Some, Historical data is open to judgement calls so temperature data from many may years ago could be wrong or not accurate. From WWII onwards I would say surface and sea temperature records are pretty much ok. The two models used and the suggestion that the newer one has been adopted to better suit political needs I don't agree with. The newer model was adopted because it more closely correlated to other data sets from 4 or 5 eminent institutions. What all records seem to show is a steady and continual temperature increase globally over the last 75 years. As for some places being cooler for longer I guess this is going to happen just as much as some places will have got much hotter quicker. CO2 is used by plants and so disappears in the northern hemispheres summer, to some extent. We don't produce as much CO2 in the southern hemisphere because we don't have as many people or industry. The CO2 produced in the northern hemisphere doesn't migrate to the south because of dominant weather patterns, as far as I understand. Let me know if I haven't answered your questions, I know you probably won't agree with all the answers though
Thanks, you haven't answered them, you're just regurgitating the same old stuff, The science is settled There's a consensus It must be CO2...... We both know that we won't agree so it's a pointless discussion. Interesting thread though so I'll keep reading it.
Hey I must be being dumb today, sorry I didn't answer your questions can you just put them simply so I understand what you are asking? Oh I know we aren't going to agree but then it is a discussion forum?
How long do the different types of CO2 last in different parts of the atmosphere? How do they adjust historical measurements of CO2 versus modern satellite and mountain top measurements when they are using Antarctic Ice cores? As the NASA video shows there are much lower concentrations of CO2 in the Southern hemisphere so do they make an adjustment upwards? I hope you get what I mean. Please don't reply that they must know what they're doing because my whole point is that I haven't read anywhere what they do. You dismissed Hadcrut 4 v Hadcrut 5 but this is the same issue. Is the data different or the interpretation? So no, you didn't answer and I don't expect you to. No one who blindly believes all that Michael Mann and Al Gore told them even questions any of it.
These are complicated questions. I don't think I can easily answer them 1. CO2 becomes retrapped in plants, soil and the ocean and there are some who predict it stays in the atmosphere for 100+ year and some say 30-40 years. More CO2 can lead to increased growth and so more capture of CO2 by plants. Go much further than the system can cope with and then the amount of CO2 being produced is more than can be sequestrated. Increased CO2 increases temperature and at elevated temperature the oceans cannot retain all the CO2 that has been sequestrated in them and at warmer temperature are less able to sequestrate CO2 hence you enter a positive feedback loop as described by the BGS. https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geology/climate-change/what-causes-the-earths-climate-to-change/ I don't understand what you mean by different types of CO2 or different parts of the atmosphere 2. I actually have no idea how they calculate the CO2 historically but from what I've read they appear to take ice cores that have trapped air bubbles in them and from this, and the depth from which the core was taken they can determine the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere at various times. Taking current sample from the top of a mountain in Hawaii I would imagine is just basic sample collection. A satellite determines CO2 levels by using infra red sensors as molecule like CO2 with two dissimilar elements absorb IR in a unique way. I'm not sure why they would have to adjust the data obtained from air trapped in ice sample as it is what it is, or am I missing something? The NASA video was a model I think and illustrated predicted seasonal levels of CO2. This is a model showing the current situation and there is more CO2 produced in the northern hemisphere than in the south. In pre-histroic time I don't think this would necessarily have been the case although given the larger land mass, more vegetation and hence more animals perhaps there would always have been more CO2 produced in the northern hemisphere. No point quoting Michael Mann at me. Until I google him in a few minutes I have no idea who he is. Al Gore I recognise and he did make a film about climate change, I haven't seen it.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere (and the oceans) for different amounts of time depending on where it is. The oceans absorb much more CO2 than vegetation. The lower levels of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere is because there is much more water and less land mass. My point is that if you look at the illustrative NASA video the CO2 levels in the SH don't change very much throughout the year. This is because of what I've said above. So if you're measuring historical CO2 levels using ice cores from Antarctica they'll likely not change very much at all for thousands of years, at least since it's been covered in ice. Do you see what I'm getting at yet? Isn't it strange that since we've been able to measure atmospheric CO2 it has been increasing? My question about how long it lasts is because, compared to just 40 years ago we pump much less CO2 into the atmosphere than we used to in the first world. In the UK our CO2 emissions have dropped by nearly 50% since 1990 but CO2 in the atmosphere is still growing rapidly. Why aren't we seeing a reduction to match our reduction? Michael Mann was one of those who produced the hockey stick graph and he is a horrible POS.
