thin haze layer, sulfuric acid clouds, and an unknown ultraviolet absorber below the sulfuric acid cloud layer. The linear polarization data obtained from the same mission confirmed that the low- and mid-level clouds were sulfuric acid with radius of about 1 micrometer. Above the cloud layer was a layer of submicrometre haze.”
So although gas compression has some effect on the temperature, just like a stagnant high weather cell in the summer, the makeup of the atmosphere is another factor along with the closer orbit to the sun. From that point in 1980 Hansen got involved with GISS. I was from there he started going south with the other warmistas. I’m sure politics had a lot to do with it, the NWOerists, the elites. So we continue to read crap like this from MSN.com:
“Venus is scorching hot
Because the bulk of its atmosphere is made of carbon dioxide, an extreme greenhouse effect is warming the surface of Venus. Temperatures on the surface can reach a scorching 870 degrees Fahrenheit (470 degrees Celsius).”
And I don’t have a lot of faith in Wikipedia for accuracy or the rest of the story behind the story.
>
> Doesn’t matter how “horrendous” “comparison” and “meaningless” you are talking about. It’s only 467C at 93 Atmospheres rapidly dropping to an Earth like pressure and temperature at a particular attitude on a planet where the Sun’s disk is substantially larger. simple factoid. Get over it!
>
> I’ve came across arrogant scientists talking authoritatively about all sorts of shiite. higgs bogus, gravitons, dark matter/energy, the zub-zub bee, agw… You name it. Some clown has signed up for it. All very entertaining. All pathetic.
Some scientists are like politicians and people in general. But you seem to throw them all in the same closet, perhaps you can’t deal with the scientific methods. Generally, I find that engineering papers are different from science publications and involve a different scope of things, they are also more rigorous and concise. Scientists discover things and engineers figure out how to do stuff with the discoveries, but roles can overlap some.
Yes, the peer review system has been very compromised in some science circles since the 80′s, but some operate outside of the science bureaucracy though organizations like heartland and icecap.us.
Too much credence has been given to computer models, but computers are running programs engineered by involve scientists, and engineers, with injected algorithms that may or may not mimic natural processes, at best they approximate the mimicked event which is either close to or off the mark on the involved process. The average Joe/Jill seems to be mesmerized by computers and give more credence to them then they are capable of, they don’t see the human fallacy behind the programs.
I see no useful progress in continuing this discussion. You think you know it all but you don’t.
“So although gas compression has some effect on the temperature,”
SOME ?????
You want credibility? What you had… Gone!
My last post still stands over yours. Not interested in decimal points nor pointless details. At one atmosphere, Venus is at room temperature. Yet the Suns disks is bigger. Get over it.
C02 compared to water vapour is a piss poor GW gas. It simply does not cover the bandwidths. You’re gassing away pointlessly. It’s not as though anyone comes to this site any more.
> Author: Andyj
> Comment:
> “So although gas compression has some effect on the temperature,”
> SOME ?????
> You want credibility? What you had… Gone!
This is an ad hominem claim-response.
>
> My last post still stands over yours. Not interested in decimal points nor pointless details. At one atmosphere, Venus is at room temperature. Yet the Suns disks is bigger. Get over it.
References please. Anal responses would not stand up in a peer review environment.
>
> C02 compared to water vapour is a piss poor GW gas. It simply does not cover the bandwidths. You’re gassing away pointlessly. It’s not as though anyone comes to this site any more.
Yes, generally pointed out on many sites. I have read this alleged fact but I have regretfully found no good reference site on the GHG forcing factor against water vapor or bandwidth reference. Do you have a credible reference link or even a official science reference?
But warmistas will point out that Venus has an almost pure atmosphere of CO2 and make that claim, I heard the runaway argument on the PBS program Stardate broadcast out of some university in San Antonio, TX. The AGWer sheeple eat it up!
Hearsay doesn’t cut it, reference material please. I want credible evidence so I can clear up all ambiguities with credible evidence against the warmistas, not hearsay. This is a continuing frustration with me of he said, she said. I want hard core evidence for rebuttals the likes of witch you find on Real Climate run by a Hansen collaborator! Something you continuously fail to provide.
Again, I’m not a AGWer, just looking for credible evidence with no ambiguities, little room for uncertainty. Plenty of that going around on both sides! A response like:
“Yet the Suns disks is bigger.” Makes you look either deficient in English or anal.
