Say goodbye to barrier beaches and coastal salt marshes

gwb-trading · Sep 25, 2015

futurecurrents said:

More...

So this is the best you can come up with. Obviously you will not come up with Peterson's missing surveys predicting warming.

futurecurrents · Sep 25, 2015

gwb-trading said:
So this is the best you can come up with. Obviously you will not come up with Peterson's missing surveys predicting warming.

More...

You really should try to read once in a while.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society

The Royal Society of the UK

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

loyek590 · Sep 25, 2015

futurecurrents said:
You really should try to read once in a while.

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

American Meteorological Society

The Royal Society of the UK

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science

More...

I read the AMS blog, that's a good one, they did a pretty good job of forecasting the weather back in 2007

jem · Sep 25, 2015

fc you moron... that site tells you that we need to do more research into clouds. (because recent research shows the clouds being made are likely to be more cooling.)

if you put together what piezoe just explained... which is a very good rundown...
you realize hansen's hypothesis needs co2 to create warming clouds... for his speculation about co2 causing significant warming to be correct.

In reality most of the recent research shows that if anything low clouds in the tropics will be made and they will bounce the suns energy out... causing more cooling.

Currently, the science is collapsing on your agw nutter theory. Its happening paper by peer reviewed paper. It could change but for now you are a crazy troll nutter.

futurecurrents said:
You really need to read this.

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
More...

piezoe said:
We've gone away from pure CFC (fluoro-chloro-carbon) to a fluoro-hydro-carbon. the old compound was technically a freon called dichloro-difluoro-methane . The AC industry's name for this compound was R-12. Since methane consists of a single carbon atom bonded to four hydrogens, R-12 is a carbon bonded to two fluorine and two chlorine atoms. There are no hydrogens left on R-12, they have all been replaced with either fluorine or chlorine. R-12 is extremely unreactive and you could breath it with no ill effects assuming you also breathed your normal quota of oxygen. It had nearly ideal properties as a refrigerant.

The replacement compound for R12 is a halo substituted ethane. Ethane is two carbons bonded to each other with each carbon also having three hydrogens bonded to it, two carbons and six hydrogens altogether. In the new refrigerant, still by habit called a freon, though it really isn't, four of the six hydrogens in ethane have been substituted with fluorine, so the substitute refrigerant called 134a, is 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoroethane , the second carbon still has two hydrogens attached to it. 134a has physical properties similar to R-12 and makes a pretty good refrigerant, not quite as good as R-12 I think, but pretty good nevertheless. However, whereas R-12 is very unreactive below the ozone layer, 134a is reactive. The carbon hydrogen bonds in 134a can be broken by absorption of the uv light that makes it through the ozone layer. This results in reactive, free radicals that will on average react with other molecules before they reach the stratospheric ozone layer.

Whereas 134a reacts, on average, before it gets to the ozone layer, R-12 being unreactive at longer uv wavelengths, is transported by convection and diffusion all the way to the ozone layer before it is exposed to uv radiation high enough in energy to break its carbon chlorine bonds. This exposure to short wavelength uv forms the ClO. radical from photolysis of R-12 in the stratosphere. ClO. catalyses the destruction of ozone. One ClO. radical is capable of destroying 100,000 ozone molecules. Compared to R-12, the new refrigerant, 134a, usually reacts before it reaches the stratosphere and hence has a much smaller impact on the ozone layer. This is the reason the world converted from R-12 to 134a. At that time no consideration was being given the possible participation of "freons" in AGW. The reason for replacing R-12 with 134a was based on their potential to damage the Ozone layer. It had had nothing to do with AGW.

134a should have more IR absorption at higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) than R-12. These molecules should be far more effective greenhouse gases than a molecule of CO2. CO2 is a relatively poor absorber of IR. It only has two fundamental modes of vibration, a symmetrical and an asymmetrical, and only the asymmetrical is active. On the other hand both R-12 and 134a are going to have more active vibrational modes than CO2, so they are going to be much better IR absorbers. We hope all the AC guys, like FC, are reclaiming these refrigerants and not venting them into the atmosphere. The reason is we don't want to destroy the ozone layer. Any help along the lines of a possible negative contribution to AGW is extra, but it can't hurt.

