Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman
Look, if water vapor and CO2 weren't greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.

Without carbon dioxide and water vapor, or without physics working the way they do, Earth would be just another cold lifeless planet. Yet, you have denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Cosmic rays... really? Why isn't Mars as warm as the Earth, then? He doesn't all that confident:

That would be a good question to ask NASA. The figures from NASA would imply that CO2 has essentially no warming effect. According to the Arrhenius Greenhouse law the total radiative forcing CO2 has on Earth is around 32 W/m2, corresponding to a warming of around 8K above its effective temperature of 255K. Mars has a CO2 concentration around 27 times higher, which would be expected to produce a radiative forcing of around 50 W/m2, corresponding to a warming of around 20K above its effective temperature of 210K. The "effective temperature" is the temperature expected if the planet were heated only by solar radiation. Bizzarely NASA gives an average surface temperature for Mars of 210K, which is the same as its effective temperature (see NASA Mars Fact Sheet or NASA Quick Facts on Mars). A blunder by NASA, possibly? Or have they just unwittingly debunked AGW?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”....

So, where is that chunk of sea level rise coming from?

Contributors to IPCC have already stated that sea level rise reported by IPCC is a lie.

The Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change has admitted the entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm because the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend". Link. In fact if the earth is cooling we should see a sea level drop and funny enough scientist are trying to explain away the one-and-a-half-year 7-mm drop in sea height in 2010/11 with the flooding of Lake Eyre in South Australia which is very shallow salt basin.

So no sea rise, no temperature increase, no global warming, just a drive to purse taxes by altering data to create a situation that doesn't exists. Banks will profit from selling carbon trading derivatives, big oil profits from selling larger amounts of methane to power cities, and governments will profit from higher taxes. So instead of saving the earth, the drive for so called cleaner energy has allowed Big oil to frack the earth for methane. Fracking by pouring trillions of gallons of water into the earth to recover methane locked underground is arguably the most stupid thing the human race has done.

So those siding with IPCC are siding with banks. big oil, and governments that pursue greed and nothing else.

Oh good, you're back. Maybe you forgot about your serious logical discrepancies. Nobody else did, though.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Greven

And that would be a welcome addition except for the fact that all systems that record temperature show a global warming hiatus for over 18 years making a mockery of AGWers and their warming.

[url=Judith Curry says it best....

Judith Curry said:

ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend

To which I replied with side-by-side comparisons of Dr. Roy Spencer adjusting the warming trend to be flatter with a newer model. Bizarrely, you then said the following:

originally posted by: glend
Early versions of satellite data showed no warming so algorithms have been continually adjusted in new UAH datasets to show a warming trend to match ground based stations which also have been adjusted to show warming trends.

What a conundrum! You appear to be in the odd position of contradicting yourself - several times in rapid succession.

Yet you do not address this in your post here, fascinating. Phage has dissected your tangent here, so I won't bother with it.

a reply to: Nathan-D

A blunder by NASA, possibly? Or have they just unwittingly debunked AGW?

Atmospheric density is irrelevant? Oh wait, it isn't. Arrhenius' equation only considered the effects of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere and it is very simplistic.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

A blunder by NASA, possibly? Or have they just unwittingly debunked AGW?

Atmospheric density is irrelevant? Oh wait, it isn't. Arrhenius' equation only considered the effects of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

The Arrhenius Greenhouse law enshrines the basic physics of how CO2 absorbs radiation. Why would it not apply to Mars?

originally posted by: Nathan-D

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: Justoneman
Look, if water vapor and CO2 weren't greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.

