Actually,the world isn't warming

[Deamiter]

I ment that when plants rot and die they give off co2.

... which came from the atmosphere while they were alive. See how that cycle stays roughly in equilibrium?

Co2 has never been proven to cause GW ;the sun has a better track record on that.

Aside from the fact that nothing is 'proven' in science, the greenhouse effect is basic physics. Heat radiated from the Earth hits different gasses in the atmosphere on its way into space. The more heat that gets through the atmosphere, the less heat stays on the surface. CO2 absorbs radiation in some bands that are partially transparent otherwise. Thus, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the less energy gets off the Earth.

The science of the greenhouse effect isn't based on some graphical correlation, it's based on simple physics experiments that can be done (roughly) with a lightbulb, a spectrometer and a tank full of gas! There are, of course, many mechanisms by which different gasses reach the atmosphere and different gasses have greater or lesser effect on how much energy gets out of the atmosphere. THAT's where there is work to be done, scientists LONG ago characterized the greenhouse effect using their fancy spectrometers and broadband light sources.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The science of the greenhouse effect isn't based on some graphical correlation, it's based on simple physics experiments that can be done (roughly) with a lightbulb, a spectrometer and a tank full of gas!

I regularly run samples on an IR spectrometer and the CO2 absorption can be clearly seen if a background scan is not carried out before running the sample.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I regularly run samples on an IR spectrometer and the CO2 absorption can be clearly seen if a background scan is not carried out before running the sample.

QFT:

Back in grad school when I was running FTIR's on kerogens from shale I'd have to run my background and sure enough that big ol' CO2 spike was there every single time (this isn't a picture of that, but it shows the CO2 absorption we see in FTIR). It are a fact.

 

[atomweaver]

Will the real Greatcloud please step forward..?

Coral reefs are dissolving because the water is hot therefore gaining co2 because of the sun.

This assertion directly contradicts your OP, which states that the world is getting cooler. Which is it?

Or, is this the real Greatcloud?

Global warming is true we do have high global temperatures.

above is dated 26 July 2008.

In the spirit of the season, you are what is known as a "flip-flopper"... Please, do let us know when your personal opinions on this topic stop pin-balling around for, ohhh let's say... 3 months? Maybe then we can discuss what you think you believe.

Mankind couldn't affect the globe if it tried we are too small and the Earth is too big.

This is the dumbest unfounded assertion that you've posted, to date.

 

[Greatcloud]

Although temperatures are going down,we still have GW because of the sun. When temperatures go down further and for a longer time we will be out of GW.

Mankind affects the globe locally not globally. Mt. Penatubo affected the whole globe, but only for a year or so.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Mankind affects the globe locally not globally.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Mt. Penatubo affected the whole globe, but only for a year or so.

a single major eruption and a constant spewing of greenhouse gases is hardly the same thing.

 

[Deamiter]

Although temperatures are going down,we still have GW because of the sun. When temperatures go down further and for a longer time we will be out of GW.

Mankind affects the globe locally not globally. Mt. Penatubo affected the whole globe, but only for a year or so.

I understand your basic position. Are you interested in addressing some of the evidence of the greenhouse effect we've posted here? I'd love to discuss it further, but if you're just going to repeat yourself every time I show WHY I think you're wrong, I'll just get bored and find a more interesting thread to post to.

 

[Greatcloud]

​

Figure 16: Temperature rise versus CO2 rise from seven ice-core measured interglacial periods (63-65); from calculations (69) and measurements (70) of sea water out-gassing; and as measured during the 20th and 21st centuries (10,72). The interglacial temperature increases caused the CO2 rises through release of ocean CO2. The CO2 rises did not cause the temperature rises

So this is why I say that heat causes a rise in co2,from outgassing in the ocean after a time lag. CO2 follows heat not heat follows co2. CO2 levels will drop in ten years or so if temperatures stay down.

​

Figure 24: Calculated (1,2) growth rate enhancement of wheat, young orange trees, and very young pine trees already taking place as a result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 from 1885 to 2007 (a), and expected as a result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 to a level of 600 ppm (b).

Interesting that co2 is beneficial to agriculture,duh.
​

":^) GO CO2 !

