|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 3, 2023 20:10:33 GMT
Ok I've read the article. I can't see the part where they say there was only warming effects in areas devoid of vegetation. ( Could you copy that out for me) What they do say is. The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research was reported (Wednesday 25 February) in the advance online version of the journal, Nature.The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.
So that kills the argument that the experiment only works in the lab They also say.They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant elevation in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square metre per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modelling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.So proof that Co2 is warming the planet. I knew you would say this - miss the point as usual. The bit I've put in bold is the only relevant bit of that article. No one has been able to replicate this experiment in the Earth's system UNTIL they decided to replicate the conditions of the laboratory by selecting an environment that is as close to the Tyndall box experiment. CO2 has TWO effects as I've said many times - heating by trapping radiative energy and cooling by photosynthesis. What they've done is eliminate the cooling effect by selecting two locations where photosynthesis doesn't happen (because of no plants or no water). So it's no surprise that they find a similar result to Tyndall's box and light experiment. The warming effect of CO2 is not in question. But they have never tried to measure the cooling effect of CO2. And it's significant that the only way they can demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 is by eliminating photosynthesis. So their statement (or more accurately the statement of the journalist who wrote the article that " The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2" is untrue. They have measured only the heating effect of CO2. We have yet to measure - or even calculate - it's cooling effect. Bad science. Well in all fairness you said it couldn't be replicated where there was vegetation, which is not what was in the article but purely your opinion. Now I understand how you reached your conclusion, but I disagree with it. The reason the scientist chose their location was clearly stated. They wanted to avoid any outside influences that would complicate the readings. You have decided they were cheating and expect me to simply agree with you. They also stated that it was quite possible (had been done) to measure the warming effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere but that this experiment was to demonstrate it could also happen at ground level. So even if I took your claim at face value we still have global warming due to Co2 concentrations. And we still have your rather ridiculous theory that regardless of amount of vegetation or concentrations of Co2 the two will equal out. By that claim we could stop global warming simply by placing a pot plant in the Sahara and the Antarctic. I have twice asked you to expand on your theory and have still not received further elaboration. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 3, 2023 20:24:53 GMT
I knew you would say this - miss the point as usual. The bit I've put in bold is the only relevant bit of that article. No one has been able to replicate this experiment in the Earth's system UNTIL they decided to replicate the conditions of the laboratory by selecting an environment that is as close to the Tyndall box experiment. CO2 has TWO effects as I've said many times - heating by trapping radiative energy and cooling by photosynthesis. What they've done is eliminate the cooling effect by selecting two locations where photosynthesis doesn't happen (because of no plants or no water). So it's no surprise that they find a similar result to Tyndall's box and light experiment. The warming effect of CO2 is not in question. But they have never tried to measure the cooling effect of CO2. And it's significant that the only way they can demonstrate the warming effect of CO2 is by eliminating photosynthesis. So their statement (or more accurately the statement of the journalist who wrote the article that " The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2" is untrue. They have measured only the heating effect of CO2. We have yet to measure - or even calculate - it's cooling effect. Bad science. Well in all fairness you said it couldn't be replicated where there was vegetation, which is not what was in the article but purely your opinion. Now I understand how you reached your conclusion, but I disagree with it. The reason the scientist chose their location was clearly stated. They wanted to avoid any outside influences that would complicate the readings. You have decided they were cheating and expect me to simply agree with you. They also stated that it was quite possible (had been done) to measure the warming effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere but that this experiment was to demonstrate it could also happen at ground level. So even if I took your claim at face value we still have global warming due to Co2 concentrations. And we still have your rather ridiculous theory that regardless of amount of vegetation or concentrations of Co2 the two will equal out. By that claim we could stop global warming simply by placing a pot plant in the Sahara and the Antarctic. I have twice asked you to expand on your theory and have still not received further elaboration. Do we still have warming because of CO2 or do we have warming that is occurring because of unknown reasons and it is noted that CO2 has risen and it is postulated that experimentation indicates this as a possible contributor to the current warming. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 3, 2023 21:00:29 GMT
Well in all fairness you said it couldn't be replicated where there was vegetation, which is not what was in the article but purely your opinion. Now I understand how you reached your conclusion, but I disagree with it. The reason the scientist chose their location was clearly stated. They wanted to avoid any outside influences that would complicate the readings. You have decided they were cheating and expect me to simply agree with you. They also stated that it was quite possible (had been done) to measure the warming effect of Co2 in the upper atmosphere but that this experiment was to demonstrate it could also happen at ground level. So even if I took your claim at face value we still have global warming due to Co2 concentrations. And we still have your rather ridiculous theory that regardless of amount of vegetation or concentrations of Co2 the two will equal out. By that claim we could stop global warming simply by placing a pot plant in the Sahara and the Antarctic. I have twice asked you to expand on your theory and have still not received further elaboration. Do we still have warming because of CO2 or do we have warming that is occurring because of unknown reasons and it is noted that CO2 has risen and it is postulated that experimentation indicates this as a possible contributor to the current warming. Ooh those unknown reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 4, 2023 9:02:49 GMT
Zanygame said: "Now I understand how you reached your conclusion, but I disagree with it. The reason the scientist chose their location was clearly stated. They wanted to avoid any outside influences that would complicate the readings.
