Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet you acknowledge that my posted source show a steady increase in CO2 levels and even acknowledge that CO2 levels are rising. This means you have to have another source of CO2 emissions besides man to account for the rise.
Of course...like I said, we humans don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...
I think that like most people who simply accept what the media, and politicians, and activists tell you about CO2, that you lack any perception of the scale involved. The tell you about all the tons of CO2 that we produce, but don't tell you how minuscule all those tons are in comparison to the atmosphere... Here, let me show you a quick little video which may help you with the scale, and help you see how much CO2 we produce compared to how much CO2 the earth produces.. It is 4 minutes and change and is using accurate numbers....it illustrates the scale in a visual way that I could never achieve with any number of words.
One serious source of CO2 to consider is volcanoes. In the past, climate science has brushed off volcanoes as a serious source of CO2 because they were only considering the output of 6 or 8 volcanoes known to be active in any given year. That has changed radically...we have learned since those days that there is a tremendous amount of undersea volcanic activity and rather than counting CO2 from 6 or 8 land based volcanoes, they need to be considering the CO2 output of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of undersea vents and volcanoes. At this point, we don't know how many there are, how long their active periods may be, how those periods may change from year to year or how their CO2 output may vary...the bottom line is that they realize and even admit that they have probably "grossly" underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by volcanoes...other sources include respiration of all the animals on earth....termites, as I pointed out, produce more CO2 than all of our industry combined...just termites...then there is the decay of organic material...we have a pretty good grasp of how much CO2 that amounts to coming from the surface, but have no idea how much decay is going on at the bottom of the oceans...then there is sea water itself...the oceans account for about 50% of the CO2 in the atmosphere...CO2 levels going back into the ice age have been low because cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans. As the earth warms out of the ice age, the oceans warm and release incredible amounts of CO2.
That is an easy experiment to do yourself to see how it works...open 2 cans of soda...put one in the refrigerator and one on the counter in your kitchen...revisit them in a day and take a sip...the one on the counter will be dead flat while the cold one will still have some fizz which is variable depending on how cold you kept it...The oceans work the same way and ice core studies tell us that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause. This isn't rocket science..
This seems the heart of your objection right?
No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
First, and this is why I stated categorically I'm not a scientist. I can not argue your arguments on my understanding of the data.
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
We know the earth's distance to the sun, it's rotation and axis. We know the energy output of the sun although it varies. So we know what energy the earth receives and we know the actual temperature doesn't mesh with those facts.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm.
Your argument here seems to be that there is no evidence that gasses trapped in the atmosphere can cause the earth to warm. So you must have another culprit in mind? Please feel free to give it then. [/qutoe]
Sure...and empirical evidence bears me out. Gasses like CO2, and water vapor, and methane etc absorb infrared radiation...climate science is right on that point...but climate science says that those gasses then radiate that energy off in all directions, some of it even coming back to warm the surface in direct opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.
The in the time between the moment when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs a photon of infrared energy, and the time it emits a photon of infrared energy, that molecule experiences tens, even hundreds of thousands of collisions with other molecules....and the energy that the greenhouse gas molecule would have emitted as a photon of IR energy is lost to one of the molecules that it collided with...most often, those molecules collecting the energy are going to be oxygen or nitrogen simply because of the percentage of those two gasses in the atmosphere...those molecules now hold that energy and in turn collide with other molecules and the energy is moved via conduction and convection up to the top of the troposphere where the molecules are spaced so far apart that the energy may then be radiated out into space because of the time between collisions...
There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is a thermal atmospheric effect driven by gravity, convection and conduction...and it doesn't really matter what the composition of the atmosphere is. This is a measurable, observable effect and predicts not only the temperate here on earth, but accurately predicts the temperature of every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. The radiative greenhouse effect that climate science pushes can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor. The whole greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are based on quaint 19th century science which was debunked very shortly after it was proposed. You won't find any modern experimental science out there attempting to prove the radiative greenhouse effect because it was disproven way back then...climate models are the only place a radiative greenhouse effect exists...there has never been an actual measurement or quantification of a radiative greenhouse effect here on earth or anywhere else...it is a fiction.
The earth is not the only place in this solar system where gasses are alleged to cause the greenhouse effect. Venus is warmer than Mercury and yet farther away from the sun. Biggest difference... an incredibly dense CO2 rich atmosphere.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times more dense than that of earth...if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, venus would still be a hothouse because of the mass of its atmosphere...take jupiter and saturn for example...no greenhouse gasses at all to speak of...their atmospheres are almost entirely made up of molecular hydrogen...certainly not a greenhouse gas, and they are so far a way that the amount of solar energy they receive is trivial compared to earth and yet, deep within their atmospheres the temperatures tens of thousands of degrees due to pressure, convection and conduction...not a greenhouse effect.
The media, and activists, and politicians who are telling you about a greenhouse effect on venus are not telling you even part of the story...in order for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, the surface must be heated up by solar energy and then that energy must be radiated into the atmosphere which then radiates the energy in all directions, some of which return to the surface and further warm it....
The clouds are so dense on venus, that very little solar energy even reaches the surface...it is like twilight there at the surface so the surface is not being heated up by solar energy....the temperatures on venus are very high because of pressure, convection, and conduction...and the proof of this is that the temperature on the dark side of venus is the same as the daylight temperatures even though the night on venus is 58 of our days long. No temperature difference on the dark side even though the night last 58 of our days. That bears no resemblance to any effect a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science could produce...same for the incredibly high temperatures to be found deep in the atmospheres of the gas planets.
Like I said, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even get close to predicting the temperature of the other planets and can only predict the temperature here with the addition of an entirely made up fudge factor...
On the other hand, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system can be predicted with fine accuracy by calculating distance from the sun and the effects of pressure, convection and conduction.
And then we come to your boast that Climatology is not hard science. Isn't that what every scientist or teacher for that matter says?
All you need do is look at the curriculum required for a climate science degree. It is a soft science.
"Oh, my field is that much harder than the other field". I'm sure that they claim the same.
The degree requirements settle the argument...even meteorologists must pas a much more rigorous curriculum than a climate scientist...sorry if that disappoints you but alas, it is a fact."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
In case you haven't been paying attention I have provided empirical measurements and observations that state higher CO2 levels even Billy Bob acknowledged it. .
Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.This seems the heart of your objection right?
No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
First, and this is why I stated categorically I'm not a scientist. I can not argue your arguments on my understanding of the data.
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
We know the earth's distance to the sun, it's rotation and axis. We know the energy output of the sun although it varies. So we know what energy the earth receives and we know the actual temperature doesn't mesh with those facts.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm.
Your argument here seems to be that there is no evidence that gasses trapped in the atmosphere can cause the earth to warm. So you must have another culprit in mind? Please feel free to give it then. [/qutoe]
Sure...and empirical evidence bears me out. Gasses like CO2, and water vapor, and methane etc absorb infrared radiation...climate science is right on that point...but climate science says that those gasses then radiate that energy off in all directions, some of it even coming back to warm the surface in direct opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.