Without carbon dioxide and water vapor, or without physics working the way they do, Earth would be just another cold lifeless planet. Yet, you have denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Cosmic rays... really? Why isn't Mars as warm as the Earth, then? He doesn't all that confident:

That would be a good question to ask NASA. The figures from NASA would imply that CO2 has essentially no warming effect. According to the Arrhenius Greenhouse law the total radiative forcing CO2 has on Earth is around 32 W/m2, corresponding to a warming of around 8K above its effective temperature of 255K. Mars has a CO2 concentration around 27 times higher, which would be expected to produce a radiative forcing of around 50 W/m2, corresponding to a warming of around 20K above its effective temperature of 210K. The "effective temperature" is the temperature expected if the planet were heated only by solar radiation. Bizzarely NASA gives an average surface temperature for Mars of 210K, which is the same as its effective temperature (see NASA Mars Fact Sheet or NASA Quick Facts on Mars). A blunder by NASA, possibly? Or have they just unwittingly debunked AGW?

Your math is erroneous. Svante Arrhenius' calculation is for Earth - and water vapor is a rather large part inherent in the calculation. There is more, however.

CO2 makes up the vast majority of Mars' atmosphere (96% CO2, 1.9% Ar, 1.9% N), but that atmosphere is much thinner - 25,000 gigatonnes Earth's 5,148,000 gigatonnes. On Earth, there are approximately 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. On Mars, there are approximately 24,417 gigatonnes of CO2 - 7.8 times as much.

a reply to: Nathan-D

Why would it not apply to Mars?

As I said, because it does not include a density factor. Does it?

Svante Arrhenius' calculation is for Earth - and water vapor is a rather large part inherent in the calculation. There is more, however.

The modified Arrhenius Greenhouse law formula is incorporated in the HITRAN/MODTRAN database. You can download the models for free and regardless of what concentration you set other greenhouse gases such as water vapour the radiative forcing from CO2 remains essentially the same.

CO2 makes up the vast majority of Mars' atmosphere (96% CO2, 1.9% Ar, 1.9% N), but that atmosphere is much thinner - 25,000 gigatonnes Earth's 5,148,000 gigatonnes. On Earth, there are approximately 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. On Mars, there are approximately 24,417 gigatonnes of CO2 - 7.8 times as much.

Phage, do you ever think before you post? Yes, there is around 8 times as much CO2 on Mars in absolute terms, but Mars is a much smaller planet and the CO2 occupies a smaller space and so the concentration is higher.

your math is erronous]

My math is sound. You just don't understand it (as per-usual).

Quick now, time to log-in to those sock-accounts and give yourself stars again.

a reply to: Phage

That is not what your link says, btw. Even though it only has data through 1990, it shows days getting longer. That means the rotation slows down, not speeds up.

Yes to be more precise, I should have said that the long term increase in LOD of 1.70 ± 0.05 ms/cy over the last 2,700 years has been declining with a more recent graph below showing decline in acceleration in last 40 years

a reply to: Nathan-D

but Mars is a much smaller planet and the CO2 occupies a much smaller space and so the concentration is higher.

The concentration of CO2 is high on Mars because there is a lot more of it than any other gas.

That does not change the fact that the density of Mars' atmosphere is slight. Very, very slight. On Mar's surface the density is that of Earth's atmosphere at 100,000 feet.

That does not change the fact that Mars is cold because the density of Mars' atmosphere is slight

Quick now, time to log-in to those sock-accounts and give yourself stars again.

Ad hominem arguments don't make you sound smarter than you are.

a reply to: glend
I know you like to cherry pick, but your "graph below" does not show 2,700 years.
But there is this one, from your source.
www.ucolick.org...

What is seen is a long term slowing of the Earth's rotation. And it's been going on for a very long time. It is caused by the tidal influence of the Moon. The Moon is "stealing" rotational energy from the Earth and in doing so it is moving away from the Earth.

So, how about those calcs from Mörner showing how much the Earth should have slowed?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

but Mars is a much smaller planet and the CO2 occupies a much smaller space and so the concentration is higher.

The concentration of CO2 is high on Mars because there is a lot more of it than any other gas.