​

 

[Deamiter]

YOU say higher temperatures leads to increased CO2 levels? Every paper I've ever read on the subject says the same thing! In fact, I have never heard of any scientist claiming that higher temperatures do NOT lead to increased CO2 levels!

This is not a revelation. The bit you're missing is that higher CO2 levels also lead to higher temperatures. It's not one or the other, it's both -- what's often referred to in those papers as a 'feedback loop.'

And yes, some plants grow faster in higher CO2 levels. Has anybody claimed that higher CO2 levels (by themselves) will hurt agriculture? I certainly doubt it! It's not the CO2 levels that scientists are worried about, but the effects of higher temperature CAUSED by higher CO2 levels drastically changing local weather patterns and making the land with some of the poorest on Earth in Africa and Asia unfit for growing.

Stop cherrypicking -- it's just dishonest to imply that because higher temperatures lead to higher CO2 levels, higher CO2 levels cannot lead to higher temperatures. If you think you can show that CO2 somehow DOESN'T absorb increasing energy with increasing atmospheric levels, be my guest, but until then, I'll assume you have no actual evidence refuting the science behind the greenhouse effect.

 

[Greatcloud]

CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR
AS GREENHOUSE GASES

METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

This is an IR absorption chart, clearly water vapor absorbs the vast majority of the IR spectrum, and the absorption bands of CO2 overlap water vapor to a great extent. How can you claim a consensus without using water vapor is a complete joke. CO2 have only 3 very narrow bands of IR absorption at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. Co2 is the one with the red arrows demonstrating the overlap with H2O. The great volume in the overlap makes CO2 absorption minuscule by comparison. So GHGT should in fact consider water vapor the primary driver of temperature not Co2.

Download 2.JPG
Filesize: 96 Kbytes
Downloaded: 20 time(s)

The net effect of this is that man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases only represents about 5.5% of all the greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere today, and that's without factoring in the effect of atmospheric water vapor! By the time this water vapor is taken into account, man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases only account for between 1.375% and 6.875% (depending on whether H2O vapor represents 95% or 85% of the total) of the total greenhouse effect our planet is currently experiencing,CO2 is a torch compared to H2O a bonfire !

 

[Deamiter]

Are you SERIOUS? You're bringing up yet ANOTHER red herring instead of showing that CO2 doesn't cause global warming like you claimed?

Please forgive my quotation of realclimate.org -- I'm not interested in writing up detailed rebuttals for your copy and paste jobs:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...te-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/

(bold emphasis is mine)

the expectation of a causal link between increasing long-lived greenhouse gases (like CO2) and increasing temperature does not rest on some vague, unexplained correlation between 20th century temperature and 20th century greenhouse gas concentration.

The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas, and was reproduced using modern radiation physics by Manabe and co-workers in the 1960's. Neither of these predictions rests on general circulation models, which came in during subsequent decades and made more detailed forecasts possible.

Still, the basic prediction of warming is founded on very fundamental physical principles relating to infrared absorption by greenhouse gases, theory of blackbody radiation, and atmospheric moist thermodynamics. All these individual elements have been verified to high accuracy in laboratory experiments and field observations. For a time, there was some remaining uncertainty about whether water vapor feedback would amplify warming in the way hypothesized in the early energy balance models, but a decade or two of additional observational and theoretical work has shown that there is no real reason to doubt the way in which general circulation models calculate the feedback. When modified by inclusion of the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols, the theory gives a satisfactory account of the pattern of 20th and 21st century temperature change.

No other theory based on quantified physical principles has been able to do the same. If somebody comes along and has the bright idea that, say, global warming is caused by phlogiston raining down from the Moon, that does not make everything we know about thermodynamics, infrared absorption, energy balance, and temperature suddenly go away. Rather, it is the job of the phlogiston advocate to quantify the effects of phlogiston on energy balance, and incorporate them in a consistent way beside the existing climate forcings. Virtually all of the attempts to poke holes in the anthropogenic greenhouse theory lose sight of this simple and unassailable principle.