The in the time between the moment when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs a photon of infrared energy, and the time it emits a photon of infrared energy, that molecule experiences tens, even hundreds of thousands of collisions with other molecules....and the energy that the greenhouse gas molecule would have emitted as a photon of IR energy is lost to one of the molecules that it collided with...most often, those molecules collecting the energy are going to be oxygen or nitrogen simply because of the percentage of those two gasses in the atmosphere...those molecules now hold that energy and in turn collide with other molecules and the energy is moved via conduction and convection up to the top of the troposphere where the molecules are spaced so far apart that the energy may then be radiated out into space because of the time between collisions...
There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is a thermal atmospheric effect driven by gravity, convection and conduction...and it doesn't really matter what the composition of the atmosphere is. This is a measurable, observable effect and predicts not only the temperate here on earth, but accurately predicts the temperature of every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. The radiative greenhouse effect that climate science pushes can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor. The whole greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are based on quaint 19th century science which was debunked very shortly after it was proposed. You won't find any modern experimental science out there attempting to prove the radiative greenhouse effect because it was disproven way back then...climate models are the only place a radiative greenhouse effect exists...there has never been an actual measurement or quantification of a radiative greenhouse effect here on earth or anywhere else...it is a fiction.
The earth is not the only place in this solar system where gasses are alleged to cause the greenhouse effect. Venus is warmer than Mercury and yet farther away from the sun. Biggest difference... an incredibly dense CO2 rich atmosphere.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times more dense than that of earth...if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, venus would still be a hothouse because of the mass of its atmosphere...take jupiter and saturn for example...no greenhouse gasses at all to speak of...their atmospheres are almost entirely made up of molecular hydrogen...certainly not a greenhouse gas, and they are so far a way that the amount of solar energy they receive is trivial compared to earth and yet, deep within their atmospheres the temperatures tens of thousands of degrees due to pressure, convection and conduction...not a greenhouse effect.
The media, and activists, and politicians who are telling you about a greenhouse effect on venus are not telling you even part of the story...in order for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, the surface must be heated up by solar energy and then that energy must be radiated into the atmosphere which then radiates the energy in all directions, some of which return to the surface and further warm it....
The clouds are so dense on venus, that very little solar energy even reaches the surface...it is like twilight there at the surface so the surface is not being heated up by solar energy....the temperatures on venus are very high because of pressure, convection, and conduction...and the proof of this is that the temperature on the dark side of venus is the same as the daylight temperatures even though the night on venus is 58 of our days long. No temperature difference on the dark side even though the night last 58 of our days. That bears no resemblance to any effect a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science could produce...same for the incredibly high temperatures to be found deep in the atmospheres of the gas planets.
Like I said, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even get close to predicting the temperature of the other planets and can only predict the temperature here with the addition of an entirely made up fudge factor...
On the other hand, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system can be predicted with fine accuracy by calculating distance from the sun and the effects of pressure, convection and conduction.
And then we come to your boast that Climatology is not hard science. Isn't that what every scientist or teacher for that matter says?
All you need do is look at the curriculum required for a climate science degree. It is a soft science.
"Oh, my field is that much harder than the other field". I'm sure that they claim the same.
The degree requirements settle the argument...even meteorologists must pas a much more rigorous curriculum than a climate scientist...sorry if that disappoints you but alas, it is a fact."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network This is done by using a gas chromatograph or The atmospheric CO2concentration is determined by comparing the infrared absorption of air with that of up to 12 traceable calibration gases, each with a different but precisely known CO2concentration. Now what in this methodlygy involves the second law of thermodynamics? Measuring Greenhouse Gases - ClimaticaIn case you haven't been paying attention I have provided empirical measurements and observations that state higher CO2 levels even Billy Bob acknowledged it. .
No..you provided a fine example of being fooled by instrumentation. There are several sorts of instruments used in the sort of measurement your source references... there are those such as pyrogeometers which measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...they tell you nothing but temperature change and tell you nothing about the nature of the energy they are measuring....they are often claimed to be measuring downwelling radiation, but the fact is, they can't tell you anything more than that the temperature of their internal thermopile has changed...they can tell you nothing whatsoever about why it changed.
Then there are the instruments that can measure discrete wavelengths of energy. An uncooled instrument can tell you how much energy and in what frequencies energy is moving from a warmer object than itself to its sensors. If the energy source is even fractions of a degree warmer than the instrument, it will tell you about the energy radiating from the source to its sensors. Let that object get cooler than the instrument however, and you no longer get any information about the energy radiating from the cooler source of radiation to the warmer instrument... Let me remind you...
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Now, can you apply that statement to energy moving from a warm object to a cooler instrument and to how much energy a warmer object might receive from a cooler object.
In the case of instruments that are supposedly measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.....those instruments are cooled too at least -80F and are often cooled to temperatures far lower than that... They are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...to prove that fact, if you put an identical instrument which is not being cooled right next to the cooled instrument, it will measure no energy coming from the cooler atmosphere.
It is nothing more than being fooled by instrumentation...it is possible to want a thing so badly that it makes you stupid....and being fooled by instrumentation is not restricted to climate science...instruments just collect data...humans interpret that data and all to often, they interpret it to represent what they want most dearly ...
I see... Only one problem with that theory. If volcanoes are at fault you should expect variance ALL the time unless of course, you claim that all those undersea volcanoes and vents just all of a sudden sprouted into existence.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a different story. You would have to find a culprit that is not something that's happening all the time.
Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.This seems the heart of your objection right?
No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
First, and this is why I stated categorically I'm not a scientist. I can not argue your arguments on my understanding of the data.
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
We know the earth's distance to the sun, it's rotation and axis. We know the energy output of the sun although it varies. So we know what energy the earth receives and we know the actual temperature doesn't mesh with those facts.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm.
Your argument here seems to be that there is no evidence that gasses trapped in the atmosphere can cause the earth to warm. So you must have another culprit in mind? Please feel free to give it then. [/qutoe]
Sure...and empirical evidence bears me out. Gasses like CO2, and water vapor, and methane etc absorb infrared radiation...climate science is right on that point...but climate science says that those gasses then radiate that energy off in all directions, some of it even coming back to warm the surface in direct opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.
The in the time between the moment when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs a photon of infrared energy, and the time it emits a photon of infrared energy, that molecule experiences tens, even hundreds of thousands of collisions with other molecules....and the energy that the greenhouse gas molecule would have emitted as a photon of IR energy is lost to one of the molecules that it collided with...most often, those molecules collecting the energy are going to be oxygen or nitrogen simply because of the percentage of those two gasses in the atmosphere...those molecules now hold that energy and in turn collide with other molecules and the energy is moved via conduction and convection up to the top of the troposphere where the molecules are spaced so far apart that the energy may then be radiated out into space because of the time between collisions...
