There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Well you did get the laser part right - I'm talking about a 120 Watt CO2 laser that I use regularly for work.

It will take off wrinkles and pretty much the rest of your face. With long enough exposure, it will punch a hole through you (it's only 120 watts, so will take a minute or so). It will actually make your eyeballs explode too.

You see, CO2 has this property that it absorbs energy into its molecular bonds, then re-transmits it in the 10-micron wavelength. This property is useful for cutting through steel, but it's also the exact thing that's causing climate change. Now since the mathematics is too hard even for supercomputers to simulate properly, the exact effect of the energy is hard to predict, but we are effectively pumping Gigawatts, if not Terawatts of extra energy into the atmosphere via CO2.

So, shall we arrange a time and date for your "facial"?

Oxygen, cuts steel much better that your puny CO2 laserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting , and water vapor traps vastly more energy than CO2 could ever hope to. As far as my facial, just show me you beauty school diploma and next time you are in State College you can laser away.

[turtlespeed 212]

55 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So to your point . . .  here's a couple of links ( one for mapping and one for time series) for you and others to "cherry-pick" your own dates and develop your own graphs. (i.e., go back November 1888, then to November of 2019 or any range in-between if you like) Please note the source of this information:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/mapping/201911

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/global/time-series

Brent, I can be as stubborn as the next guy, but when someone puts a ribeye in front of you and you want to argue that its chicken - that's beyond stubborn. We're not discussing "opinions" on gun control, abortion or social science and cultural values - we're discussing physical science. Shit that "may" affect you, but will definitely affect your children or grandchildren. We as a planet; have to do something different about what we as a human race are doing to this planet.

I mean; it's like looking at all the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and you saying, "It's not there."     

Not to Godwin . . . But I liken it to present day world leaders claiming that the holocaust didn't happen.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Oxygen, cuts steel much better that your puny CO2 laserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting , and water vapor traps vastly more energy than CO2 could ever hope to. As far as my facial, just show me you beauty school diploma and next time you are in State College you can laser away.

1) Oxygen itself does not cut anything. However, if the retransmision of energy through CO2 is correct, (I have no reason to doubt it) then it does when focused.  Oxygen, focused or not, does not cut anything.  It may oxidize things - and a catalyst may increase the speed, but Oxygen ( to the best of my knowledge does not.)

2) The planet releasing more water vapor - so more energy is trapped and released as heat, as opposed to not being trapped at all.

3) I want tickets

[aonsquared 9]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Oxygen, cuts steel much better that your puny CO2 laserhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting , and water vapor traps vastly more energy than CO2 could ever hope to. As far as my facial, just show me you beauty school diploma and next time you are in State College you can laser away.

I use it as a high-precision cutter for many materials, not just steel. But CO2 is good enough that it was a contender for the Boeing YAL-1 Tactical Laser for shooting down ballistic missiles. So yes, I'll take you up on that offer.

Yes, water vapour does absorb more energy than CO2, but that's not the point - if we had 2 identical earths, one with normal prehistoric CO2 concentration and one with 400ppm as we do now, then expose them to the same amount of sunlight, the one with more CO2 will heat up more.

We can do this as an experiment with 2 identical vacuum containers with say 10000 ppm water vapour. now let's add 400 ppm CO2 to one and 100ppm to the other, then expose both to sunlight. Sure, both containers will heat up mostly due to water vapor, but the one with more CO2 will heat up more. It's a high-school level experiment.

 

To simplify even further, imagine microwaving a cold meal - sometimes you take it out and the middle is still freezing cold. But one bit of it is blazing hot, and if you take the average temperature, it's hotter than before you put it in the microwave. And if you mix it then it will be warmer. It's basic thermodynamics. Now the earth is one huge container and it will take time to fully mix the heat. But by then it could be too late - we need to remove the bit that's absorbing the extra energy (CO2) as soon as we can.

[turtlespeed 212]

7 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

I use it as a high-precision cutter for many materials, not just steel. But CO2 is good enough that it was a contender for the Boeing YAL-1 Tactical Laser for shooting down ballistic missiles. So yes, I'll take you up on that offer.

Yes, water vapour does absorb more energy than CO2, but that's not the point - if we had 2 identical earths, one with normal prehistoric CO2 concentration and one with 400ppm as we do now, then expose them to the same amount of sunlight, the one with more CO2 will heat up more.

We can do this as an experiment with 2 identical vacuum containers with say 10000 ppm water vapour. now let's add 400 ppm CO2 to one and 100ppm to the other, then expose both to sunlight. Sure, both containers will heat up mostly due to water vapor, but the one with more CO2 will heat up more. It's a high-school level experiment.

 

To simplify even further, imagine microwaving a cold meal - sometimes you take it out and the middle is still freezing cold. But one bit of it is blazing hot, and if you take the average temperature, it's hotter than before you put it in the microwave. And if you mix it then it will be warmer. It's basic thermodynamics. Now the earth is one huge container and it will take time to fully mix the heat. But by then it could be too late - we need to remove the bit that's absorbing the extra energy (CO2) as soon as we can.

 

I know, I used to be a brick wall too.

[aonsquared 9]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

1) Oxygen itself does not cut anything. However, if the retransmision of energy through CO2 is correct, (I have no reason to doubt it) then it does when focused.  Oxygen, focused or not, does not cut anything.  It may oxidize things - and a catalyst may increase the speed, but Oxygen ( to the best of my knowledge does not.)