Just as an addendum. Being skeptical used to be a good thing. It's changed to mean you're a denier now. I've asked relevant questions and you've tried to answer them given the information you can find but you can't because that information isn't there. I see that as a huge problem
No I don't see, I'm not being awkward I just don't see your point. Are you saying that the ice cores from Antarctica are showing changes and they shouldn't be because the NASA model says there isn't much CO2 in the southern hemisphere and therefore not much changing. Maybe it is because we can measure it that we are seeing a change in CO2 but temperature measurements are not new and average temperature appear to be increasing. The UK and Europe are doing much better than a lot of the world and others need to catch up. For example in 2014, last numbers I have easily to hand, we consumed 2x as many Kg of oil equivalents per capita as compared to the UK.
The ice cores go back 800k years, or since Antarctica has been as it is today. There is nothing there, it's an ice desert, so I'm not surprised that co2 levels haven't chaged very much. As you will have heard and read, CO2 levels are higher than they've been for 800k years, but where are we measuring these levels? Not in Antarctica, in Hawaii. Where are the modern measurements from Antarctica? We're not comparing eggs with eggs. The 2nd point you seem to have also missed. As you show, the CO2 emissions are dropping but still increasing in the atmosphere. You found figures for CO2 staying in the atmosphere. These have been increased for the very reason I highlight. If, as the IPCC originally stated, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 5-10 years then we should be seeing a reduction. Even with your figures of 30-40 years we are pumping much less CO2 now so why have levels increased markedly since then? You're struggling to answer these questions because the data isn't there
I think the reason CO2 levels are still rising is that North America is still producing large amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. China, India and large parts of Asia are industrialising which is offsetting the advances made in more developed countries and deforestation is occurring in many part of the world. This then has to be linked to a possible tipping point scenario where the oceans aren't able to maintain their CO2 or absorb as much as they did because they are warming. I think CO2 level are now measured by IR sensors on satellites
The CO2 levels are measured in samples with IR. The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at such tiny levels that it's difficult to measure with satellites. They have to fine tune the wavelengths to minimize interference from water vapour, for example, and any measurements taken from satellites have to be adjusted, e.g sea level rise (I won't start on that as it is a whole new discussion) The phrase you hear is the Keeling Curve, named after the man who started measurements at Mauna Lei so they are the base line measurements we hear all the time. They do say that measurements are taken from other remote areas to get a global figure so they accept that levels differ in different places. Taking all the above into account, no matter whether I accept how it is measured, I still ask Why aren't we taking measurements just from Antarctica? If our historical record comes from Antarctica then why aren't we taking our modern readings from the same place? We're not comparing eggs to eggs.
I didn't know about that study but from what I've read it covers up to 1978 so I don't know how they got the graph to go to 2000. But it doesn't affect my question. Why don't they just measure CO2 at the Law Dome? Not using historical ice cores, the same way they do at Mauna Lei? I'll give you another question to ponder after dinner. Give me a picture showing sea level rise. Not projections of how our cities will be under water but actual depictions/examples of sea level rise. To start you off I'm going to suggest checking the Thames Barrier in London. Since it opened, in 1982, it has been raised 203 times, nearly half of them were spread over 3 years. For the last few years it hasn't been raised much at all. We're constantly told that we have 10 years to save the planet and we will lose coastal towns but it doesn't seem so for the last 40 years. I'm asking you this particularly because of the famous picture of Fort Dennison. Enjoy your meal
This is getting a little detailed & technical for me, but I do have a question for anyone who might have an answer ... A few posts back, photosynthetic O2 production from CO2 consumption was alluded to in some calculation or other. And the measurement of this confuses me. Photosynthesis (O2 production) in plants only takes place in sunshine - by night plants go into respiratory mode, just like us (CO2 production). So when they measure the photosynthetic CO2 usage from the day time, do they subtract the O2 used in the respiratory process by night? I'd love to know if plants indeed produce a net CO2 consumption output, or is it ignored to give a more dramatic headline figure? Hope this makes sense. So easy to get in a muddle with all these theories & data.
If oceans absorb CO2 then when the ice caps melt it will make more ocean which in turn will absorb more CO2 and we can all carry on as before. please log in to view this image