There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is a thermal atmospheric effect driven by gravity, convection and conduction...and it doesn't really matter what the composition of the atmosphere is. This is a measurable, observable effect and predicts not only the temperate here on earth, but accurately predicts the temperature of every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. The radiative greenhouse effect that climate science pushes can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor. The whole greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are based on quaint 19th century science which was debunked very shortly after it was proposed. You won't find any modern experimental science out there attempting to prove the radiative greenhouse effect because it was disproven way back then...climate models are the only place a radiative greenhouse effect exists...there has never been an actual measurement or quantification of a radiative greenhouse effect here on earth or anywhere else...it is a fiction.
The earth is not the only place in this solar system where gasses are alleged to cause the greenhouse effect. Venus is warmer than Mercury and yet farther away from the sun. Biggest difference... an incredibly dense CO2 rich atmosphere.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times more dense than that of earth...if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, venus would still be a hothouse because of the mass of its atmosphere...take jupiter and saturn for example...no greenhouse gasses at all to speak of...their atmospheres are almost entirely made up of molecular hydrogen...certainly not a greenhouse gas, and they are so far a way that the amount of solar energy they receive is trivial compared to earth and yet, deep within their atmospheres the temperatures tens of thousands of degrees due to pressure, convection and conduction...not a greenhouse effect.
The media, and activists, and politicians who are telling you about a greenhouse effect on venus are not telling you even part of the story...in order for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, the surface must be heated up by solar energy and then that energy must be radiated into the atmosphere which then radiates the energy in all directions, some of which return to the surface and further warm it....
The clouds are so dense on venus, that very little solar energy even reaches the surface...it is like twilight there at the surface so the surface is not being heated up by solar energy....the temperatures on venus are very high because of pressure, convection, and conduction...and the proof of this is that the temperature on the dark side of venus is the same as the daylight temperatures even though the night on venus is 58 of our days long. No temperature difference on the dark side even though the night last 58 of our days. That bears no resemblance to any effect a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science could produce...same for the incredibly high temperatures to be found deep in the atmospheres of the gas planets.
Like I said, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even get close to predicting the temperature of the other planets and can only predict the temperature here with the addition of an entirely made up fudge factor...
On the other hand, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system can be predicted with fine accuracy by calculating distance from the sun and the effects of pressure, convection and conduction.
And then we come to your boast that Climatology is not hard science. Isn't that what every scientist or teacher for that matter says?
All you need do is look at the curriculum required for a climate science degree. It is a soft science.
"Oh, my field is that much harder than the other field". I'm sure that they claim the same.
The degree requirements settle the argument...even meteorologists must pas a much more rigorous curriculum than a climate scientist...sorry if that disappoints you but alas, it is a fact."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network This is done by using a gas chromatograph or The atmospheric CO2concentration is determined by comparing the infrared absorption of air with that of up to 12 traceable calibration gases, each with a different but precisely known CO2concentration. Now what in this methodlygy involves the second law of thermodynamics? Measuring Greenhouse Gases - ClimaticaIn case you haven't been paying attention I have provided empirical measurements and observations that state higher CO2 levels even Billy Bob acknowledged it. .
No..you provided a fine example of being fooled by instrumentation. There are several sorts of instruments used in the sort of measurement your source references... there are those such as pyrogeometers which measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...they tell you nothing but temperature change and tell you nothing about the nature of the energy they are measuring....they are often claimed to be measuring downwelling radiation, but the fact is, they can't tell you anything more than that the temperature of their internal thermopile has changed...they can tell you nothing whatsoever about why it changed.
Then there are the instruments that can measure discrete wavelengths of energy. An uncooled instrument can tell you how much energy and in what frequencies energy is moving from a warmer object than itself to its sensors. If the energy source is even fractions of a degree warmer than the instrument, it will tell you about the energy radiating from the source to its sensors. Let that object get cooler than the instrument however, and you no longer get any information about the energy radiating from the cooler source of radiation to the warmer instrument... Let me remind you...
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Now, can you apply that statement to energy moving from a warm object to a cooler instrument and to how much energy a warmer object might receive from a cooler object.
In the case of instruments that are supposedly measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.....those instruments are cooled too at least -80F and are often cooled to temperatures far lower than that... They are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...to prove that fact, if you put an identical instrument which is not being cooled right next to the cooled instrument, it will measure no energy coming from the cooler atmosphere.
It is nothing more than being fooled by instrumentation...it is possible to want a thing so badly that it makes you stupid....and being fooled by instrumentation is not restricted to climate science...instruments just collect data...humans interpret that data and all to often, they interpret it to represent what they want most dearly ...
By the way, you have said that I trust the media more then I should yet the majority of my links are either direct links to studies or research facilities or a recap of them. I also want to know if you and Bob are the same person since both he and you have taken post I wrote to either of you as your own and I see similarities in writing style? This might be just you and him writing from the same playbook but still.
Baring Head greenhouse gasesI see... Only one problem with that theory. If volcanoes are at fault you should expect variance ALL the time unless of course, you claim that all those undersea volcanoes and vents just all of a sudden sprouted into existence.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a different story. You would have to find a culprit that is not something that's happening all the time.
There is variance all the time...Yet more pseudoscience on the part of climate science. The only CO2 figures you regularly get are those from Mona Loa...they collect atmospheric CO2 data from there...it is located at the top of an ACTIVE VOLCANO....
And for the most part, the numbers are pretty constant...when they aren't they simply make up numbers, but that is another discussion. As you say, you are under the impression that there is little variance in the atmospheric CO2 and you are under that impression because of the data that is given to you.
Not long ago, we put a satellite in orbit for the specific purpose of telling us about CO2...climate science has told us for decades that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and is pretty much the same everywhere so we can trust the numbers that come from Mona Loa.
Have you ever seen any of the data from the OCO (orbiting CO2 Observatory) satellite? I would be surprised if you had..while it is available, it tells an entirely different story than that told by climate science...
Here is a random snapshot of the CO2 on earth... Hardly a well mixed gas...concentrations vary from 380ppm to over 400ppm...and this data has been processed to provide an "average" the raw data would show even more variance.
Different day...different result
variable enough for you? You are being fed just a tiny bit of a story...cherry picked data whose only purpose is to support an alarmist narrative...
Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.This seems the heart of your objection right?
No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
First, and this is why I stated categorically I'm not a scientist. I can not argue your arguments on my understanding of the data.
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
We know the earth's distance to the sun, it's rotation and axis. We know the energy output of the sun although it varies. So we know what energy the earth receives and we know the actual temperature doesn't mesh with those facts.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm.
Your argument here seems to be that there is no evidence that gasses trapped in the atmosphere can cause the earth to warm. So you must have another culprit in mind? Please feel free to give it then. [/qutoe]
Sure...and empirical evidence bears me out. Gasses like CO2, and water vapor, and methane etc absorb infrared radiation...climate science is right on that point...but climate science says that those gasses then radiate that energy off in all directions, some of it even coming back to warm the surface in direct opposition to the second law of thermodynamics.