I am talking about Mars having a 27x higher concentration. Mars may only have around 8 times as much CO2 in absolute terms, but because Mars is smaller the concentration on Mars is higher than it would be on Earth.

That does not change the fact that Mars is cold because the density of Mars' atmosphere is slight

I agree. But CO2 should have some warming at least. This is why I said that NASA could have made a blunder. A quick Google search for the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars, brings up values ranging from 5K to 15K.

ad hominem

Yes, that was unnecessary, but I just get annoyed with your condescension.

a reply to: Nathan-D

but because Mars is smaller the concentration on Mars is higher than it would be on Earth.

Concentration means in relation to other gasses. In an atmosphere of 100% CO2 the concentration is 100% no matter what the density is. But the density makes a big difference.

A quick Google search for the greenhouse effect from CO2 on Mars, brings up values ranging from 215K to 222K.

A quick Google search gave me no such information.

The Martian atmosphere is more than 95 percent CO2 by volume. The remaining gases are a mixture of nitrogen, argon, oxygen and carbon monoxide. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, so Mars does have a greenhouse effect. But it's very weak because the Martian atmosphere is so thin -- 100 times less dense than the Earth's atmosphere.

science.opposingviews.com...

Mars is about half the diameter of the Earth and has 1/10th the Earth's mass. Mars' thin atmosphere (just 1/100th the Earth's) does not trap much heat at all even though it is 95% carbon dioxide (CO2). The other 3% is nitrogen (N2). Because the atmosphere is so thin, the greenhouse effect is insignificant and Mars has rapid cooling between night and day. When night comes the temperature can drop by over 100 K (180° F)!

www.astronomynotes.com...

I am being like this because you always seem to come across as being quite condescending.

I'm sorry my manner offends you. What does that have to do with your accusation of puppetry?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

but because Mars is smaller the concentration on Mars is higher than it would be on Earth.

Concentration means in relation to other gasses. In an atmosphere of 100% CO2 the concentration is 100% no matter what the density is. But the density makes a big difference.

Ferrgoodnessake. Phage, are you mental? Really, I'm past caring about being moderated because this is just retarded. I am talking about the CO2 on Mars being around 27 times higher in concentration than the CO2 on Earth. Earth has around 6 kg/m^2 and Mars has around 160 kg/m^2. Do you get it?

A quick Google search gave me no such information.

Type into Google "Greenhouse effect on Mars K".

a reply to: Nathan-D

I am talking about the CO2 on Mars being around 27 times higher in concentration than the CO2 on Earth. Earth has around 6 kg/m3 and Mars has around 160 kg/m3.

Those units are an expression of density, not concentration. Concentration is given as a percentage (ppm, ppb, etc.)

The atmospheric surface density of Mars is 0.02 kg/m3, how can the density of CO2 be 160 kg/m3?
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Type into Google "Greenhouse effect on Mars K".

Ok.

Mars is in some ways at the opposite extreme of Venus in terms of temperature and pressure. The surface pressure is 6 mb and mean temperature is ~215 K (Carr and Head 2010). The equilibrium temperature can be shown to be 210 K, so greenhouse warming is about 5 K or almost insignificant.

staff.washington.edu...

originally posted by: Nathan-D

Svante Arrhenius' calculation is for Earth - and water vapor is a rather large part inherent in the calculation. There is more, however.

The modified Arrhenius Greenhouse law formula is incorporated in the HITRAN/MODTRAN database. You can download the models for free and regardless of what concentration you set other greenhouse gases such as water vapour the radiative forcing from CO2 remains essentially the same.

CO2 makes up the vast majority of Mars' atmosphere (96% CO2, 1.9% Ar, 1.9% N), but that atmosphere is much thinner - 25,000 gigatonnes Earth's 5,148,000 gigatonnes. On Earth, there are approximately 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. On Mars, there are approximately 24,417 gigatonnes of CO2 - 7.8 times as much.