Do note that the article is much longer and includes a multitude of sources to be visited should you doubt the veracity of the content. Bottom line: atmospheric climate models include the effect of water vapor. Further, no model has been developed that can reproduce historical temperature variations without factoring in the warming effect of increased CO2.

 

[Greatcloud]

The percent of GHG causing GW is undoubtedly minuscule.

Here is your real culprit: The Sun.

The Missing GW Link: New images shock scientists with view of sun’s magnetic field power

25 03 2007

Image above: Dubbed the “Swan” this X-ray image shows massive energy releases from the sun’s magnetic field, even while we are at the solar minimum in between sunspots cycles.
Last week, on the same day Al Gore was giving testimony to congress on made-made CO2 being the sole cause of Global Warming, NASA called a press conference in Washington DC to announce some spectacular new findings about the sun. Of course everybody in the press was so busy covering Gore’s big day, there was hadly any mention of what NASA announced.
What they announced was that a new X-ray imaging satellite called HINODE, launched in September 2006, has seen the first images that explain one of the biggest mysteries of the sun: why the corona is hotter than the suns surface. Magnetic reconnection seems to be the key, and these images go a long ways towards proving the theory.
But even more importantly, scientists expected to see a very quiet sun with the new x-ray imager, since we are at solar minimum right now. NASA announced we’d reached solar min on March 6th. The fact that the HINODE scientists saw huge explosive energy bursts even while the surface of the sun is nearly devoid of sunspots tells them that the suns magnetic field is still tremendously active. The suns magnetic field has been getting more active for the past hundred years, coincidentally at the same time CO2 on earth has been increasing along with the global mean temperature.

But it seems that coincidence makes CO2 a Red Herring.
The linkage between changes in the suns magnetic field and earths climate has been well documented. Global temps closely track solar cycles as measured by sunspot intensity. Sunpots are proxy indicators of changes in the suns magnetic field. The Danish Meteorological Institute first reported the correlation in a study going back centuries. Historic data reveal that whenever the sun got more active, the earth heated up, and vice versa. The best correlation was the Maunder Minimum.

But until now, we could not see energy being transported away from the sun via its magentic field, which is why many in the environmental community doubt the role of the sun in climate change. We couldn’t visualize the sun’s magnetic output. This new tool is going to open a whole new era of understanding how the sun works, and more importantly how changes on the sun link to climate changes on earth.
Of course I’m sure Mr. Gore will find a way to explain this away, since we can’t have any new science getting in the way of a “consensus” and a “debate thats over”.
Inconveniently, NASA also announced last week a new study that shows a clear sun-earth linkage in records kept by Eqyptians of the Nile river, rainfall, and auroral activity which is a direct indicator of solar activity. It seems the sun-earth climate linkage has been around way before SUV’s.
So what’s easier to believe as the cause of climate change? That a trace gas called CO2 that has increased on earth from about 280 PPM to 380 PPM in the last 100 years is the cause, or that the giant nuclear fireball a thousand times bigger than earth a mere 8 light-minutes away has been getting more active during the same period is the reason?

 

[Vene]

You sun hypothesis is flat out wrong. If it was true, the below graphs would match up (I addressed this back on post 25, you ignored it):

The data doesn't fit your predictions. You are wrong, deal with it.

 

[Greatcloud]

You sun hypothesis is flat out wrong. If it was true, the below graphs would match up (I addressed this back on post 25, you ignored it):

The data doesn't fit your predictions. You are wrong, deal with it.

The chart I posted is of temperatures globally. The one you posted is of CO2 in Antarctica. Why should they match up ?

 

[Vene]

The chart I posted is of temperatures globally. The one you posted is of CO2 in Antarctica. Why should they match up ?

Because where you first posted that graph you also said:

Coral reefs are dissolving because the water is hot therefore gaining co2 because of the sun.

As the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases with higher temperatures (link) there must be more CO[sub]2[/sub] as a result of these fluctuations. I care more about the coral reef destruction than I do about changes in the sun. I can explain it through carbon dioxide emissions, actually, it's been pretty much proven that carbon dioxide is responsible. There is more to this than just a change of temperature.

In fact, here's a graph showing CO[sub]2[/sub] solubility compared to temperature.

 

[Deamiter]

You should REALLY read the article I posted in full before copying and pasting any further nonsense.