The in the time between the moment when a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs a photon of infrared energy, and the time it emits a photon of infrared energy, that molecule experiences tens, even hundreds of thousands of collisions with other molecules....and the energy that the greenhouse gas molecule would have emitted as a photon of IR energy is lost to one of the molecules that it collided with...most often, those molecules collecting the energy are going to be oxygen or nitrogen simply because of the percentage of those two gasses in the atmosphere...those molecules now hold that energy and in turn collide with other molecules and the energy is moved via conduction and convection up to the top of the troposphere where the molecules are spaced so far apart that the energy may then be radiated out into space because of the time between collisions...
There is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...there is a thermal atmospheric effect driven by gravity, convection and conduction...and it doesn't really matter what the composition of the atmosphere is. This is a measurable, observable effect and predicts not only the temperate here on earth, but accurately predicts the temperature of every other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. The radiative greenhouse effect that climate science pushes can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc (made up) fudge factor. The whole greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are based on quaint 19th century science which was debunked very shortly after it was proposed. You won't find any modern experimental science out there attempting to prove the radiative greenhouse effect because it was disproven way back then...climate models are the only place a radiative greenhouse effect exists...there has never been an actual measurement or quantification of a radiative greenhouse effect here on earth or anywhere else...it is a fiction.
Venus has an atmosphere that is 90 times more dense than that of earth...if the atmosphere were pure oxygen, venus would still be a hothouse because of the mass of its atmosphere...take jupiter and saturn for example...no greenhouse gasses at all to speak of...their atmospheres are almost entirely made up of molecular hydrogen...certainly not a greenhouse gas, and they are so far a way that the amount of solar energy they receive is trivial compared to earth and yet, deep within their atmospheres the temperatures tens of thousands of degrees due to pressure, convection and conduction...not a greenhouse effect.
The media, and activists, and politicians who are telling you about a greenhouse effect on venus are not telling you even part of the story...in order for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, the surface must be heated up by solar energy and then that energy must be radiated into the atmosphere which then radiates the energy in all directions, some of which return to the surface and further warm it....
The clouds are so dense on venus, that very little solar energy even reaches the surface...it is like twilight there at the surface so the surface is not being heated up by solar energy....the temperatures on venus are very high because of pressure, convection, and conduction...and the proof of this is that the temperature on the dark side of venus is the same as the daylight temperatures even though the night on venus is 58 of our days long. No temperature difference on the dark side even though the night last 58 of our days. That bears no resemblance to any effect a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science could produce...same for the incredibly high temperatures to be found deep in the atmospheres of the gas planets.
Like I said, the greenhouse effect as described by climate science can't even get close to predicting the temperature of the other planets and can only predict the temperature here with the addition of an entirely made up fudge factor...
On the other hand, the temperature of every other planet in the solar system can be predicted with fine accuracy by calculating distance from the sun and the effects of pressure, convection and conduction.
All you need do is look at the curriculum required for a climate science degree. It is a soft science.
The degree requirements settle the argument...even meteorologists must pas a much more rigorous curriculum than a climate scientist...sorry if that disappoints you but alas, it is a fact."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
Baring Head greenhouse gasesI see... Only one problem with that theory. If volcanoes are at fault you should expect variance ALL the time unless of course, you claim that all those undersea volcanoes and vents just all of a sudden sprouted into existence.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a different story. You would have to find a culprit that is not something that's happening all the time.
There is variance all the time...Yet more pseudoscience on the part of climate science. The only CO2 figures you regularly get are those from Mona Loa...they collect atmospheric CO2 data from there...it is located at the top of an ACTIVE VOLCANO....
And for the most part, the numbers are pretty constant...when they aren't they simply make up numbers, but that is another discussion. As you say, you are under the impression that there is little variance in the atmospheric CO2 and you are under that impression because of the data that is given to you.
Not long ago, we put a satellite in orbit for the specific purpose of telling us about CO2...climate science has told us for decades that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and is pretty much the same everywhere so we can trust the numbers that come from Mona Loa.
Have you ever seen any of the data from the OCO (orbiting CO2 Observatory) satellite? I would be surprised if you had..while it is available, it tells an entirely different story than that told by climate science...
Here is a random snapshot of the CO2 on earth... Hardly a well mixed gas...concentrations vary from 380ppm to over 400ppm...and this data has been processed to provide an "average" the raw data would show even more variance.
Different day...different result
variable enough for you? You are being fed just a tiny bit of a story...cherry picked data whose only purpose is to support an alarmist narrative...
Oh look NOT Mona Loa. in fact there are many.http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/View attachment 267772 As to variance. I don't claim stability. I claim a gradual increase. A gradual increase that started at a certain time as shown in ice cores. Something that can not be explained by volcanic activity, which would show sharp and sudden increases and an upward trend ALL the time. Also, do you realize you just destroyed your own premise that there is no empirical evidence by showing global CO2 concentrations on a global scale?
Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
Now as promised.
Hypothesis: Man is making the earth warmer by emitting CO2 in the atmosphere at an unsustainable rate.
-First, this means we have to establish that the earth's CO2 level is rising. I will suppose you don't challenge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
First, the scientific method demands that you establish that rising CO2 levels actually cause warming.. To date, there is no observed, measured evidence which establishes any coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Do feel free to provide some if you think any exists. Without that, no amount of demonstration that CO2 levels are rising mean anything at all.
Thus far, I have provided 8 published studies that find that the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising but all find that we are not the ones driving the increase. They find that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanisms...They find that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming..not the cause of it.
More of the same...published science finds that we are not the ones driving atmospheric CO2 levels...and then there is the issue with demonstrating a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.
That is a verifiable fact, isn't it?
Of course...CO2 levels are greater now than they have been in the relatively recent past, but that doesn't mean anything...Hell, the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels in the 1000ppm range compared to our 400ppm....like I said, I have provided ample published science that finds that we are not the ones driving atmospheric CO2 levels...and in fact, our contribution to CO2 levels is vanishingly small. And again, there is no observed, measured evidence that demonstrates that rising CO2 causes warming...all the observed evidence shows that increasing CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause
-Second, we need to establish that CO2 is trapping heat.
Good luck with that...if CO2 trapped heat, there would be an inevitable tropospheric hot spot...alas, no such hot spot exists.
Again...the key word there is inferred...not observed, not measured, not anything but inferred and that is 20 years out of date...the claim went nowhere because it simply wasn't supportable by the evidence.
Here are some of the graphs from that paper..
This first image shows outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in 1970 vs 1997 The dark line is the IMG data (from 1997), and the gray line is the IRIS line (from (1970). The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970.
This next graph shows the OLR emission from TES (in 2006). The black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between the actual and model data.
This last graph shows the OLR emission from IMG (1997). Just like the previous figure, the black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between actual and model data.
Print out the TES image showing the outgoing long wave in 2006 and the IRIS image showing outgoing long wave in 1970 and overlay them...they are identical in the CO2 wavelengths.
There is a reason that the study went nowhere....it didn't make the case.
This shows 2 different IR satellites showing a steady drop in radiation going out at the wavelengths of CO2.
Again verifiable.
Sorry guy....it shows nothing of the sort...print out the graphs and overlay them...no change in the outgoing long wave in the CO2 wavelengths between 1970 and 2006 in spite of considerable increases in atmospheric CO2.