Phage, do you ever think before you post? Yes, there is around 8 times as much CO2 on Mars in absolute terms, but Mars is a much smaller planet and the CO2 occupies a smaller space and so the concentration is higher.

your math is erronous]

My math is sound. You just don't understand it (as per-usual).

Quick now, time to log-in to those sock-accounts and give yourself stars again.

I find it unlikely that those models are calibrated for Mars.

I am not Phage. You are imagining things, while accusing Phage of having sockpuppets to star his posts. You've done this before. The reason Phage gets stars is typically because he is right, insightful, funny, etc - not because of puppet accounts.

You are quick to accuse others of failing, but perhaps you have forgotten some things.

Consider, for a moment, that his formula was conceived with the presumption that CO2 regulates water vapor, because water vapor fluctuates tremendously in comparison to CO2. The formula may well work without much change on other worlds, but the constant is not going to be the same. It's time to explain why that is.

Now, as previously stated, the atmosphere of Mars is relatively thin. Pressure does not determine temperature alone - an initial pressure increase would generate heat, but this would diminish to equilibrium with time. However, pressure does influence a greenhouse gas such as CO2. This phenomenon is generally known as pressure broadening.

Take a look at page 2 of this link. You'll notice there that there are two charts at different pressures showing transmission over a band, with CO2 as the gas:

At higher pressure (1000 mb), there is a considerable band of low transmission, thus absorption of radiation occurs. At lower pressure (100 mb), there is very high transmission, thus much less absorption of radiation compared to the higher pressure example.

Recall the blackbody; solids and liquids are very dense and so each functions well as a blackbody. Gases, on the other hand, are generally worse - depending on the pressure of the gas. Gas at low pressure is a poor blackbody, while gas at high pressure is a much better blackbody. A poor blackbody is not going to absorb (and then re-emit) radiation as effectively.

Now, consider what Phage has cited for the pressure of Mars, and you might see why things are different there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nathan-D

I am talking about the CO2 on Mars being around 27 times higher in concentration than the CO2 on Earth. Earth has around 6 kg/m3 and Mars has around 160 kg/m3.

Those units are an expression of density, not concentration. Concentration is given as a percentage (ppm, ppb, etc

Type into Google "Greenhouse effect on Mars K".

I edited my post before you replied. That should read Kg/m^2. I think your objection for my using the word concentration instead of density is a semantic quibble. If you have CO2 in a bottle and increase the number of molecules so the density rises by a factor 20 then the concentration of that gas will increase by the same amount. They are one of the same. I'm done.

Now, consider what Phage has cited for the pressure of Mars, and you might see why things are different there.

Thanks Greven, I familar with pressure broadening and is something warmists always bring up when arguing why Venus has a temperature beyond what the Arrhenius law predicts. Pressure broadening only really becomes a significant factor at much higher pressures. Using HITRAN you can calculate the increase in CO2's absoprtion bands as a function of pressure and going from 10mb to 1000mb only fattens the bands at 15um by around 6%.

a reply to: Nathan-D

I think your objection for my using the word concentration instead of density is a semantic quibble.

Not if you're talking about Arrhenius. His formula is specific to a change in concentration (in ppm by volume). As I previously said, ppm is a measurement of concentration, not density.

That should read Kg/m^2.

Ok. Now I know what you are talking about, not concentration but the amount of CO2 "above" a given surface area. But you are still ignoring density.

That limitation is the origin of the logarithmic relation between CO2 concentration and the resulting perturbation of Earth's energy budget. It has been a feature of every climate model since Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Per square meter of surface, Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as Earth, but the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in narrower spectral lines. That weakens absorbtion so much that the Martian CO2 ditch has a width somewhat less than Earths'.

geosci.uchicago.edu...

If the density (and therefore pressure) of Mars' atmosphere were that of Earth, it would be a much warmer planet.

this reminds me of a debate i seen today where bill nye was useing the argument that plant species are going further north then ever before, and useing that for a case for global warming.

thanks for posting.