You're very presumptive....I've been working in my career since the times when we did all our math and graphs by hand....
You really have me intrigued. It doesn't seem you can explain why you doubt climate change so you point to what other people say on a video.
Maybe I need to re-frame (since you are incapable of this). Let's go over why _I_ (who also started out in those days of hand-graphing) believe anthropogenic climate change in a simple list:
1. We have known for 150+ years that CO2 absorbs in the IR region. (You can confirm it everytime you do a background scan on an open chamber in your FTIR --I am assuming you know what an FTIR is).
2. We know that all things being equal the black body radiation of the earth is about 255K (again, assuming you know that K is Kelvin) and that would be about the same given an atmosphere of O2 and N2 (the dominant gases in the earth's atmosphere), but GREENHOUSE GASES like CO2,CH4 and H2O allow us to have a surface temperature about 30K HIGHER than that (you can confirm all of this with a simple Stefan-Boltzmann calculation).
3. H2O is a greenhouse gas, yes, but the key difference is that the
hydrologic cycle means that excess H2O in the atmosphere can re-equilibrate back down to normal levels quickly so it acts like a "feedback" rather than a "forcing" (again, common chemical sense, you should know about the hydrologic cycle). Meanwhile excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cycle back out that quickly because it relies on the
carbon cycle which is much slower. Yes, individual molecules of CO2 exchange out of the atmosphere but usually with another molecule of CO2 from ocean surface.
4. We know the CO2 level has increased over the last 150 years...almost perfectly in step with the timeline of mass industrialization and enormous increases in CO2 emissions from burning fossil and vegetal fuels.
5. The 13-C/12-C ratio has skewed to more and more 12-C
exactly as one would expect from the burning of masses of fossil and vegetal fuels (again, since you have mass spec experience you no doubt understand this. Plants tend to fix lighter Carbon. It's pretty standard isotope chemistry)
6. Prior to massive nuclear atmospheric testing in the 50's and 60's the 14-C content was dropping (again, exactly as expected from the mass burning of 14-C depleted fossil fuels).
7. Satellite measurement of outgoing IR has changed over the last 50 or so years and we see more IR being blocked in the outgoing with time. (Now, granted, the IR still comes out, just at higher and higher elevations per standard radiation physics.)
8. Global average temperatures are increasing but
none of the forcings which have driven warming in earth's geologic past are in the right conditions to account for this warming. (This is where a solid understanding of geologic history comes in handy). Yes we know it has warmed before and we have a pretty good idea of why it warmed in the past and right now the MAIN FORCING which seems to be driving the majority of the warmth is human activity. (This is where a solid understanding of statistics and statistical modelling comes in handy)
I lose respect for those who refuse to observe new data. Science is exploring all the observations and data... not just what agrees with our view.
why don't you impress me with your arguments.