Again...if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere...no such hot spot exists...
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
This shows an analysis of high-resolution spectral data from the surface and isolates the different greenhouse gasses.
A fine example of being fooled by instrumentation...the instruments they are using are cooled to a temperature of roughly -80F....they are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...place another identical instrument except uncooled next to the cooled one, and you won't measure any downdwelling radiation. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cooler region to a warmer region without some work having been done to make that energy movement possible.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
This one is a study of heat buildup.
That is nothing but the output of models...failing models I might add...no empirical evidence there
-Lastly, we have to establish that humans are the cause of this rise in CO2.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Total Energy Annual Data
Here you see a precise calculation of all energy sources in the US similar information exists by nation.
I am not sure where you believe there is any empirical data demonstrating or establishing that we are the cause of the rise in CO2. All that shows is that humans produce CO2 and that different countries produce different amounts...all of our CO2 combined isn't even as much as termites make...Like I said, we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanism.
Here are several peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...
The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.
https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf
CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
Error - Cookies Turned Off
“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”
Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...
Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...
Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience
CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”
Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.
Here is yet another very recently paper published in Earth Sciences that finds that our contribution to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small...natural factors completely overwhelm our relatively minuscule CO2 production..
What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations :: Science Publishing Group
Abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
That paper expands on this paper which was published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Climate Change:
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere - ScienceDirect
Do these qualify as verifiable facts?
There are some verifiable facts there and some model output...do they in any way demonstrate that our CO2 production is in any way altering the global climate? Not a chance. Like I said, it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of alarmists. You have a few facts such as an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is real and verifiable...but then you hang a big assed, unsupportable assumption, and wild assed guesses on that fact suggesting that because CO2 is increasing, that we are responsible for the increase, and that the increase is causing warming...
The hard fact is that if CO2 were, in fact, capable of trapping heat in the atmosphere, there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the total outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere would be decreasing...again, print out the graphs from the study you provided and look at the actual measurements of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere...overlay the graphs and you can see that there is no change between 1970 and 2006...that is why that study never went anywhere...it didn't show what was being claimed...the only differences it showed was the difference between the model projections and the actual observations by the satellites....there was no difference in the outgoing LW in the CO2 wavelengths...
The climate models predict a tropospheric hot spot due to energy being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses...here is a contrast between what the models predict and what we actually observe.. As you can see...there is no hot spot because there is no energy being trapped within the atmosphere...
In order for that hot spot to exist, the amount of long wave radiation exiting at the top of the atmosphere would have to decrease...here are some observations of outgoing long wave radiation..as you can see, the amount of long wave exiting at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...therefore, no hot spot because CO2 is simply not capable of "trapping" anything at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.
You are letting journalists in the news media, politicians and self described climate activists tell you what the science says and are not verifying the truthfulness of what they are telling you either because you don't care, or because you don't believe you have enough education to understand the relatively simple science associated with climate...
Maybe you aren't aware that climate science is a soft science as opposed to the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering, geology, meteorology, astrophysics, etc. A graduate from one of the hard sciences with a BS degree could teach any course within a climate science degree up to and including the PhD level...whereas a PhD climate scientist would not be able to effectively teach even the 4000 level courses leading to a BS in one of the hard sciences and would be hopelessly lost trying to teach courses in a masters or PhD program.Yet you acknowledge that my posted source show a steady increase in CO2 levels and even acknowledge that CO2 levels are rising. This means you have to have another source of CO2 emissions besides man to account for the rise. Do you?They find that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanisms
Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.No....the heart of my objection is that politicians are using bought and paid for climate science to demand that literally trillions of dollars be spent, and society altering changes be made in the name of pseudoscience which simply does not have a physical basis. If it were simply something that people believe for personal reasons, and they weren't asking for me to pay more for everything I buy and alter my life for the sake of their beliefs, I would have no objection....let them hold whatever faith they want..but when they start asking for me to pay for the apocalypse that their faith says is coming, I have the same problem with that as I would if catholics started asking for a few trillion dollars to head off the end of times....both cases are based on faith...not empirical evidence. If you are going to ask for that much money, and for everyone in an industrial nation to alter their lives, you should have some damned convincing empirical evidence....and there should not even be a whiff of pseudoscience or politics, or environmentalism stinking up the science.
There are real, and serious environmental issues facing every one of us...environmental problems that have actual solutions, but cost money...none of them are ever going to be addressed with any seriousness till the climate change scam is put away so that it isn't sucking all the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers...
The money spent so far on climate science is approaching a trillion dollars, and nearly everything you purchase costs more because of it...can you point to any positive change that has resulted from climate science and the man made global warming crusade? Anything at all that even appoaches a reasonable benefit from the amount of money that has been spent?
At this point, it doesn't seem like you have ever even looked at the data...you seem to be getting your information from politicians, journalists, and self proclaimed activists....Personally, I wouldn't listen to such people even if they were agreeing with me...people like that always have an agenda, and operate on the premise that the end justifies the means...nothing good can ever come from that sort of thinking.
To a great degree the temperatures do mesh with those facts...during the years leading up to the end of the 20th century, the sun was at its most active for the past couple of hundred years...right when it seemed that the warming was really taking off...then the sun entered a quiet phase, and then began a decline in output...thus began the pause...going on 20 years now and climate science cooks and tortures the data beyond recognition in order to say this year is the hottest evah..and don't mention that it is by a hundredth of a degree in terms of anomaly...not even actual temperature.
But that is only the most obvious part of the issue...we have measured TSI and can see its effect on temperature, but the the sun's output in various wavelengths varies wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year, and century to century and we have no idea how those variations in particular wavelengths may effect the climate. To say that the sun just doesn't have that much effect on climate is nothing more than a great big assumption not supported by any actual fact.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface on what factors can actually affect the climate, and are a lot of hard science away from being able to determine how much each factor might affect the climate and how factors may interact with each other and alter the effect each has on the other and how much they may have on the climate...at this point, we don't even know what we don't know...but we do know that CO2 isn't a problem...the fact is that the ice age that the earth is presently in began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than twice the amount we are seeing today...and atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 7000ppm with no hint of the runaway greenhouse effect climate science threatens if atmospheric CO2 reached even 800ppm."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network This is done by using a gas chromatograph or The atmospheric CO2concentration is determined by comparing the infrared absorption of air with that of up to 12 traceable calibration gases, each with a different but precisely known CO2concentration. Now, what in this methodology involves the second law of thermodynamics? Measuring Greenhouse Gases - ClimaticaIn case you haven't been paying attention I have provided empirical measurements and observations that state higher CO2 levels even Billy Bob acknowledged it. .
No..you provided a fine example of being fooled by instrumentation. There are several sorts of instruments used in the sort of measurement your source references... there are those such as pyrogeometers which measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...they tell you nothing but temperature change and tell you nothing about the nature of the energy they are measuring....they are often claimed to be measuring downwelling radiation, but the fact is, they can't tell you anything more than that the temperature of their internal thermopile has changed...they can tell you nothing whatsoever about why it changed.