Now of course there isn't much CO2, only a tiny bit, but there is more CO2 in the air than freons. So when considering the possible effects of these gases one has to consider both their absorption spectra and their abundance . Same with water vapor. There is hugely more water vapor than CO2 and freons combined. Molecule for molecule, water vapor is an even less effective greenhouse gas than CO2. But there is much more of it! I have pointed this out to FC many times, but he refuses to understand that both molecular absorption and abundance must be considered. Because water vapor participates in climate/temperature moderation in so many other modes besides its role as a greenhouse gas, it is by far the most important temperature-moderating component of the atmosphere. When the composition of air, or ppm CO2 is being reported, it is always for dry air! That's the only way we can make comparisons because the amount of water vapor varies widely. The amount of the other gases also varies, but not nearly so much as water vapor.

The bottom line is that we changed the refrigerant molecule to preserve the ozone layer, and that's working as intended! The R-12 plus Ozone chemistry was worked out in great detail by Roland and Molina years ago, and they won the Nobel prize for their beautiful kinetic studies. The Ozone layer is recovering since we stopped releasing so much R12 to the atmosphere. (That was what the Montreal convention was about.).

Now if I could just convince FC that it isn't enough to say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and of course it is, but a person also has to be aware that this greenhouse gas business is just one of many mechanisms affecting the rate of thermal loss from the Earth's surface and the low troposphere. When considering just the greenhouse effect alone, you have to take into account both integrated absorption and the abundance of whatever gas is being considered. But that is just the start. You have to consider the absorption and emission as a function of altitude. It is a tough problem. You discover that CO2 isn't a very effective greenhouse gas, and the only way it could be a problem at the levels we have now or are projecting is if there is a positive feedback mechanism. That's what Hansen's hypothesis was all about. Well the data is telling us that the feedback is negative, not positive. And it is also telling us that temperature leads change in CO2. If the cause of a temperature increase is CO2, than the phase relationship should be just the opposite of what is being observed. Probably the vertical convection which carries heat away from the earth and brings cool high altitude air down toward the surface is one of the most important cooling mechanisms and a contributor to the observed negative feedback.

Bottom line, the Earth may be warming, but what's causing it? And what to do about it? All we can do at this point is make educated guesses and replace the clearly wrong hypotheses with new ones to test.. Until we know cause, we can't expect to do anything effective. The odds are that the changes we see are well within natural variation.

In any case, there is one thing we should do and another we shouldn't. We should leave this problem of deciphering the Earth's climate to experts, and get it out of the political arena. And we shouldn't spend billions on measures that not only can't be supported with current science, but are actually contradicted by current science.
__________________________
Probably because of global warming hysteria there is yet another refrigerant besides 134a. That may be the new one that FC is referring to. In any case it would be a gas with physical properties similar to R-12 but a less good ir absorber. For example a one carbon compound would have fewer vibrational modes and be a less good absorber, but one also has to take into consideration the overlap of the broader band IR emission from the Earth with the absorption of the gas molecule under consideration. It isn't a terribly easy problem to make everyone happy simultaneously. It is most likely going to be a compromise. Maybe FC will give us the structure , or at least the chemical name of a new global warming friendly cum ozone friendly refrigerant.
More...

loyek590 · Sep 25, 2015

whatever, I know you can't burn up in one day what it took the earth a million years to produce and not expect some kind of change

Ricter · Sep 26, 2015

piezoe said:
We've gone away from pure CFC (fluoro-chloro-carbon) to a fluoro-hydro-carbon. the old compound was technically a freon called dichloro-difluoro-methane . The AC industry's name for this compound was R-12. Since methane consists of a single carbon atom bonded to four hydrogens, R-12 is a carbon bonded to two fluorine and two chlorine atoms. There are no hydrogens left on R-12, they have all been replaced with either fluorine or chlorine. R-12 is extremely unreactive and you could breath it with no ill effects assuming you also breathed your normal quota of oxygen. It had nearly ideal properties as a refrigerant.