You have decided they were cheating and expect me to simply agree with you".
No I don't think they're cheating but it surely must be obvious to you that an experiment that deliberately excludes the cooling effect of CO2 (photosynthesis) does not warrant your conclusion that "So proof that Co2 is warming the planet". They've proved that the CO2 greenhouse effect contributes to the warming of the planet but that was not in doubt anyway. The question is whether the overall effect of CO2 is warming or cooling. (I must have said this several hundred times).
What's needed is an experiment to calculate the cooling effect. So they now need to perform the same experiment in a rural area with photosynthesis. But they won't do this because they know perfectly well it will show that the overall effect of CO2 will - at the very least - be considerably diluted. How much it's diluted will be dependent on how many plants there are, how much water there is etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 4, 2023 9:24:23 GMT
No I don't think they're cheating but it surely must be obvious to you that an experiment that deliberately excludes the cooling effect of CO2 (photosynthesis) does not warrant your conclusion that " So proof that Co2 is warming the planet". They've proved that the CO2 greenhouse effect contributes to the warming of the planet but that was not in doubt anyway. The question is whether the overall effect of CO2 is warming or cooling. (I must have said this several hundred times). What's needed is an experiment to calculate the cooling effect. So they now need to perform the same experiment in a rural area with photosynthesis. But they won't do this because they know perfectly well it will show that the overall effect of CO2 will - at the very least - be considerably diluted. How much it's diluted will be dependent on how many plants there are, how much water there is etc. No I think you misunderstand. Co2 can be warming the planet even if something else is cooling it. So they are not ignoring the effect of photosynthesis they were just eliminating it from this experiment. What you are left with is the balance between the cooling effects of photosynthesis and the warming effects of atmospheric Co2. We know that at 200ppm this balance was maintained (Excluding unique events, volcanoes, solar cycles, catastrophic event, continental drift etc) We could reasonable expect that if we change that balance to 400ppm of Co2 with the same amount of vegetation then the result will be an overall warming effect. There are many other factors being investigated including whether photosynthesis increases with concentrations of Co2, thus mitigating the effect. To date those experiments has shown no significant increase in either vegetation growth or increased photosynthesis per plant. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 5, 2023 8:20:58 GMT
This post ^ is just plain wrong on every count - most of it is just made up nonsense. It's not that "something else" is cooling the planet. CO2 is the cause of planet cooling because it feeds photosynthesis. Without it it there would be NO plants and we'd all be dead. And there very much IS concrete evidence that increased CO2 causes more photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 are a significant cause of greater plant growth. We KNOW that.
And when you're evaluating the effects of CO2 it is obviously misleading to not talk about the huge amount of energy that is captured by photosynthesis and stored away - that's what ALL the fossil fuels are created by. The reason why the bodies that support the dissemination of Global Warming disinformation won't mention it is because it destroys their argument. If they conducted the same experiment as I linked to - but in a land area with vegetation - they would find that there was absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration and warming. Which coincidentally is what we find on a global scale.
