And the worst is yet to come

[Old Rocks]

So where is the experiment linking the CO2 increase with a temperature change? Did you not understand what I was asking when I said

1. You've never posted a single experiment demonstrating that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM raises temperature. Can you post it now?

This has been pointed out to you many times. However, for lurkers, here is the vital experiment demonstrating that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHG's, and it was done in 1859 by John Tyndall;

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Irish physicist John Tyndall proved trace gases in the atmosphere can trap heat 150 years ago - so why isn't he better appreciated?

www.bbc.com

 

[Old Rocks]

And furthermore, what control do humans have over our primary star, given that it most likely fluctuates in output on regular cycles over time? Sure, CO2 and CH4 play a role, but C'mon, Man, Sol is king.

Then we should be seeing a strong correlation between solar flux and increase in temperature, right?

Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

The Sun's average brightness varies over time, and the changes can affect global surface temperature. But long-term changes over the period of human-caused global warming are minimal.

www.climate.gov

 

[Old Rocks]

Apparently I'm not the only ultimate dumb fuckery on here. I guess some people just can't understand math and science when it boils down to basic charts and graphs.

Where would you say our global temperature is heading from the point "You Are Here" ??? Anyone?

View attachment 538940

Now that is one bullshit chart. Not only not accurate, but no source listed. From the smell of it, I suspect it came from your nether regions.

 

[Samofvt]

Then we should be seeing a strong correlation between solar flux and increase in temperature, right?

View attachment 538945

Climate Change: Incoming Sunlight

The Sun's average brightness varies over time, and the changes can affect global surface temperature. But long-term changes over the period of human-caused global warming are minimal.

www.climate.gov

You're only looking a a few hundred years. To get a better idea of the flux-temperature scale, we would need measurements at 100,000 Year increments.

 

[Samofvt]

Now that is one bullshit chart. Not only not accurate, but no source listed. From the smell of it, I suspect it came from your nether regions.

You would be correct. I squeezed really hard, and there it was. Although....I seem to recall reading many un-biased observations from people who studied ice bore samples for various detectable trace elements, like co2, radon, c-13. Even the span of time attainable using the best modern science does not do justice to the scale of time we are talking about.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This has been pointed out to you many times. However, for lurkers, here is the vital experiment demonstrating that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHG's, and it was done in 1859 by John Tyndall;

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Irish physicist John Tyndall proved trace gases in the atmosphere can trap heat 150 years ago - so why isn't he better appreciated?

www.bbc.com

That wasn't the question. Thank you

 

[ding]

This has been pointed out to you many times. However, for lurkers, here is the vital experiment demonstrating that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHG's, and it was done in 1859 by John Tyndall;

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Irish physicist John Tyndall proved trace gases in the atmosphere can trap heat 150 years ago - so why isn't he better appreciated?

www.bbc.com

I’m not seeing from what you provided how that quantifies the greenhouse gas effect due to changes in trace gas amounts. Can you show me that data? Or at least explain it?

 

[ding]

Is it just me or does it seem that they should have done a more recent experiment to quantify the greenhouse gas effect of small changes in trace gas amounts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This has been pointed out to you many times. However, for lurkers, here is the vital experiment demonstrating that water vapor, CO2, CH4, and NOx are GHG's, and it was done in 1859 by John Tyndall;

Tyndall's climate message, 150 years on

Irish physicist John Tyndall proved trace gases in the atmosphere can trap heat 150 years ago - so why isn't he better appreciated?

www.bbc.com

Ask for a number, get Jive Talking back

 

[Old Rocks]

You're only looking a a few hundred years. To get a better idea of the flux-temperature scale, we would need measurements at 100,000 Year increments.

It has only been in the last 150 years that we have increased the GHG's to the level they are today. However, if you wish for a long term assessment of CO2 and climate, here is one from one of the leading glaciologists in the world;

 

[Old Rocks]

Is it just me or does it seem that they should have done a more recent experiment to quantify the greenhouse gas effect of small changes in trace gas amounts.

The experiment has been repeated many times, and the geological record as well as the increasing temperatures as we add more and more GHG's to the atmosphere also confirm that experiment.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask for a number, get Jive Talking back

Post real science and get an idiot's reply.

 

[Old Rocks]

I’m not seeing from what you provided how that quantifies the greenhouse gas effect due to changes in trace gas amounts. Can you show me that data? Or at least explain it?

Or course you are not serious, or you would have already read the information on this site from the American Institute of Physics.

The Discovery of Global Warming

A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics.

history.aip.org

 

[Samofvt]

It has only been in the last 150 years that we have increased the GHG's to the level they are today. However, if you wish for a long term assessment of CO2 and climate, here is one from one of the leading glaciologists in the world;

Excellent course in the current understanding of the history of C02 and temperature observations. I will not discredit the speakers knowledge nor the content... I hope to finish watching the last 20 minutes tomorrow.

The only thing I can say is that it all boils down to cause and effect. There's not much doubt CO2 and global temperature have a correlation. The esteemed speaker did not talk much about methane. But still the question can be asked: Did CO2 cause temperature increase, or did temperature increase cause CO2.

If I place two reactive materials together in a chamber, they will react at a given rate at a given starting temperature. If I change the temperature of the chamber, the reaction rate will almost certainly change (notably so with aquatic chemistry - H2O, O2, Co2, and CaCo3 - as pointed out by the speaker in the video). This is basic chemistry.

Disregarding the few large endothermic and exothermic reactions in nature (reactions that give off or take in energy on a large scale), my money is on that the temperature of the reaction chamber is changed from without. Sol is still king.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Post real science and get an idiot's reply.

I asked for a number, you didn't respond

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excellent course in the current understanding of the history of C02 and temperature observations. I will not discredit the speakers knowledge nor the content... I hope to finish watching the last 20 minutes tomorrow.

The only thing I can say is that it all boils down to cause and effect. There's not much doubt CO2 and global temperature have a correlation. The esteemed speaker did not talk much about methane. But still the question can be asked: Did CO2 cause temperature increase, or did temperature increase cause CO2.

If I place two reactive materials together in a chamber, they will react at a given rate at a given starting temperature. If I change the temperature of the chamber, the reaction rate will almost certainly change (notably so with aquatic chemistry - H2O, O2, Co2, and CaCo3 - as pointed out by the speaker in the video). This is basic chemistry.

Disregarding the few large endothermic and exothermic reactions in nature (reactions that give off or take in energy on a large scale), my money is on that the temperature of the reaction chamber is changed from without. Sol is still king.

We have a 450,000 year side by side data set from ice cores showing CO2 LAGGING temperature

 

[ding]

The experiment has been repeated many times, and the geological record as well as the increasing temperatures as we add more and more GHG's to the atmosphere also confirm that experiment.

Actually there has never been an experiment using trace gases that could be used to quantify the effect of trace gases.

 

[ding]

as we add more and more GHG's to the atmosphere also confirm that experiment.

Nope. You are mistakenly attributing warming due to natural variation to CO2.

The panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.