Then there are the instruments that can measure discrete wavelengths of energy. An uncooled instrument can tell you how much energy and in what frequencies energy is moving from a warmer object than itself to its sensors. If the energy source is even fractions of a degree warmer than the instrument, it will tell you about the energy radiating from the source to its sensors. Let that object get cooler than the instrument however, and you no longer get any information about the energy radiating from the cooler source of radiation to the warmer instrument... Let me remind you...
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Now, can you apply that statement to energy moving from a warm object to a cooler instrument and to how much energy a warmer object might receive from a cooler object.
In the case of instruments that are supposedly measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.....those instruments are cooled too at least -80F and are often cooled to temperatures far lower than that... They are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...to prove that fact, if you put an identical instrument which is not being cooled right next to the cooled instrument, it will measure no energy coming from the cooler atmosphere.
It is nothing more than being fooled by instrumentation...it is possible to want a thing so badly that it makes you stupid....and being fooled by instrumentation is not restricted to climate science...instruments just collect data...humans interpret that data and all to often, they interpret it to represent what they want most dearly ...
By the way, you have said that I trust the media more then I should yet the majority of my links are either direct links to studies or research facilities or a recap of them. I also want to know if you and Bob are the same person since both he and you have taken post I wrote to either of you as your own and I see similarities in writing style? This might be just you and him writing from the same playbook but still.
Personally, I don't care who a post is directed towards...this is an open forum so if I have a comment, I make it...
And atmospheric concentration of CO2 has nothing to do with the claimed energy being radiated back to the earth as a result of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis which is the point I was addressing...Your ESRL is a dinosaur now, soon to be defunded as it was rendered obsolete by the OCO-2 satellite which gives us far better data over the whole globe...The ESRL data of course is more easily manipulated to support a narrative, but that is really its only purpose now...the data they produce is useless for any other task.
Actually the majority of your links are to opinion pieces which don't discuss either data or methodology....they give opinions...
I have no playbook...and am not billy. I don't claim his education...and we differ on some fine points.....we agree that climate science today is largely cherry picked pseudoscience and talking to people like yourself, and looking at what passes for evidence in your mind only solidifies that opinion.
Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?Baring Head greenhouse gasesI see... Only one problem with that theory. If volcanoes are at fault you should expect variance ALL the time unless of course, you claim that all those undersea volcanoes and vents just all of a sudden sprouted into existence.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a different story. You would have to find a culprit that is not something that's happening all the time.
There is variance all the time...Yet more pseudoscience on the part of climate science. The only CO2 figures you regularly get are those from Mona Loa...they collect atmospheric CO2 data from there...it is located at the top of an ACTIVE VOLCANO....
And for the most part, the numbers are pretty constant...when they aren't they simply make up numbers, but that is another discussion. As you say, you are under the impression that there is little variance in the atmospheric CO2 and you are under that impression because of the data that is given to you.
Not long ago, we put a satellite in orbit for the specific purpose of telling us about CO2...climate science has told us for decades that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and is pretty much the same everywhere so we can trust the numbers that come from Mona Loa.
Have you ever seen any of the data from the OCO (orbiting CO2 Observatory) satellite? I would be surprised if you had..while it is available, it tells an entirely different story than that told by climate science...
Here is a random snapshot of the CO2 on earth... Hardly a well mixed gas...concentrations vary from 380ppm to over 400ppm...and this data has been processed to provide an "average" the raw data would show even more variance.
Different day...different result
variable enough for you? You are being fed just a tiny bit of a story...cherry picked data whose only purpose is to support an alarmist narrative...
Oh look NOT Mona Loa. in fact there are many.http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/View attachment 267772 As to variance. I don't claim stability. I claim a gradual increase. A gradual increase that started at a certain time as shown in ice cores. Something that can not be explained by volcanic activity, which would show sharp and sudden increases and an upward trend ALL the time. Also, do you realize you just destroyed your own premise that there is no empirical evidence by showing global CO2 concentrations on a global scale?
I provided you with a link to the OCO-2 site..there is some video covering years..watch it...as you will see, it is not a steady increase....it is variable and somewhat chaotic as one would expect a natural system to behave.
And as the papers I have already provided explain, as the earth warms, higher CO2 concentrations are to be expected as a result of ocean outgassing and more efficient decay of organic material. I guess you didn't look at the video to see just how small our contributions to the total CO2 are...wouldn't want an appreciation for scale to get in the way of your faith.
They didn't fail. Failing means there wrong. Falling within a margin of error is not being wrong. In fact, establishing that there are margins of error in measurements is one of the first lessons I had in my high school science class. As more information is gathered you can, and they have reduced the margin for error.Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges."The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period. Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well. Stratospheric cooling is the real “fingerprint” of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming."
I don't really know what it means but it seems to me that your argument has already been found wanting.https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
When predictions fail, it is nothing but an acknowledgement that the research, and the hypothesis are flawed.....where they correct, there wouldn't be predictive failures.
Actually the theory I provided you is far better than the radiative greenhouse effect...like I said, it not only predicts the temperature here without the need of any fudge factor, but accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...a feat that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even begin to accomplish...
Politicians and activists don't like it though because the composition of the atmosphere is mostly irrelevant...the temperature of any given planet is the product of incoming solar radiation, gravity and the density of the atmosphere...if CO2 can't be portrayed as a demon, imagine the political power and money that would evaporate almost immediately... The very fact that politics is so incestuously intertwined with climate science should raise red flags to any person with an critical thinking skills at all...
How to Use CO2 to Increase Cannabis Yields! | Grow Weed EasyAnd with global warming, you should have bigger buds.News Flash! It gets hot in summer!It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network This is done by using a gas chromatograph or The atmospheric CO2concentration is determined by comparing the infrared absorption of air with that of up to 12 traceable calibration gases, each with a different but precisely known CO2concentration. Now, what in this methodology involves the second law of thermodynamics? Measuring Greenhouse Gases - ClimaticaIn case you haven't been paying attention I have provided empirical measurements and observations that state higher CO2 levels even Billy Bob acknowledged it. .
No..you provided a fine example of being fooled by instrumentation. There are several sorts of instruments used in the sort of measurement your source references... there are those such as pyrogeometers which measure nothing more than the amount of, and rate of temperature change of an internal thermopile...they tell you nothing but temperature change and tell you nothing about the nature of the energy they are measuring....they are often claimed to be measuring downwelling radiation, but the fact is, they can't tell you anything more than that the temperature of their internal thermopile has changed...they can tell you nothing whatsoever about why it changed.
Then there are the instruments that can measure discrete wavelengths of energy. An uncooled instrument can tell you how much energy and in what frequencies energy is moving from a warmer object than itself to its sensors. If the energy source is even fractions of a degree warmer than the instrument, it will tell you about the energy radiating from the source to its sensors. Let that object get cooler than the instrument however, and you no longer get any information about the energy radiating from the cooler source of radiation to the warmer instrument... Let me remind you...
