Was Arrhenius Erronius?

>royls@telus.net:

>.... I have _specifically_ stated that other
>mechanisms dominate CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion.  It is the
>global warming alarmists who insist that CO2 from fossil fuels
>dominates all other mechanisms, despite the fact that it is
>_completely_impossible_ that _any_ of the _very_large_ climate
>variations that occurred before the 20th C could _possibly_ have
>resulted from CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion.

>Roy L.

Jim Blair:

??? Not changes in CO2 level resulting from fossil fuel combustion. Just
changes in CO2 level from any and all sources.

>
>More accurately, because all the data from paleological times outright
>refute the global warming hypothesis.

That I don't understand. Your graph (the 4th graph from top)
shows high temperature in phase with high CO2 levels.


http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000yea


And the swing in temperatures shown are from about +4 to -10 or a 14 deg
swing.  Corresponding to a CO2 change of about 300 ppm to 190ppm, right?

That is about a 60% change (300/190)

The Arrhenius (Erronius?) paper predicted a 3-4 degree temp increase
resulting from a 50% increase in CO2, (Table Carbonic Acid = 1.5) right?
And a 3 deg cooling from a reduction by 0.67 (Table Carbonic Acid = 0.67).
So a 6-7 deg temperature swing from a +/- 50% CO2 swing.

So the data (such as it is) indicates that the actual temperature changes
have been larger than Erronius predicts from CO2 considerations.  But he
didn't factor in the water vapor (likely positive feedback loop), any
release of methane with temp (another positive feedback). 

>And recent research shows clearly that
>global warming is just as likely to have resulted from reduced cloud
>cover as increased CO2.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/200201317366.html

Interesting, but it does not support your claim. The reduced cloud cover
could well be the result of increased CO2.  More heat from the earth being
adsorbed by the lower atmosphere drives the Hadley and Walker circulation
cells faster and so reduces the cloud cover. Another positive feedback.

I say Arrhenius had the right idea, but the effect of CO2 has been
amplified by other factors to give the result shown in your paleological
table.  The effect of changes in CO2 (either increasing or decreasing)
is amplified in the short run by the various factors cited: water vapor,
methane, cloud cover, maybe more. 

But there are also long term counter factors (or negative feedbacks).  
More CO2 and higher temperatures stimulate increased vegetation, which 
draws CO2 from the atmosphere.  The weathering of exposed rock 
formations, which removes CO2 from the air and is accelerated by
warmer temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

And other factors that are not caused by the CO2 level like  solar 
output variations.


                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time 
call:   http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834