The replacement compound for R12 is a halo substituted ethane. Ethane is two carbons bonded to each other with each carbon also having three hydrogens bonded to it, two carbons and six hydrogens altogether. In the new refrigerant, still by habit called a freon, though it really isn't, four of the six hydrogens in ethane have been substituted with fluorine, so the substitute refrigerant called 134a, is 1,1,1,2 - tetrafluoroethane , the second carbon still has two hydrogens attached to it. 134a has physical properties similar to R-12 and makes a pretty good refrigerant, not quite as good as R-12 I think, but pretty good nevertheless. However, whereas R-12 is very unreactive below the ozone layer, 134a is reactive. The carbon hydrogen bonds in 134a can be broken by absorption of the uv light that makes it through the ozone layer. This results in reactive, free radicals that will on average react with other molecules before they reach the stratospheric ozone layer.

Whereas 134a reacts, on average, before it gets to the ozone layer, R-12 being unreactive at longer uv wavelengths, is transported by convection and diffusion all the way to the ozone layer before it is exposed to uv radiation high enough in energy to break its carbon chlorine bonds. This exposure to short wavelength uv forms the ClO. radical from photolysis of R-12 in the stratosphere. ClO. catalyses the destruction of ozone. One ClO. radical is capable of destroying 100,000 ozone molecules. Compared to R-12, the new refrigerant, 134a, usually reacts before it reaches the stratosphere and hence has a much smaller impact on the ozone layer. This is the reason the world converted from R-12 to 134a. At that time no consideration was being given the possible participation of "freons" in AGW. The reason for replacing R-12 with 134a was based on their potential to damage the Ozone layer. It had had nothing to do with AGW.

134a should have more IR absorption at higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths) than R-12. These molecules should be far more effective greenhouse gases than a molecule of CO2. CO2 is a relatively poor absorber of IR. It only has two fundamental modes of vibration, a symmetrical and an asymmetrical, and only the asymmetrical is active. On the other hand both R-12 and 134a are going to have more active vibrational modes than CO2, so they are going to be much better IR absorbers. We hope all the AC guys, like FC, are reclaiming these refrigerants and not venting them into the atmosphere. The reason is we don't want to destroy the ozone layer. Any help along the lines of a possible negative contribution to AGW is extra, but it can't hurt.

Now of course there isn't much CO2, only a tiny bit, but there is more CO2 in the air than freons. So when considering the possible effects of these gases one has to consider both their absorption spectra and their abundance . Same with water vapor. There is hugely more water vapor than CO2 and freons combined. Molecule for molecule, water vapor is an even less effective greenhouse gas than CO2. But there is much more of it! I have pointed this out to FC many times, but he refuses to understand that both molecular absorption and abundance must be considered. Because water vapor participates in climate/temperature moderation in so many other modes besides its role as a greenhouse gas, it is by far the most important temperature-moderating component of the atmosphere. When the composition of air, or ppm CO2 is being reported, it is always for dry air! That's the only way we can make comparisons because the amount of water vapor varies widely. The amount of the other gases also varies, but not nearly so much as water vapor.

The bottom line is that we changed the refrigerant molecule to preserve the ozone layer, and that's working as intended! The R-12 plus Ozone chemistry was worked out in great detail by Roland and Molina years ago, and they won the Nobel prize for their beautiful kinetic studies. The Ozone layer is recovering since we stopped releasing so much R12 to the atmosphere. (That was what the Montreal convention was about.).

