Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

[The Barbarian]

Solar irradiation doesn't appear to be significant in climate change - it peaked around 60-odd years ago, has been cooling in recent years, and is expected to continue to do so for some time. See Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.

Yep. Last time the sun was this quiet, it was during the medieval "little ice age." Instead, we're getting record high global temperatures.

 

[juvenissun]

One would expect the opposite. Warmer seas would encourage more phytoplankton, and more photosynthesis, which would take up more carbon dioxide. Phytoplankton are the primary agents for sequestering carbon dioxide. Even more than forests and grasslands.

On the other hand, we know that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more absorbtion of thermal energy.

So it fails on very basic principles.

CO2 makes a cycle on the earth. The change of [CO2] depends on which part of cycle (i.e. time) you are looking at. It is not necessary to use [CO2] as the reason of global warming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

CO2 makes a cycle on the earth. The change of [CO2] depends on which part of cycle (i.e. time) you are looking at. It is not necessary to use [CO2] as the reason of global warming.

The carbon cycle is continuous like the water cycle; it doesn't have peaks and troughs. Variability in CO2 levels is caused by the variability of natural or artificial sources and sinks.

 

[juvenissun]

The carbon cycle is continuous like the water cycle; it doesn't have peaks and troughs. Variability in CO2 levels is caused by the variability of natural or artificial sources and sinks.

[CO2] measured at different time/locality has different value and different trend of change. It is not a cause of global warming.

 

[The Barbarian]

CO2 makes a cycle on the earth.

Yep. And the warmer it gets, the more rapidly CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by phytoplankton. The point is that we are adding it faster than plants can take it up. And more CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared radiation absorbed, and the more the planet warms up.

The change of [CO2] depends on which part of cycle (i.e. time) you are looking at.

Currently, it depends on how much humans are putting into the atmosphere.

It is not necessary to use [CO2] as the reason of global warming.

It merely explains why the atmosphere and seas are warming. The key is that it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other common greenhouse gases do not.

 

[juvenissun]

Yep. And the warmer it gets, the more rapidly CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by phytoplankton. The point is that we are adding it faster than plants can take it up. And more CO2 in the atmosphere means more infrared radiation absorbed, and the more the planet warms up.



Currently, it depends on how much humans are putting into the atmosphere.



It merely explains why the atmosphere and seas are warming. The key is that it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other common greenhouse gases do not.

There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to warm up the earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to warm up the earth.

I know you want to believe that. But the evidence shows that it is. In fact, predictions made decades ago, based on the absorbtion spectrum of carbon dioxide, turned out to be very accurate.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to warm up the earth.

CO2 isn't the only gas that helps increase surface temperature over the Stefan-Boltzmann calculated black body temperature of the planet.

CO2 is, however, a strong greenhouse gas that WE pump into the atmosphere that takes a long time to cycle back down to lower levels (long residence time for excess CO2 in the atmosphere). It requires the carbon cycle to be removed from the atmosphere.

We also know from isotopic data that much of the excess CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere likely comes directly from our behaviors. Big human fingerprint on the excess CO2.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

[CO2] measured at different time/locality has different value and different trend of change. It is not a cause of global warming.

The first sentence is arguably correct (depending on timescale), the second isn't.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

[CO2] measured at different time/locality has different value and different trend of change. It is not a cause of global warming.

Are you familiar with CLIMATE SENSITIVITY estimates for CO2? I'll assume you may not be familiar with the technical terms in this discussion so let's start with "climate sensitivity" is basically the change in equilibrium temperature with changes in radiative forcing.

Here's the equation for this concept:

Basically it tracks the change in temperature (delta T) in the system as a function of the Radiative Forcing function for the item you are interested in, in this case CO2 multiplied by a climate sensitivity factor.

There are scientists who work in the field of GEOLOGY that have used paleoenvironmental data to let us know the general estimates of climate sensitivity for a variety of factors, including CO2. They have a reasonably good idea of the actual climate sensitivity for CO2 and right now most of the world's climate scientists feel that that number is high enough to account for a significant fraction of the warming.

If you would like to learn more about the topic here's a paper (may be a bit above your level but there are other sources). The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes

 

[juvenissun]

I know you want to believe that. But the evidence shows that it is. In fact, predictions made decades ago, based on the absorbtion spectrum of carbon dioxide, turned out to be very accurate.

At this moment, it is necessary to see some data. Only talk is not good enough.
Again, the amount of CO2 is too little to cause global warming.

 

[juvenissun]

CO2 isn't the only gas that helps increase surface temperature over the Stefan-Boltzmann calculated black body temperature of the planet.

CO2 is, however, a strong greenhouse gas that WE pump into the atmosphere that takes a long time to cycle back down to lower levels (long residence time for excess CO2 in the atmosphere). It requires the carbon cycle to be removed from the atmosphere.

We also know from isotopic data that much of the excess CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere likely comes directly from our behaviors. Big human fingerprint on the excess CO2.

We had global warming just 30000 years ago. What was the CO2 content and composition at that time? I would assume it was similar to what we see today.

 

[juvenissun]

The first sentence is arguably correct (depending on timescale), the second isn't.

The CO2 on earth is too little to be effective, no matter what hundreds ppm it gets.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you familiar with CLIMATE SENSITIVITY estimates for CO2? I'll assume you may not be familiar with the technical terms in this discussion so let's start with "climate sensitivity" is basically the change in equilibrium temperature with changes in radiative forcing.

