Dr Roy Spencer on Global Warming Part 6 of 6

[ed1phant]

added CO2 is not beneficial to the environment, ocean acidification due to oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is a risk to coral reefs and marine biodiversity. And also there are low emissions technologies which can substitute for coal fired power generation, (i.e. renewables and nuclear).

[david222444]

@ed1phant 0.038% co2 in the atmosphere of which 4% is produced by man. The co2 is absorbed by the marine phytoplanton then what is left is dissolved in the oceans. The oceans account fro 70% of the earth and are miles deep. I do not believe for one minute that agw causes ocean acidification. Could it be the million volcanoes beneath the surface?

[ed1phant]

@david222444 you're right about there being approximately 380ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, but human emissions are actually responsible for more like 30% since preindustrial concentrations were around 280ppm, not mentioning the fact that about half of human emissions are dissolved in the oceans. Furthermore emissions from volcanism believe it or not is negligable compared to the emissions from fossil fuels, something on the order of 2 Gt of CO2 equivalent if you also include terrestial volvanism

[david222444]

@ed1phant Why the emphasis on human emissions? volcanoes have been pumping co2 into the atmosphere for hundreds of millenium without significant co2 accumulations. Today the troposphere is 0.36 celcius cooler than this day last year and the Pacific is still cooling. The climate has started cooling whether you like it or not.

[ed1phant]

@david222444 Global average surface temp is not going down, see the HadCRUT3 dataset. Even if the pacific is cooling, which i doubt, you cant use regional and/or short term trends to define long term global changes. The carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for ~10ka until 1750. Industrialisation added an additional flux of CO2 which is not imediately compensated for by increased deposition of organic carbon or increased oceanic alkalinity, this results in accumulation of CO2 into the atmosphere.

[MrDaleaaaa]

what ever you do don't mention the moon it has no effect what ever . they say sun they say alinement anything but the moon

[rockpianoguy]

Methane traps or holds the most heat in our air, Co2 is second, and water vapor third. Co2 always retains much more heat per volume than water vapor. 

[genericandothers]

@rockpianoguy be cautious with your words. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (roughly 20 times more effective than CO2 depending on time scale of global warming potential). It is also incorrect to say CO2 retains more heat per volume than water vapor whether you are speaking of heat capacity or its atmospheric absorption. H2O is the main absorber of IR in the atmosphere (see solar absorption spectrum). Please be more thorough in your comments.

[rockpianoguy]

Finnally, What he says makes no scientific sense. How can low level clouds cause radiation? They can trap some heat from the light of the Sun or reflect some back into the air which would bounce back off the higher clouds. We have always had low clouds and water vapor is dendenent on heat. Increase in Co2 allows air to hold more water vapor as well as heat.

[rockpianoguy]

Furthermore, Roy Spencer things that low level clouds and their varriability are responsible for 75% of global warming. he also thinks we only know we are warmer in the last 400 years, not thousands of years. He never looked that far back so he is the one who does not know.

[rockpianoguy]

An increase in high level heat trapping clouds are considered to increase global warming by currently accepted views. Roy Spencer disagrees with that. His study was only by a month by month basis NOT a decade by decade basis. He thinks that low level clouds will counter that. Source Wiki. Low level clouds will not have enough of an affect; insignificant.

[rockpianoguy]

The climate in greenland was the same; there was no very thick ice there but warm climate with vegitation, trees and animals up to only 60 million years ago. Some people still think it is continental drift which caused that so the land moved since then but that is wrong.

[rockpianoguy]

The temperature was an estimated 65 degrees at the south Pole! The proof is we found large carnivorous dinosaurs, plants, trees fossel found at the south pole. The continental driff or moving of the plates cannot be resonsible for that because they move so slowly all land masses were relatively in the same place 100 million years ago.

[rockpianoguy]

For the past sixty million years plants and trees which breath in Co2 and expell O2 Oxygen have been removing the Co2 from our atmosphere which allowed for there to be polar ice caps and ice ages. 100 million years ago the Co2 was up to 16 times higher than today and the sea level was 200 feet higher without polar ice caps

[rockpianoguy]

It doesn't matter if his data hasn't been published. If you know about climatology and simple common sense you know that through process of elimation the cause of climate change can only be the increase in Co2. We didn't have polar ice caps over 30 million years ago because of elevated Co2 levels from increased volcanism

[rockpianoguy]

Cloud variability is really something very insignificant. It only has a major effect when we consider the ice ages which first began 2.5 million years ago. Don't you think it is suspicious that this guy only wants to look for natural sources? No climatologist would consider cloud varriability now because they already know it is not significant as well as Sunshine variability.

