Global Warming is fake?

[stormryder]

Originally Posted by Agent Sunshine

Yeah, I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the third law. The Earth's atmosphere is not in equilibrium. That said, the atmosphere is fluid, so to suggest that all concentration of CO2 must be located around production centers would be spurious without some hard evidence.

You can think of it as being akin to the garbage patch in the Pacific ocean. Obviously the Pacific is not generating plastic, but runoff and currents cause it to collect in a particular area there.

Ooops...Second Law, not Third.

[stormryder]

Originally Posted by Cutter

Storm, do you have a similar map showing densities for the particles in air? Like do you have one for nitrogen or oxygen? They'd at least show the same ratio if your trade wind idea was right wouldn't they?

Hmmm...interesting diagram of CO2 circulation between the ocean and atmosphere:

[Cutter]

The two maps look totally different.

[stormryder]

I'm looking for a better one. I agree that map of O2 is kind of horrid. I'm wondering if it's not exactly what it says it is. Plus, why is there no data over land? Maybe it's showing O2 concentration in water?

[ZRilla]

Originally Posted by stormryder

I'm looking for a better one. I agree that map of O2 is kind of horrid. I'm wondering if it's not exactly what it says it is. Plus, why is there no data over land? Maybe it's showing O2 concentration in water?

It's titled "Sea-surface oxygen".

[stormryder]

Originally Posted by ZRilla

It's titled "Sea-surface oxygen".

Which I originally thought meant at sea level. But looking further, it's talking about oxygen dissolved in the top layer of sea water. So it's not the same thing at all:

This is ozone, which follows an interesting distribution:



I don't think you can relate it and CO2 because ozone tends to be much higher in the atmosphere.

[Cutter]

It wouldn't matter where it was in the atmosphere if the 3rd law of thermodynamics was in play. This paints the picture of what I'm sayign pretty well. There are localized spots - likely due to local factors - that don't tend to be equal.

Even if C02 isn't really localized, do we have anything tracking total atmospheric c02 over the last 100 years or so?

[stormryder]

Doubt it. Actual measurements of CO2 like the map above required satellites to do. The AIRS map is a satellite map from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder.

This one is a troposphere (8 km up) map of CO2:

[Cutter]

Isn't that totalled some place? How long has that satellite been up? Do we have the totals for that time period?

[stormryder]

Satellite was launched in 2002. So not a long history here.

"Since 1958 accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been carried out by Charles D Keeling, first at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, then from 1974 at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, and subsequently by other scientists at many other places."

So prior to 1958, measurements are based on proxy data.

[Cutter]

Do you have a chart of these measurements?

[stormryder]

Yeah. All of this data is at the NOAA, which runs Mauna Loa observatory.



Red line is monthly data points, black line is average as you go.

[ZRilla]

Damn! The Mauna Loa Laboratory must be generating a ton of CO2!

[stormryder]

Originally Posted by ZRilla

Damn! The Mauna Loa Laboratory must be generating a ton of CO2!

Volcano in the background....

[PotBelly]

That seems like an odd place to measure CO2 in the atmosphere.