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Now, can you apply that statement to energy moving from a warm object to a cooler instrument and to how much energy a warmer object might receive from a cooler object.
In the case of instruments that are supposedly measuring discrete frequencies of energy moving from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth.....those instruments are cooled too at least -80F and are often cooled to temperatures far lower than that... They are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...to prove that fact, if you put an identical instrument which is not being cooled right next to the cooled instrument, it will measure no energy coming from the cooler atmosphere.
It is nothing more than being fooled by instrumentation...it is possible to want a thing so badly that it makes you stupid....and being fooled by instrumentation is not restricted to climate science...instruments just collect data...humans interpret that data and all to often, they interpret it to represent what they want most dearly ...
By the way, you have said that I trust the media more then I should yet the majority of my links are either direct links to studies or research facilities or a recap of them. I also want to know if you and Bob are the same person since both he and you have taken post I wrote to either of you as your own and I see similarities in writing style? This might be just you and him writing from the same playbook but still.
Personally, I don't care who a post is directed towards...this is an open forum so if I have a comment, I make it...
And atmospheric concentration of CO2 has nothing to do with the claimed energy being radiated back to the earth as a result of the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis which is the point I was addressing...Your ESRL is a dinosaur now, soon to be defunded as it was rendered obsolete by the OCO-2 satellite which gives us far better data over the whole globe...The ESRL data of course is more easily manipulated to support a narrative, but that is really its only purpose now...the data they produce is useless for any other task.
Actually the majority of your links are to opinion pieces which don't discuss either data or methodology....they give opinions...
I have no playbook...and am not billy. I don't claim his education...and we differ on some fine points.....we agree that climate science today is largely cherry picked pseudoscience and talking to people like yourself, and looking at what passes for evidence in your mind only solidifies that opinion.Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?Baring Head greenhouse gasesI see... Only one problem with that theory. If volcanoes are at fault you should expect variance ALL the time unless of course, you claim that all those undersea volcanoes and vents just all of a sudden sprouted into existence.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
Ice cores tell a different story. You would have to find a culprit that is not something that's happening all the time.
There is variance all the time...Yet more pseudoscience on the part of climate science. The only CO2 figures you regularly get are those from Mona Loa...they collect atmospheric CO2 data from there...it is located at the top of an ACTIVE VOLCANO....
And for the most part, the numbers are pretty constant...when they aren't they simply make up numbers, but that is another discussion. As you say, you are under the impression that there is little variance in the atmospheric CO2 and you are under that impression because of the data that is given to you.
Not long ago, we put a satellite in orbit for the specific purpose of telling us about CO2...climate science has told us for decades that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and is pretty much the same everywhere so we can trust the numbers that come from Mona Loa.
Have you ever seen any of the data from the OCO (orbiting CO2 Observatory) satellite? I would be surprised if you had..while it is available, it tells an entirely different story than that told by climate science...
Here is a random snapshot of the CO2 on earth... Hardly a well mixed gas...concentrations vary from 380ppm to over 400ppm...and this data has been processed to provide an "average" the raw data would show even more variance.
Different day...different result
variable enough for you? You are being fed just a tiny bit of a story...cherry picked data whose only purpose is to support an alarmist narrative...
Oh look NOT Mona Loa. in fact there are many.http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/View attachment 267772 As to variance. I don't claim stability. I claim a gradual increase. A gradual increase that started at a certain time as shown in ice cores. Something that can not be explained by volcanic activity, which would show sharp and sudden increases and an upward trend ALL the time. Also, do you realize you just destroyed your own premise that there is no empirical evidence by showing global CO2 concentrations on a global scale?
I provided you with a link to the OCO-2 site..there is some video covering years..watch it...as you will see, it is not a steady increase....it is variable and somewhat chaotic as one would expect a natural system to behave.
And as the papers I have already provided explain, as the earth warms, higher CO2 concentrations are to be expected as a result of ocean outgassing and more efficient decay of organic material. I guess you didn't look at the video to see just how small our contributions to the total CO2 are...wouldn't want an appreciation for scale to get in the way of your faith.
Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference NetworkNow as promised.
Hypothesis: Man is making the earth warmer by emitting CO2 in the atmosphere at an unsustainable rate.
-First, this means we have to establish that the earth's CO2 level is rising. I will suppose you don't challenge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
First, the scientific method demands that you establish that rising CO2 levels actually cause warming.. To date, there is no observed, measured evidence which establishes any coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. Do feel free to provide some if you think any exists. Without that, no amount of demonstration that CO2 levels are rising mean anything at all.
Thus far, I have provided 8 published studies that find that the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising but all find that we are not the ones driving the increase. They find that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanisms...They find that rising CO2 levels are the result of warming..not the cause of it.
More of the same...published science finds that we are not the ones driving atmospheric CO2 levels...and then there is the issue with demonstrating a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.
That is a verifiable fact, isn't it?
Of course...CO2 levels are greater now than they have been in the relatively recent past, but that doesn't mean anything...Hell, the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels in the 1000ppm range compared to our 400ppm....like I said, I have provided ample published science that finds that we are not the ones driving atmospheric CO2 levels...and in fact, our contribution to CO2 levels is vanishingly small. And again, there is no observed, measured evidence that demonstrates that rising CO2 causes warming...all the observed evidence shows that increasing CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause
-Second, we need to establish that CO2 is trapping heat.
Good luck with that...if CO2 trapped heat, there would be an inevitable tropospheric hot spot...alas, no such hot spot exists.
Again...the key word there is inferred...not observed, not measured, not anything but inferred and that is 20 years out of date...the claim went nowhere because it simply wasn't supportable by the evidence.
Here are some of the graphs from that paper..
This first image shows outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in 1970 vs 1997 The dark line is the IMG data (from 1997), and the gray line is the IRIS line (from (1970). The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970.
This next graph shows the OLR emission from TES (in 2006). The black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between the actual and model data.
This last graph shows the OLR emission from IMG (1997). Just like the previous figure, the black line is the actual measurement data, the red line is what the climate models show, and the blue line is the difference between actual and model data.
Print out the TES image showing the outgoing long wave in 2006 and the IRIS image showing outgoing long wave in 1970 and overlay them...they are identical in the CO2 wavelengths.
There is a reason that the study went nowhere....it didn't make the case.
This shows 2 different IR satellites showing a steady drop in radiation going out at the wavelengths of CO2.
Again verifiable.
Sorry guy....it shows nothing of the sort...print out the graphs and overlay them...no change in the outgoing long wave in the CO2 wavelengths between 1970 and 2006 in spite of considerable increases in atmospheric CO2.
Again...if CO2 were trapping energy, there would be an investable hot spot in the upper troposphere...no such hot spot exists...
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
This shows an analysis of high-resolution spectral data from the surface and isolates the different greenhouse gasses.
A fine example of being fooled by instrumentation...the instruments they are using are cooled to a temperature of roughly -80F....they are not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth...they are measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...place another identical instrument except uncooled next to the cooled one, and you won't measure any downdwelling radiation. The second law of thermodynamics says that it is not possible for energy to move from a cooler region to a warmer region without some work having been done to make that energy movement possible.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
This one is a study of heat buildup.
