Atmospheric Models

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Just answer the question smart ass.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Roger wrote:Just answer the question smart ass.
I have no idea if it is a non-linear effect. However, it is obvious the modelers didn't see it coming either.

BTW you really need to look at this:

Does Warming Cause CO2 rise?

The oceans cooled - CO2 rise is below trend line. Which is what the sceptics have been saying. CO2 is an effect not a cause. It amplifies the effect some but it is not an independent variable as has been assumed.

Is it definitive? No. But the pattern is getting clearer. A few more good data points and the warming scare will be over.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

MSimon wrote: A few more good data points and the warming scare will be over.
Me hopes so. Alas i fear we will be paying for it for years to come

Its funny that in this madness we have almost established a carbon economy here in Australia. Carbon credits, carbon trading were due to come online soon.

Some people are going to get burned. Some are just not going to want to let go of this. I wonder how long its going to take to stop the momentum of this climate freight train.

One things certain and thats ill still be arguing with hippie chicks for many years to come.
Purity is Power

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

Just to throw in my two cents:

I don't think there is any doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is being driven through the burning of fossil fuels. If anything, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere than is emmitted by humans, not more, which strongly suggests that we are indeed, the force driving up CO2 concentrations and nature is desperately trying to damp it down by absorbing it.

Incidentally even if global warming isn't brought about by increased CO2 levels, there's alot of evidence to suggest that they are dramatically increasing the acidity of the oceans, which could devastate the coral reefs of the world, along with other marine life.

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?latest=1&id=3250

So even if the rise in temperatures is not so strongly linked to atmospheric CO2, that's no reason to say, Yipee! business as usual, no need to worry!


The controvesy I suppose, would therefore be whether increased CO2 will result in increased temperatures, personally I don't trust any computer climate model to predict this. What would sway me will solely be a historical record of CO2 levels and temperature which shows a strong correlation, if such a historical correlation can be shown then you don't need to understand the subtleties of the climate to know that increased CO2 levels lead to global warming.

I thought the hockeystick graph provided that evidence, from the link MSimon gave I'm not so sure anymore, the bottom line is if I'm convinced of strong past correlation with temperature and CO2 then I'll believe global warming, if I'm not, then I won't.

If concern regarding global warming results in reduced CO2 emmissions, then I welcome it, if only in order to prevent ocean acidification and the loss of our coral reefs, aswell as more prudent use of our finite fossil fuel reserves, but if hysterical concern for global warming based faulty data results in crazy schemes like dumping iron and nitrogen into the oceans in order to promote algal blooms that 'absorb' CO2, or flying planes with sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) into the earths atmosphere to increase albedo or spending hundreds of trillions of pounds flying giant mirrors up into space to reflect the sun's ray, then those climate scientists will have a lot to answer for if they're wrong....

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Oceans - meet acidity.

This is anecdotal but I think it bears on the question.

A guy was talking about his salt water fish tank. He stopped adjusting the pH after taking the critters out to do some maintenance. CO2 indoors is much higher than out. He never saw a pH below 7.7 Which would tend to indicate that salt and other dissolved minerals buffers the oceans.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it is unwise to believe anything coming out of the warming industry.

I'd have to look it up but I also think I read that natural sources of CO2 are 5X to 20X what man puts out. Which means that if warming (1 deg F) is totally due to CO2 man is responsible for at most .2 deg F of the warming. If solar is the driver then of course it is less and probably much less.

BFD. And you can quote me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The historical evidence from ice cores is that CO2 lags warming by 200 to 800 years.

And guess what? It has been warming ever since we came out of the Little Ice Age. At least 200 years.

Climate science as currently practiced by most involved is a FRAUD.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

It is good to get SO2 and other stuff out of the exhaust of coal plants. If nothing else to improve the local environment.

Well we rubbed and we scrubbed and greatly reduced the output. And the effect on acid rain? Unmeasurable.

I'll go farther. Most of what passes for science in the ecology movement is a FRAUD.

They trade in questionable science and panic. They have been wrong so many times over the last 50 years that if they said the sun rises in the East I'd check it out.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20522
Perhaps the best example of the contributions of scientists to a large, complex issue is the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP). This project entailed hundreds of scientists working in small groups over a period of 10 years at a cost of $550 million.


Scare Debunked

The NAPAP findings were submitted to Congress in 1990. Because the study's findings minimized the impact of acid rain caused by humans, Congress and the media completely ignored them.

The NAPAP study found that among thousands of U.S. lakes, only 4 percent were somewhat acidic. One-quarter of those were acidic due to natural causes, leaving only 3 percent somewhat influenced by human activities.

The study found many of the Adirondack lakes were acidic when explorers first entered the region, and likely contained few fish at the time. Logging the virgin forests prior to 1900 reduced the regional lake acidity. Acidity then rebounded with the decline of logging.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=90
"The evidence of the damage [from acid rain] is alarming: lakes and streams that once teemed with plants, fish, and other animals lie barren and still, empty of most aquatic life. . . . Acid Rain is damaging [the Great Lakes region and] nearly half of the lakes and forests in eastern Canada." (World Geography: A Global Perspective, Prentice Hall, 1992).

Such statements from textbooks used in Michigan are pure balderdash. The acid-rain scare was debunked years ago. In 1980, Congress invested $500 million into a major scientific study called National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (NAPAP). After ten years of careful research, the expert scientists involved in the study concluded that there is very little evidence that acid rain damages forests or crops.