2) The planet releasing more water vapor - so more energy is trapped and released as heat, as opposed to not being trapped at all.

3) I want tickets

Actually, the CO2 retransmission of energy happens even when it's not focused - in the 70s, astronomers discovered naturally-occurring CO2 lasers in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus ("Nonthermal 10 micron CO2 emission lines in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus", Johnson et al., 1976)

Venus, of course, is that nice planet with a balmy surface temperature of 864 Fahrenheit (462 degrees C) mostly thanks to CO2.

[turtlespeed 212]

OK - but can it cut through 3/4" plate, being unfocused?

[aonsquared 9]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

OK - but can it cut through 3/4" plate, being unfocused?

On Venus, and if the plate was made of lead, then yes well it would be a puddle on the ground so no lasing required

[brenthutch 383]

43 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

I use it as a high-precision cutter for many materials, not just steel. But CO2 is good enough that it was a contender for the Boeing YAL-

Yes, water vapour does absorb more energy than CO2, but that's not the point - if we had 2 identical earths, one with normal prehistoric CO2 concentration and one with 400ppm as we do now, 

Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!!

"About 34 million years ago, when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,"

Did you catch that? CO2 at 760 and ice was GROWING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

1) Oxygen itself does not cut anything. 

Neither does CO2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting

Edited January 11, 2020 by brenthutch

[aonsquared 9]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!!

"About 34 million years ago, when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,"

Did you catch that? CO2 at 760 and ice was GROWING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

 

Wow, you did not read the entire article you linked to...

Let's do a wager then. How much money are you willing to put up?

 

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

Wow, you did not read the entire article you linked to...

Let's do a wager then. How much money are you willing to put up?

 

Yes I did.  Here is some more good news from the same link

"A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO
2 concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

[aonsquared 9]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!!

"About 34 million years ago, when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,"

Did you catch that? CO2 at 760 and ice was GROWING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

 

If you only read ONE more sentence after your quotation...geez.

Quote

About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO
2 was about 760 ppm,^[34] and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO
2 concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.^[35]

In simpler english: When the ice started growing 34 million years ago, it was at 760 ppm and dropping. By the time it was finished growing, CO2 was at 300ppm. This was 20 million years ago. Reducing CO2 levels was the primary cause of the ice forming.

By the way, English is not my first language.

Edited January 11, 2020 by aonsquared

[gowlerk 1,912]

18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!! 

Uh, newsflash! WE WERE NOT AROUND TO BE AFFECTED BY IT THEN!!!!!!!!!!

[aonsquared 9]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Yes I did.  Here is some more good news from the same link

"A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO
2 concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

Last time I checked US farmers were having trouble selling their crops, yield was not a problem. And we're talking about temperatures here, nice deflection.

[ryoder 1,384]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Uh, newsflash! WE WERE NOT AROUND TO BE AFFECTED BY IT THEN!!!!!!!!!!

Check with 'Twardo; He might remember it.

[kallend 1,623]

5 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Check with 'Twardo; He might remember it.

Twardo's a kid.  He just looks old,

[aonsquared 9]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes I did.  Here is some more good news from the same link

"A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO
2 concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

Also I've never mentioned plants, so you're deflecting the topic again. We were discussing temperatures.

Let's remove the millions of uncertain variables affecting an entire planet, and simplify. Simplify the argument to high school level.

Let's take 2 identical, adiabatically sealed containers. Fill one with oxygen and water vapour, the second one EXACTLY the same, but replace some oxygen with CO2 (let's say 400ppm).

Now let's expose both containers to the SAME amount of sunlight, for the SAME amount of time. Carefully measure the temperatures. Now, if the container with CO2 warms up more, brenthutch pays up, if not, I pay up. Basic thermodynamics.

Now will you put your money where your mouth is? How much?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

46 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
2 concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

Adding important new meaning to the phrase: "eat my shorts".

[billvon 2,400]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:17 AM, airdvr said:

I wasn't aware that pro AGW climate scientists work for free.

No one does. 

I'm not sure what sort of point you imagined your sarcastic comment made.

[billvon 2,400]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:26 AM, brenthutch said:

Cherry picked start date.  If they went back twenty years instead of thirty, it would show cooling.

2019 (through October) +1.69F
2018 (last year we have complete data for) +1.48F
2017 +1.62F
. . .
2000 +0.72F
1999 +0.72F
1998 +1.12F

 

Especially funny in a thread entitled "there is a problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!"

[billvon 2,400]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:50 AM, turtlespeed said:

So I ask this cynical little question . . . What would happen to the paychecks if the climatologists spoke out against AGW?  

With good data, sound analysis, and new science that overturned a central tenet of AGW?  They would win a Nobel prize and would be able to name their salary, guaranteed.

With bad data, because they had a lot of Exxon stock?  Then would get fired (rightly.)

Imagine if a surgeon decided that the germ theory was all wrong, and decided sepsis wasn't a risk and sanitation/sterility wasn't as important as all the infection "alarmists" claim it is.  And started practicing medicine accordingly.  Think he might get fired?  Would firing him be a bad decision, or a good one?

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. 

Fascinating.  What do you think would happen to biomes across the world if some species were suddenly promoted over others while others were stunted?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Fascinating.  What do you think would happen to biomes across the world if some species were suddenly promoted over others while others were stunted?

Survival of the fittest?

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Survival of the fittest?

Yep.  Like rabbits in Australia.  How'd that turn out for them?