[rockpianoguy]

I don't need the Satellite data because I have studied meteorology and climatology myself. One does not need a degree to understand about cloud variablity because it is something that was always part of the climate.

[rockpianoguy]

Do you really think this nit wit Roy Spencer has some data the world has overlooked when it comes to cloud varriablity? climatologists have already included it and the Sun's varriablity in their study which include the same sattellite data that Roy Spencer has. Get real. I myself know that cloud varriablity cannot be enough to account for the melting of the ice caps and climate change.

[Finlandcitizen]

@rockpianoguy

How the hell is that possible if the thing that the he is talking about is just about to be released on Journal of Geophysical Research?

How do you know? Do you have secret satellite data in your pocket that shows past cloud variability?

[rockpianoguy]

paleoscience is about fossels and paleontologists. GEOCHEMISTRY is about geology and chemistry. Yes, and the only model that nitwit Roy Spencer is using is about cloud varriablity which HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE INSIGINIFANT BY ALL OTHER SCIENTISTS.

[rockpianoguy]

Before 1850 the chemistry of tree rings has a higher C12 C13 ratio. The shells of dead sea creatures show the same thing! A lower C12 C 13 ratio after 1850. Only made made Co2 has this lower ratio. Yes carbon is natural to the Earth and Geochemists have used it to prove global warming!

[Quasibonco]

@rockpianoguy I think your missing the point. The isotope data you are reffering to are another example of paleoscience. Roy Spencer is working with real time satellite data that can be used to test all the models. And his five year interval approach is exactly what is needed to put changes into perspective.

[rockpianoguy]

ice core samples, atmospheric chemistry and even carbon ratios, the C12, C13 have shown evidence of global worming. The C12, C13 ratios of tree rings show that that man made Co2 which has a lower C12, C13 ratio than that the Co2 which was already there have decreased since 1850 beginning of industrial revolution.

[rockpianoguy]

Sun brightness vairability and cloud varriablity has ALREADY been included and shown to be not significant enough to account for global warming. The belief that the all of the scientists in the rest of the world missed that is scientificly niave and only scientifically uneducated people would believe such rubbish. They always do but I am not one of them believe what you want to believe. Science is not belief but CORROBORATION!

[rockpianoguy]

Al Gore is not a scientist. I understand the chemistry of global warming. Hydrocarbons means hydogen and carbon. When we burn fossel fuels especially coal because it has the most carbon which combines with oxygen to produce Co2. one atom carbon, two oxygen. Cloud variability is another NATURAL CAUSE like Sunlight variability.

[malmstring]

I think Roy Spencer is quite restrained actually, only keeping himself within the research he knows and work with. He points to wrong assumptions (basically lazy theoretical thinking or political agenda?) by other scientists and shows a few examples that easily uncovers a more complex truth than Al Gores... I enjoyed someone trying to follow the data and not trying to fish for more funds.

[rockpianoguy]

I apollogize. Roy Spencer is not a liar but compeletly decieved. He lack intuition and a scientific viewpoint on global warmin. It is hard to believe that a scientist could be that way. There are very few scientists who still believe there is no global warming. The guy does not know how to go beyond his emotions and ego which is inflated. Cloud variability is not causing the polar ice caps to melt and it doesn't take a climatologist to figure that out.

[malmstring]

@rockpianoguy Don't lie. Roy Spencer absolutely believes in the possibility of Global Warming. He says so in the first couple of videos of this presentation. I just watched it for Christs sake. He is just not so absolute about where the future is heading since, like he shows, a lot of unknown factors contribute to the overall fluctuation of temperatures over time. That's all.

[rockpianoguy]

The reason there are no proposals to look for natural causes is that all climatologists have already included the effects of the varriability of the Sun and all of natural causes into the study and data and Roy spencer knows that. Hes a liar.

[Finlandcitizen]

@rockpianoguy

ALL of the natural causes? Are you kidding me? Spencer proved back in 2008 with hi's paper that they don't take into the account cloud variability, the modelers in the IPCC Fourth Assestment report confessed that the biggest unknown are the clouds.

Saying that we understand the climate system completely is the same as to say that we know all about physics...