Here's the equation for this concept:

Basically it tracks the change in temperature (delta T) in the system as a function of the Radiative Forcing function for the item you are interested in, in this case CO2 multiplied by a climate sensitivity factor.

There are scientists who work in the field of GEOLOGY that have used paleoenvironmental data to let us know the general estimates of climate sensitivity for a variety of factors, including CO2. They have a reasonably good idea of the actual climate sensitivity for CO2 and right now most of the world's climate scientists feel that that number is high enough to account for a significant fraction of the warming.

If you would like to learn more about the topic here's a paper (may be a bit above your level but there are other sources). The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes

How do we know the theoretical data and lab data will be true in nature? Don’t forget we have the CO2 cycle is working all the time. These calculation can only be used for political purposes. They are not convincing at all.

It is possible that the [CO2] level will be leveled and then decrease in the near future after the cyclic processes kicked in. To me, it seems the abnormal climate seen in recent decades is a show of the acceleration of the CO2 cycle.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The CO2 on earth is too little to be effective, no matter what hundreds ppm it gets.

The physics and the observation data tell a different story.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I know you want to believe that. But the evidence shows that it is. In fact, predictions made decades ago, based on the absorbtion spectrum of carbon dioxide, turned out to be very accurate.

At this moment, it is necessary to see some data. Only talk is not good enough.

As you see, his prediction was, decades out, very accurate.

Again, the amount of CO2 is too little to cause global warming.

I know you want to believe that, but the predictions based on CO2 warming were precisely on. Since we know that it's a green house gas and since we know that it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases do not, it's not surprising that as we dump more of it into the atmosphere, things are warming up. It's not a new thing; this was predicted over a hundred years ago.

In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3][20][21] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming.
Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

And we are seeing record global temperatures at a time when the Earth should be cooling. The last time we had a solar minimum like this, we had the "little ice age." Should be getting colder. Instead we're seeing record high average temperatures.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

How do we know the theoretical data and lab data will be true in nature?

The Knutti and Hegerl article from 2008 shows how we figure out the actual sensitivity using PALEOENVIRONMENTAL data. They even added in some NEWER data from modern events like volcanic eruptions!

In addtion we know how CO2 absorbs IR. In fact there's a piece of equipment we use in chemistry called an FTIR that uses carbon-bonds tendency to absorb IR wavelengths. Every single time you run a background on the system you see atmospheric CO2 absorbing IR.

Don’t forget we have the CO2 cycle is working all the time. These calculation can only be used for political purposes. They are not convincing at all.

Yeah, I can see that. Unless one has training in the sciences at which point the data is pretty convincing. Has been for at least 30-50 years. But if one doesn't have the training necessary to understand it and has a political bias it is easy to think that the data doesn't make sense to scientists who understand it.

It is possible that the [CO2] level will be leveled and then decrease in the near future

Well, considering we are NOT yet at equilibrium CO2 concentration that's unlikely for a long time. And remember CO2 is pulled back out of the atmosphere using the CARBON CYCLE which takes a lot longer to sequester excess CO2.

after the cyclic processes kicked in. To me, it seems the abnormal climate seen in recent decades is a show of the acceleration of the CO2 cycle.

No idea what that sentence means. Sounds like a mash-up of various scientific sounding words in hopes of hand waving away pretty solid science.

 

[GlabrousDory4]

The CO2 on earth is too little to be effective, no matter what hundreds ppm it gets.

Of course it is a lot more complex than just that, but indeed if you were to actually read anything on CLIMATE SENSITIVITY of CO2 you'll see that it is actually a pretty good forcing factor.

Doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise global average temperatures about 2-3degC. That would be disastrous. You would have to understand things like STATISTICS and realize that when I say GLOBAL AVERAGE that is the average for the entire globe and that is a VERY hard number to shift.

It would also require you to understand HISTORICAL GEOLOGY and the fact that humans have never really known a dramatically different global climate since we settled in the first cities many thousands of years ago.

This is a somewhat complex topic but it can be understood even with only a little scientific background.

 

[juvenissun]

The physics and the observation data tell a different story.

Those are not trustable. The earth is too big.

A simple thing like the CO2 cycle took many scientists in many disciplines decades of effort but not able to reach a conclusion, you want me to trust just a few equations and observations? You are too simple and naive.

Common sense is more important. PPM amount of gas is not going to do anything to the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Barbarian observes:
I know you want to believe that. But the evidence shows that it is. In fact, predictions made decades ago, based on the absorbtion spectrum of carbon dioxide, turned out to be very accurate.



View attachment 249000

As you see, his prediction was, decades out, very accurate.



I know you want to believe that, but the predictions based on CO2 warming were precisely on. Since we know that it's a green house gas and since we know that it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases do not, it's not surprising that as we dump more of it into the atmosphere, things are warming up. It's not a new thing; this was predicted over a hundred years ago.

In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth's surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[3][20][21] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming.
Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia

And we are seeing record global temperatures at a time when the Earth should be cooling. The last time we had a solar minimum like this, we had the "little ice age." Should be getting colder. Instead we're seeing record high average temperatures.

We are NOT seeing record global temperature. This is a very important point. In fact, we are in a period of time which has the lowest temperature in the earth history. [chart]