Having a professional CIV profile would also provide credibility.
So have you read any statistics on the numbers of peer reviewed papers that have turned out to be total bollocks? Then your anal response assuming “peer” (buddy) reviewed as facts are flawed.
Saying my responses are “anal” is not “ad hominem”?
I’ve not read your star date agw website. Don’t intend to.
I told you, go onto a classroom and ask teach to squeeze some c02 for you.
Read gas temp. Not cylinder temp. Your eyes will be proof enough for you.
You want me to do the calculations to show you how much bigger the Suns disk is on Venus? Crap! I thought you were clever enough. Lets simplify it for you.
Earth : average distance 149.6 million km (93 million miles)
Venus : average distance 108 million km (67 million miles)
For a very rough calc, very small objects angle=diameter/distance.
3/2*0.6 degrees. The Solar disk is 50% bigger.
I’m not going to give away my identity. Even this email, PCAYG (C=cash) mobile phones, ip address’s spoofed etc. All completely obfuscated.
Nice nice explanation of Venus’ atmosphere:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
The articles on Venus is more what I was searching for, he goes into the science and math. But he doesn’t make sense on some things I was indoctrinated with.
Venus is similar in size to earth, so is the gravity similar?
Since the atmosphere of Venus is about 1.52 times heavier per unite volume then Earth’s, doesn’t that explain the high atmospheric pressure on Venus?
Goddard in the first articled makes the statement:
If 90% of the CO2 in Venus atmosphere was replaced by Nitrogen, it would change temperatures there by only a few tens of degrees.
About 78% of the earth’s atmosphere is N2.
In the second article:
Goddard says the reason the surface is hot is because the density of the atmosphere is greater or in other words the ppmv is greater.
I did not know that the Earth’s atmosphere could also be thicker, a revelation!
Even though there is heat generated by falling cooled gas, according to the law of thermodynamics, heat is not being created by that as there would be area where the hot gas would also rise. As he stated, if the sun went cold the planets would follow. Just like you can’t keep an ICE going by just compressing gas alone, there has to be an external energy source.
Goddard has clearly presented why Venus is hotter, atmospheric thickness, not compression.
> Author: Andyj
> Comment:
> So have you read any statistics on the numbers of peer reviewed papers that have turned out to be total bollocks? Then your anal response assuming “peer” (buddy) reviewed as facts are flawed.
How about providing a reference, just making claims with crude adverbs and nouns is ad hominem at it’s worse. Not very professional. And you are still assuming allot.
Peer review is a process of review that probably needs refinement and boundaries. Our own voting representative process is flawed but it’s the best we got so far. So it also needs refinement and boundaries.
> Saying my responses are “anal” is not “ad hominem”?
>
> I’ve not read your star date agw website. Don’t intend to.
Anal is making statements like you did just above, I was making reference to a radio program, how anal on your part is that?
> I told you, go onto a classroom and ask teach to squeeze some c02 for you.
> Read gas temp. Not cylinder temp. Your eyes will be proof enough for you.
You can get that from a bicycle pump. Basic gas laws. Still takes some energy calculations showing work done on gas and energy transferred. That’s called physics. Thermodynamics is what the engineering sector is involved in. Atmospheric physics is what scientists are involved in. But the atmospheric GHG effect also works on radiative transfer. How much comes from the sun and it 4 components, plus from the other inputs is what is in question here.
Think of an ICE engine. It compresses the gas mixture but without the gas or diesel fuel it would stop cold. Your not going to keep it operating with a bicycle pump either.
Venus has a cloud cover, how does that effect the transfer of radiative energy both incoming and outgoing? It’s not just as simple as gas compression. The lapse rate may be a clue but it’s has to be verified by independent means. That’s called peer review or cross checking. I do that all the time with media reports.
> You want me to do the calculations to show you how much bigger the Suns disk is on Venus? Crap! I thought you were clever enough. Lets simplify it for you.
>
> Earth : average distance 149.6 million km (93 million miles)
> Venus : average distance 108 million km (67 million miles)
> For a very rough calc, very small objects angle=diameter/distance.
> 3/2*0.6 degrees. The Solar disk is 50% bigger.
How does that relate to incoming energy? Anal man!
> I’m not going to give away my identity. Even this email, PCAYG (C=cash) mobile phones, ip address’s spoofed etc. All completely obfuscated.