Now if I could just convince FC that it isn't enough to say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and of course it is, but a person also has to be aware that this greenhouse gas business is just one of many mechanisms affecting the rate of thermal loss from the Earth's surface and the low troposphere. When considering just the greenhouse effect alone, you have to take into account both integrated absorption and the abundance of whatever gas is being considered. But that is just the start. You have to consider the absorption and emission as a function of altitude. It is a tough problem. You discover that CO2 isn't a very effective greenhouse gas, and the only way it could be a problem at the levels we have now or are projecting is if there is a positive feedback mechanism. That's what Hansen's hypothesis was all about. Well the data is telling us that the feedback is negative, not positive. And it is also telling us that temperature leads change in CO2. If the cause of a temperature increase is CO2, than the phase relationship should be just the opposite of what is being observed. Probably the vertical convection which carries heat away from the earth and brings cool high altitude air down toward the surface is one of the most important cooling mechanisms and a contributor to the observed negative feedback.

Bottom line, the Earth may be warming, but what's causing it? And what to do about it? All we can do at this point is make educated guesses and replace the clearly wrong hypotheses with new ones to test.. Until we know cause, we can't expect to do anything effective. The odds are that the changes we see are well within natural variation.

In any case, there is one thing we should do and another we shouldn't. We should leave this problem of deciphering the Earth's climate to experts, and get it out of the political arena. And we shouldn't spend billions on measures that not only can't be supported with current science, but are actually contradicted by current science.
__________________________
Probably because of global warming hysteria there is yet another refrigerant besides 134a. That may be the new one that FC is referring to. In any case it would be a gas with physical properties similar to R-12 but a less good ir absorber. For example a one carbon compound would have fewer vibrational modes and be a less good absorber, but one also has to take into consideration the overlap of the broader band IR emission from the Earth with the absorption of the gas molecule under consideration. It isn't a terribly easy problem to make everyone happy simultaneously. It is most likely going to be a compromise. Maybe FC will give us the structure , or at least the chemical name of a new global warming friendly cum ozone friendly refrigerant.
More...

Do you accept that it is the presence and physical properties of the greenhouse gases that largely explain the vast difference (from a human perspective) in temperature between the night side of Earth and the night side of Mercury?

Ricter · Sep 26, 2015

jem said:
In reality most of the recent research shows that if anything low clouds in the tropics will be made and they will bounce the suns energy out... causing more cooling.
More...

That's possible but not currently being observed. Satellite observations are showing an uncertain in size but definitely growing energy budget for Earth, i.e. the planet is emitting less radiation than it is receiving. Besides, Earth's albedo will never match Venus's albedo, and Venus is hotter than f*ck. Because of greenhouse gases.

loyek590 · Sep 26, 2015

who cares? If you keep your local air and waterways clean everything else will take care of itself.

jem · Sep 26, 2015

lets bring out the science on this statement please.
you know we just discussed this energy budget...
you now its speculation...

But, you bring up satellites... so please show me the science.... links.

If you are leaning on hansen...

I have already seen Hansen's baloney/speculation on this subject.
he says the oceans are getting warming so the budget is off.
considering the oceans could be warmed by underground volcanoes or other things...
its really just a model... and agw nutters models have not been working on real time data... so why believe this one.

Regarding clouds... I have linked to the studies here. Although my core point is that science does not really know if man made co2 is causing warming or cooling because that co2 was causing warming via clouds remains unproven.

Ricter said:
That's possible but not currently being observed. Satellite observations are showing an uncertain in size but definitely growing energy budget for Earth, i.e. the planet is emitting less radiation than it is receiving. Besides, Earth's albedo will never match Venus's albedo, and Venus is hotter than f*ck. Because of greenhouse gases.
More...

futurecurrents · Sep 26, 2015

On this chart we can see that stratospheric temps are going down even as troposphere temps are rising. This is because the CO2 is acting like a blanket preventing heat from escaping. This heat is what warms the stratosphere. With lower amounts of escaping heat the stratosphere is cooling even as it rises at lower altitudes.

It is data like this that is the reason that 99% of the expert climate scientists believe man is responsible for nearly all the warming over the last fifty years.