The basic point is as I've said before - the Earth is buffered. It's no coincidence that various things can cause both warming and cooling - like CO2 and water. That's why the Earth's temperature is reasonably stable within a fairly narrow range.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 8:30:10 GMT
This post ^ is just plain wrong on every count - most of it is just made up nonsense. It's not that "something else" is cooling the planet. CO2 is the cause of planet cooling because it feeds photosynthesis. Without it it there would be NO plants and we'd all be dead. And there very much IS concrete evidence that increased CO2 causes more photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 are a significant cause of greater plant growth. We KNOW that. And when you're evaluating the effects of CO2 it is obviously misleading to not talk about the huge amount of energy that is captured by photosynthesis and stored away - that's what ALL the fossil fuels are created by. The reason why the bodies that support the dissemination of Global Warming disinformation won't mention it is because it destroys their argument. If they conducted the same experiment as I linked to - but in a land area with vegetation - they would find that there was absolutely no correlation between CO2 concentration and warming. Which coincidentally is what we find on a global scale. The basic point is as I've said before - the Earth is buffered. It's no coincidence that various things can cause both warming and cooling - like CO2 and water. That's why the Earth's temperature is reasonably stable within a fairly narrow range. Christ your thick. I have to keep reminding myself when I reply to you. The "SOMETHING ELSE" I was referring to was photosynthesis. Now read my post with that in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 5, 2023 13:42:51 GMT
But photosynthesis can ONLY happen with the presence of CO2. So when you evaluate the effects of CO2 you have to take this into account. Obviously.
The whole of your post was wrong. As for that waffle about "There are many other factors being investigated including whether photosynthesis increases with concentrations of Co2, thus mitigating the effect. To date those experiments has shown no significant increase in either vegetation growth or increased photosynthesis per plant" - bollocks. You just made this up. It's well known that crop yields have benefitted from higher concentrations of CO2.
The Earth is a system. When you say that "So proof that Co2 is warming the planet" you have to take into account both the warming and cooling effects of CO2. You can't just ignore effects that don't fit your theory. That's not science.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 5, 2023 13:44:26 GMT
But photosynthesis can ONLY happen with the presence of CO2. So when you evaluate the effects of CO2 you have to take this into account. Obviously. The whole of your post was wrong. As for that waffle about " There are many other factors being investigated including whether photosynthesis increases with concentrations of Co2, thus mitigating the effect. To date those experiments has shown no significant increase in either vegetation growth or increased photosynthesis per plant" - bollocks. You just made this up. It's well known that crop yields have benefitted from higher concentrations of CO2. The Earth is a system. When you say that " So proof that Co2 is warming the planet" you have to take into account both the warming and cooling effects of CO2. You can't just ignore effects that don't fit your theory. That's not science. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 5, 2023 14:32:24 GMT
But photosynthesis can ONLY happen with the presence of CO2. So when you evaluate the effects of CO2 you have to take this into account. Obviously. The whole of your post was wrong. As for that waffle about " There are many other factors being investigated including whether photosynthesis increases with concentrations of Co2, thus mitigating the effect. To date those experiments has shown no significant increase in either vegetation growth or increased photosynthesis per plant" - bollocks. You just made this up. It's well known that crop yields have benefitted from higher concentrations of CO2. The Earth is a system. When you say that " So proof that Co2 is warming the planet" you have to take into account both the warming and cooling effects of CO2. You can't just ignore effects that don't fit your theory. That's not science. Yes. And those calculations have been done. Experiments have even been done to see if the growing amount of Co2 is being matched by increased photosynthesis. They don't. I carefully used the word "Significant". Yes vegetation does better with more Co2 but its not keeping up. If it was then Co2 concentrations would not be growing. It is quite possible to take into account the effect of photosynthesis and still do the experiments separately. The link you provided was not about proving Co2 causes warming, we already know that. It was an attempt to prove this warming takes place at ground level as well. You jumped to your conclusion that they avoided vegetation because they were either stupid or trying to cheat. It was neither, they wanted to know if co2 acted as a warming agent at ground level, that was it. They were not interested in your extrapolation on photosynthesis that was not their experiment. I suggest that if you want to find experiments on the increase in photosynthesis due to Co2 concentrations that you look for those experiments, there's plenty of them. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 6, 2023 7:43:53 GMT
You have an amazing ability to miss the point, Zanygame. I don't know how often I have to say it but We have to measure the OVERALL effect of CO2 on TEMPERATURE. CO2 has TWO effects - one causes heating by trapping radiative energy and the other causes cooling by photosynthesis. We need to evaluate BOTH effects before we can say CO2 is causing warming.