Let's set the stage by noting that, as a significant competitor to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing of recent climate change, the direct radiative forcing by solar irradiance variations is dead on arrival. The solar output has been monitored by accurate satellite instruments since 1978. Measured peak to trough over the 11 year solar cycle, averaging over the Earth's surface and allowing for albedo, the radiative forcing amplitude is under 0.2 W/m2. The trend left after averaging over the solar cycle is even smaller. This pales by comparison with over 2 W/m2 of radiative forcing arising from long-lived greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere since 1750; it pales yet more by comparison with the forcing to come in the future if action is not taken to control emissions. There is nothing in climate physics to suggest that the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance variation differs substantially from the sensitivity to infrared radiative forcing arising from greenhouse gas changes. As far as the climate cares, a Watt is (for the most part) a Watt, regardless of whether it comes from changes in the incoming solar energy or greenhouse-induced changes in the infrared radiation loss.

Solar variation accounts for ten TIMES less temperature forcing than that of CO2. I noticed that your 'correlation' graph conveniently had no source or units on the temperature scale, doesn't have error bars and isn't nearly as noisy as any global temperature graphs I've seen before. Similarly, the article you copied made a lot of assertions without giving numbers or units. Cite something that is actually refutable rather than simply making the assertion repeatedly through your copied articles.

To get into the magnetic field claims, a mere correlation doesn't BEGIN to usurp hard physics of CO2's temperature forcing. Seriously, read the article -- I'll quote another paragraph or two, but there's much more including a discussion of exactly why (with units) the claims about magnetic fields causing warming are spurious at best and fraudulent at worst!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...te-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/

To get a bigger bang out of solar variability, one needs to invoke something else about the way the Sun affects climate. Something exotic, like magnetic field variations. Since there is no quantified physical mechanism linking field variations to climate, Courtillot must fall back on showing us a few supposed correlations between temperature variations and magnetic field variations. To make matters worse, Courtillot can't always make up his mind even about whether an increasing field index should warm the climate or cool it, making it unclear just what correlations one is looking for. The lack of a physical model makes it impossible to treat the various forcings on an equal footing and make a reliable attribution of causes. This is particularly fatal when the various forcings are strongly correlated with each other. For example, on time scales of years to centuries, the magnetic field variability, cosmic rays and solar irradiance vary nearly in lock-step, so if there is a correlation with temperature (or cloud cover) one cannot tell whether it means that climate is responding with high sensitivity directly to luminosity changes, or whether something more exotic is going on. Over a period when temperature, greenhouse gas forcing, and some magnetic field index are all going up, a statistical attribution technique which ignores greenhouse gases and considers only the magnetic field index will of course find that the magnetic field "explains." the signal. If we knew nothing about how CO2 affects climate, this would put the magnetic field on an equal footing with CO2 as a candidate explanation but this is not the case. We know a great deal about how CO2 affects climate and no amount of additional fiddling with cosmic rays or magnetic fields can make this physics go away. One can get even more confused by forgetting about the important role of anthropogenic aerosols in the past century, as Courtillot all too often does.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Greatcloud, i'm curious as to why you think the consensus of science is wrong. why do you think all of those experts disagree with your position? do you think they arent aware of your evidence? do you think its a conspiracy? or are they simply mistaken?

 

[Greatcloud]

AGW is not the only theory about GW in the scientific community you know. I just don't think we have to be lock step without questioning AGW. If Agw is correct it should be able to stand up to pressure.

Not to mention the impact on the worlds economy

 

[Vene]

AGW is not the only theory about GW in the scientific community you know.

It pretty much is. Every major international scientific organization accepts global warming and accepts that humans are at least partially responsible. This includes the geologists, climatologists, meterologists, biologists, physicists, chemists, etc. The dissenters are a few kooks.

And how's your luck been with submitting this to a journal? Did you get any feedback yet or are you still writing the paper? If you're still writing it, you should get off the forums and do something useful. Hell, if you could convince the scientific community they're wrong you could be the next Einstein or Hawking. If you're so sure of the data you shouldn't pass up your chance. If I thought it was good data, I would definitely submit it.