How about just a basic, anonymous CIV for an idea. You don’t have to give specifics.
I’ve made previous references as an Aerospace engineer. That’s your lot. I don’t give you any permissions to reference me whatsoever. My views are given to you in person and confidence.
So most of your last post was about me. As the Venusian Sun sits twice as big in the sky. Amazing!
Gas pressure IS PROOF of temperature when its reasonably pleasant at one atmosphere. A fucking diesel only compresses its mix up to around 22:1 to gain self ignition of a fairly safe fluid.
Venus at 93:1.. Wow!
Why are YOU refusing to give me calculations to prove me wrong your self?
After all these weeks of denials of simple facts are you suffering some form of psychosis?
Goddard does not have to open his mouth. You don’t have to read a word he says to aid your psychosis.
He supplied the facts that show you what is there. Not from assumed computer graphs on a buddy marking system but the real thing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Stop mentioning “peer review”. After those CRU emails the system holds no weight. Climategate has imploded the whole mafia. It’s a train wreck. There’s been no extra Earth heating in over a decade. We are in a Solar maximum and C02 is as expected (and wanted) rising inexorably.
Change your meds then you’ll be able to get over it.
Andyj says:
June 10, 2012 at 10:13 am
>I’ve made previous references as an Aerospace engineer. That’s your lot. I don’t give >you any permissions to reference me whatsoever. My views are given to you in person and confidence.
I would fly in anything you designed!
>So most of your last post was about me. As the Venusian Sun sits twice as big in the sky. Amazing!
So what does the size have to do with incoming radiation? You talk like some whacked out nut!
>Gas pressure IS PROOF of temperature when its reasonably pleasant at one atmosphere. A fucking diesel only compresses its mix up to around 22:1 to gain self ignition of a fairly safe fluid.
Venus at 93:1.. Wow!
I leave Steve Goddard to explain this one. He seems to indicate a blanket effect of a thicker, denser atmosphere. He said the energy comes from the sun, not compression. What kind of engineer are you that you don’t understand conservation of energy?
>Why are YOU refusing to give me calculations to prove me wrong your self?
Your the engineer, you compare the atmosphere to a compressor, wow!
>After all these weeks of denials of simple facts are you suffering some form of psychosis?
Your just simple anal!
>Goddard does not have to open his mouth. You don’t have to read a word he says to aid your psychosis. He supplied the facts that show you what is there. Not from assumed computer graphs on a buddy marking system but the real thing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
Read it and he explained it, you can’t.
>Stop mentioning “peer review”. After those CRU emails the system holds no weight. Climategate has imploded the whole mafia. It’s a train wreck. There’s been no extra Earth heating in over a decade. We are in a Solar maximum and C02 is as expected (and wanted) rising inexorably.
I know, I never said there was, you just assume things like the anal AGWers. Your no better them them. You put things down I never said. Man you are the psychotic one!
Climate gate is not the real review process, it’s pal review. But you would incriminate the whole peer review process based on that? Man your whacked!
>Change your meds then you’ll be able to get over it.
You the one who needs meds.
Good day sir, good day to you.
And still for the past 12 years we have no tipping point, AGW is still a theory, the cost of attempting to prove AGW has been nothing but a waste of worthwhile human resources, and tax theft for personal gain.
3Db extra heating of Venus is nothing is it? To any layman he would say that’s like having two fires in the room.
The heating of gasses by the Sun plus compression by the lapse rate.. Not wondered about the extreme temperatures of ANY outer planet and stars with heavy atmospheres? I suppose you must think Venus is an exception. How anal. And weird. Don’t you think its odd where the Sun don’t Shine deep in the bowels of say Jupiter to Ur-anal that the temperatures deep down are raging hot?
My lifes work, from ‘planes, missiles, to a bit player in the odd “black project”. I’ve not worked on a failed project, ever. Millions of happy customers. What have YOU done for society that has made a change for the better?
The only unexplained issue with Goddards page is the simple fact some gasses transfer heat and expand a lot more when hot. i.e. They fill Stirling cycle engines with H2, not C02.
You are saying the lapse rate graphs are not of Venus but instead are a computer generated “model”. Don’t go writing to the source of these graphs or they might recommend you be denied work, tenure, even your freedom in society.
Here is the author of the graphs:-
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/people/bio/cv.pdf