What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing. But that's not the relevant issue. The question is does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming. So the experiments have been done to show how much warming CO2 causes (and we can fairly easily measure it anyway because we have accurate equations for it) - but where are the experiments to calculate how much cooling CO2 causes? I haven't seen any. We don't have the equations (or the data) to do calculations and no one has done the experiments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 6, 2023 8:03:06 GMT
remember - it's not Global Warming, it's Climate Change...  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 6, 2023 22:19:01 GMT
You have an amazing ability to miss the point, Zanygame. I don't know how often I have to say it but We have to measure the OVERALL effect of CO2 on TEMPERATURE. CO2 has TWO effects - one causes heating by trapping radiative energy and the other causes cooling by photosynthesis. We need to evaluate BOTH effects before we can say CO2 is causing warming. What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing. But that's not the relevant issue. The question is does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming. So the experiments have been done to show how much warming CO2 causes (and we can fairly easily measure it anyway because we have accurate equations for it) - but where are the experiments to calculate how much cooling CO2 causes? I haven't seen any. We don't have the equations (or the data) to do calculations and no one has done the experiments. Well I feel as we stumble on we keep reaching little bits clarity and agreement. Yes I thought you were claiming that photosynthesis was completely mitigating global warming which is why, to quote you: "What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing." As for the question "does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming." Yes of course it does, has anyone claimed it doesn't? So assuming we agree on that what does it change? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 7, 2023 8:11:46 GMT
You have an amazing ability to miss the point, Zanygame. I don't know how often I have to say it but We have to measure the OVERALL effect of CO2 on TEMPERATURE. CO2 has TWO effects - one causes heating by trapping radiative energy and the other causes cooling by photosynthesis. We need to evaluate BOTH effects before we can say CO2 is causing warming. What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing. But that's not the relevant issue. The question is does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming. So the experiments have been done to show how much warming CO2 causes (and we can fairly easily measure it anyway because we have accurate equations for it) - but where are the experiments to calculate how much cooling CO2 causes? I haven't seen any. We don't have the equations (or the data) to do calculations and no one has done the experiments. Well I feel as we stumble on we keep reaching little bits clarity and agreement. Yes I thought you were claiming that photosynthesis was completely mitigating global warming which is why, to quote you: "What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing." As for the question " does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming." Yes of course it does, has anyone claimed it doesn't? So assuming we agree on that what does it change? What I meant was " does CO2 cause more cooling (by photosynthesis) than warming (by greenhouse effect)" - as should have been obvious by the rest of the post. We've been talking about this for some time but you still don't get the point. CO2 has two opposite effects but the warming lobby ignore the cooling effect. Do you understand the question yet Zanygame? If so that would be a start. It's no wonder that the warming lobby can hoodwink people like you with their pseudo-science. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 7, 2023 8:25:08 GMT
Well I feel as we stumble on we keep reaching little bits clarity and agreement. Yes I thought you were claiming that photosynthesis was completely mitigating global warming which is why, to quote you: "What you now seem to be talking about is whether photosynthesis is removing CO2 at the same rate as we are creating it. Well it plainly isn't or CO2 wouldn't be increasing." As for the question " does photosynthesis cause more cooling than it does warming." Yes of course it does, has anyone claimed it doesn't? So assuming we agree on that what does it change? What I meant was " does CO2 cause more cooling (by photosynthesis) than warming (by greenhouse effect)" - as should have been obvious by the rest of the post. We've been talking about this for some time but you still don't get the point. CO2 has two opposite effects but the warming lobby ignore the cooling effect. Do you understand the question yet Zanygame? If so that would be a start. It's no wonder that the warming lobby can hoodwink people like you with their pseudo-science. That's the subtleties of language for you. But the answer your your clarified point is no. This is because all of Co2 takes part in warming the planet, but only a small proportion takes part in photosynthesis. Before we started adding more Co2 the balance was. Co2 atmospheric warming effect, minus Co2 cooling effect through photosynthesis = ave planet temp of 14 degrees C. Now that same sum = ave 15 degrees. This is because atmospheric Co2 has increased significantly, but global vegetation has not. (Excuse my crude average numbers, I am making a point not a calculation) |
|