That is nothing but the output of models...failing models I might add...no empirical evidence there
-Lastly, we have to establish that humans are the cause of this rise in CO2.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Total Energy Annual Data
Here you see a precise calculation of all energy sources in the US similar information exists by nation.
I am not sure where you believe there is any empirical data demonstrating or establishing that we are the cause of the rise in CO2. All that shows is that humans produce CO2 and that different countries produce different amounts...all of our CO2 combined isn't even as much as termites make...Like I said, we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanism.
Here are several peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...
The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.
https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf
CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”
(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
Error - Cookies Turned Off
“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”
Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...
Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...
Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience
CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”
Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.
Here is yet another very recently paper published in Earth Sciences that finds that our contribution to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small...natural factors completely overwhelm our relatively minuscule CO2 production..
What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations :: Science Publishing Group
Abstract:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes that the inclining atmospheric CO2 concentration over recent years was almost exclusively determined by anthropogenic emissions, and this increase is made responsible for the rising temperature over the Industrial Era. Due to the far reaching consequences of this assertion, in this contribution we critically scrutinize different carbon cycle models and compare them with observations. We further contrast them with an alternative concept, which also includes temperature dependent natural emission and absorption with an uptake rate scaling proportional with the CO2 concentration. We show that this approach is in agreement with all observations, and under this premise not really human activities are responsible for the observed CO2increase and the expected temperature rise in the atmosphere, but just opposite the temperature itself dominantly controls the CO2 increase. Therefore, not CO2 but primarily native impacts are responsible for any observed climate changes.”
That paper expands on this paper which was published in the Journal of Global and Planetary Climate Change:
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere - ScienceDirect
Do these qualify as verifiable facts?
There are some verifiable facts there and some model output...do they in any way demonstrate that our CO2 production is in any way altering the global climate? Not a chance. Like I said, it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of alarmists. You have a few facts such as an increase in atmospheric CO2 which is real and verifiable...but then you hang a big assed, unsupportable assumption, and wild assed guesses on that fact suggesting that because CO2 is increasing, that we are responsible for the increase, and that the increase is causing warming...
The hard fact is that if CO2 were, in fact, capable of trapping heat in the atmosphere, there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the total outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere would be decreasing...again, print out the graphs from the study you provided and look at the actual measurements of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere...overlay the graphs and you can see that there is no change between 1970 and 2006...that is why that study never went anywhere...it didn't show what was being claimed...the only differences it showed was the difference between the model projections and the actual observations by the satellites....there was no difference in the outgoing LW in the CO2 wavelengths...
The climate models predict a tropospheric hot spot due to energy being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses...here is a contrast between what the models predict and what we actually observe.. As you can see...there is no hot spot because there is no energy being trapped within the atmosphere...
In order for that hot spot to exist, the amount of long wave radiation exiting at the top of the atmosphere would have to decrease...here are some observations of outgoing long wave radiation..as you can see, the amount of long wave exiting at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...therefore, no hot spot because CO2 is simply not capable of "trapping" anything at atmospheric pressures and temperatures.
You are letting journalists in the news media, politicians and self described climate activists tell you what the science says and are not verifying the truthfulness of what they are telling you either because you don't care, or because you don't believe you have enough education to understand the relatively simple science associated with climate...
Maybe you aren't aware that climate science is a soft science as opposed to the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, engineering, geology, meteorology, astrophysics, etc. A graduate from one of the hard sciences with a BS degree could teach any course within a climate science degree up to and including the PhD level...whereas a PhD climate scientist would not be able to effectively teach even the 4000 level courses leading to a BS in one of the hard sciences and would be hopelessly lost trying to teach courses in a masters or PhD program.Yet you acknowledge that my posted source show a steady increase in CO2 levels and even acknowledge that CO2 levels are rising. This means you have to have another source of CO2 emissions besides man to account for the rise. Do you?They find that we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making mechanisms
Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.
They didn't fail. Failing means there wrong. Falling within a margin of error is not being wrong. In fact, establishing that there are margins of error in measurements is one of the first lessons I had in my high school science class. As more information is gathered you can, and they have reduced the margin for error.Increasing the margin of error is acknowledging that more research needs to be done. Not an indication that the research is flawed. Especially because no other decent hypothesis is put forth by anyone.Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.I would avoid places like skeptical science if I were you...the fact is that climate science said that the tropospheric hot spot would be the smoking gun which proved man made climate change...then it didn't happen so they made a fallacious appeal to complexity.
Like I said, we know how much energy the sun puts out, but are just beginning the process of understanding how varying amounts of energy in particular wavelengths affect the climate...what you take to be a rational argument is in effect, nothing more than an unsupportable wild assed guess devised to detract from the deep embarrassment of hoping so badly for a tropospheric hot spot and then having it not show up.
Look...here is the bottom line. In real science, a hypothesis lives or dies based on how well it can predict what happens in the real world. In real science, one predictive failure is often enough to have a hypothesis tossed out in order to start work on a hypothesis that won't experience predictive failures. In all other cases, a predictive failure is sufficient reason to carefully examine the hypothesis, and make changes to see if it can be modified such that it no longer experiences predictive failures.
The radiative greenhouse effect has literally littered the scientific landscape with predictive failures over the past few decades....the sheer number of predictive failures is astounding and there have been no modifications to the hypothesis at all...the same failed physics are at work in the computer models that they originally began with.
In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to have a hypothesis tossed out or at the very least, undergo modification in an effort to make it more accurate....
And here is the bottom line...
In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are fine so long as the funding continues. Anyone, even a scientific illiterate should be able to grasp that simple fact and run with it. Do a google search and look at the plethora of predictive failures that the radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW have experienced over the past few decades and ask yourself why any hypothesis that has experienced that much predictive failure has managed to hang around...then consider science vs pseudoscience.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Also, I find it insanely ironic that someone who is on record saying he doesn't care if a person subjects himself to peer review is criticizing my choice of sourcing.
Increasing the margin of error is not a satisfactory answer to predictive failure..especially regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and the movement of energy through it... Increasing the margin of error is only an admission that the hypothesis is fatally flawed...increasing the margin of error is only a means of life support for a failed hypothesis...in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are acceptable so long as the funding continues...
When predictions fail, it is nothing but an acknowledgement that the research, and the hypothesis are flawed.....where they correct, there wouldn't be predictive failures.
Actually the theory I provided you is far better than the radiative greenhouse effect...like I said, it not only predicts the temperature here without the need of any fudge factor, but accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...a feat that the greenhouse hypothesis can't even begin to accomplish...
Politicians and activists don't like it though because the composition of the atmosphere is mostly irrelevant...the temperature of any given planet is the product of incoming solar radiation, gravity and the density of the atmosphere...if CO2 can't be portrayed as a demon, imagine the political power and money that would evaporate almost immediately... The very fact that politics is so incestuously intertwined with climate science should raise red flags to any person with an critical thinking skills at all...