The NAPAP study also found that American lakes and streams were in much better shape than the EPA and other critics had asserted. The Great Lakes, for example, not only passed the acid rain tests with ease, Lakes Michigan and Superior register four times cleaner than they were in 1970.
In other words. Rubbish.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

I don't think there is any doubt that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is being driven through the burning of fossil fuels. If anything, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere than is emmitted by humans, not more, which strongly suggests that we are indeed, the force driving up CO2 concentrations and nature is desperately trying to damp it down by absorbing it.
Yeah, I wonder about that interplay.

It's pretty clear from the fossil record that in the very early days of life on Earth, CO2 levels were much higher (those early plants mostly died out as they weren't adapted for the lower CO2 levels of today) and the planet was much warmer as a result. As levels dropped plants evolved into grasses, which are much more efficient at lower CO2 levels, and they eventually drove CO2 levels so low the planet started having periodic Ice Ages.

So there is some strong evidence CO2 can drive climate change, and also that there are strong feedback mechanisms. What no one can credibly claim to know is the time parameters in which these happen (does CO2-induced warming take years, decades, centuries, millennia, longer?), what their relative magnitudes are (with modern plants, are the feedbacks so much stronger than the warming factors during interglacials that CO2 levels can't drive temperatures much further beyond where they are today?) and to what extent temperature trends are now driven by solar activity rather than atmospheric conditions.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Actually current thinking is that the advent of periodic ice ages was caused by the movement of a large land mass to the South Pole and the resultant changes in ocean circulation as well. Another cause was the separation of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans caused by the Isthmus of Panama.

The permanent ice cap at the South pole caused albedo changes.

It had nothing to do with CO2 concentrations.

Let me add that the buffering ratio of ocean CO2 to atmospheric CO2 is 50:1.

Where did all the missing CO2 go? Carbonates. Otherwise known as limestone. Some wound up as coal and oil deposits.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

TallDave wrote:
Yeah, I wonder about that interplay.

It's pretty clear from the fossil record that in the very early days of life on Earth, CO2 levels were much higher ....
The Sun is also 30% hotter than 4 billion years ago.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

That's interesting, I hadn't seen that before.
Faint young Sun problem
Main article: Faint young Sun paradox

Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and in fact that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the lesser amount of solar energy reaching the planet.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

It might also be that the model is totally wrong.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Post by jmc »

On the buffering rate of ocean CO2 to atmospheric CO2 being 50:1 what that may imply is that for every ton of CO2 mankind has put out onto the land through our activity we have put 50 tons into the oceans! That might just mean we've emitted more CO2 then we thought.

Also a fish tank is not the same as the oceans, how long did he stop adjusting the ph for, days? Months? Years? If the Ph of water never changes, why did he adjust the ph from time to time in the past?

When you say the natural sources of CO2 are 5X to 20X what man puts out that sounds reasonable and it explains why it takes about five years for the peak CO2 level of one year to equate to the trough CO2 level of another year, but human CO2 emmission is cumulative, what cumulative natural forces emit CO2 (if the were truly cumulative present day CO2 levels would be infinity).

I admit volcanic activity can result in massive CO2 increases, but the hockey stick chart showing historical levels of atmospheric CO2 for the past two millenia show that the recent spike began around 1800 the start of the industrial revolution, coincidence?

That last post about SO2 levels, seemed to be linked to articles that were more or less along the lines of "scientist say" this or that, it didn't really present that much actual evidence. I'd also appreciate and graph or study you can find showing CO2 lagging global warming by 200 years.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Backwards. For every ton of CO2 in the atmosphere there are 50 tons in the ocean.

As I recall he stopped for couple of weeks. Certainly enough time to reach equilibrium with a 200 gal tank.

If human emitted CO2 is cumulative so is naturally emitted CO2.

In fact there was a paper a while back that wondered what the sink was that was absorbing all the excess from known sources.

OK you are now on my suspect list. The hockey stick has been so thoroughly debunked that even the IPCC admits it is a steaming pile. However, it is a really nice graph for reports and motivating the rubes so they still use it in reports.

CO2 lag? There is Google. Tons of material out there with peer reviewed"papers supporting them. There was even a British court case that said - lie. Can not be taught in school.

I think it is time to start working on your Ice Age Scare. The warming scare is over.
Last edited by MSimon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Mumbles
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:03 am
Location: Leonardtown, MD, USA

As it applies to so many things...

Post by Mumbles »

drmike wrote:It might also be that the model is totally wrong.
You nailed it. It might be wrong. Or, the 'other' model might be wrong...

And your statement is applicable in so many different contexts! Gotta love it!

[That is why we want to actually build a polywell prototype. That is why we want physical proof that something works or doesn't, and which factors really influence the reaction.]
---------------
(Having said that, the converse is that 'It might be that the model is right." Which is what we base science and reasoning on - developing models, using them to make predictions and testing them out with repeatable experiments. If the predictions are consistently correct, we slowly gain faith in the accuracy of the model. If the predictions are consistently wrong, it is time to start over... Of course, conducting testing on solar output over millions of years is kind of hard to duplicate in the lab, but there you go...

Be Safe
Mumbles

Post Reply