France record temperature.....more fakery!!

[SSDD]

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.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

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.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhous Gases)

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.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

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 CO₂: 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.

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

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?

Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

 

[westwall]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

Guess you didn't read the link where they were showing newspaper articles from way back in the day that shows temps hotter than the so called record.

 

[westwall]

Global warming anyone?

No evidence for that point of view.

 

[forkup]

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. .

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 ...

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 - Climatica
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.

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.

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...

Baring Head greenhouse gases
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.

Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.
By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

 

[forkup]

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.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

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.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
WDCGG (World Data Centre for Greenhous Gases)

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.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

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 CO₂: 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.

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

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?

Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

 

[forkup]

Actually, predictive failures with highly complex data are to be expected. That's why models provide ranges.
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...

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.

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...

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.

Failed prediction means that they were wrong...there is no other way to look at it...predictive failures are prima facie evidence that the hypothesis is flawed...

And increasing the margin of error is in no way a corrective action...inreasing the margin of error is only an acknowledgement that the errors are going to become greater and by increasing the margin, they can claim that the errors of the same old failed hypothesis are still within the margin of error.

At this point, you are doing nothing but apologizing for the failure of climate science...

There is another way to look at it. The way a scientist looks at it. When making predictions you provide a margin for error if you know you have to account for uncertainties. Evolution, for instance, doesn't specify what exact changes will occur to any given species. It simply predicts that they will.

 

[SSDD]

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 ...

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 - Climatica
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.

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...

Baring Head greenhouse gases
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.

Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.[/QUOTE]

When we go back further into the past, we are going deeper into the ice age that the earth is presently exiting...remember the experiment I suggested with the sodas...both open, one on the counter, one in the refrigerator....the cold soda is going to still have some fizz because cold water holds far more CO2 than warm water.... If you go further back, and deeper into an ice age, do you think you are going to find warmer oceans or cooler oceans? Which holds more CO2...warm oceans or cold oceans? If cold oceans hold more CO2, what effect might that have on atmospheric CO2?

You don't seem to be willing to use your brain to think through even the most elementary facts...well known facts. Your graphic is derived from the Vostok ice cores....there are versions of that graph that demonstrate CO2 following increases in temperature...indicating that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming, not the cause of warming...You seem to want to apply the coincidence that the industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age and make it mean that we are causing the increase in CO2, when every bit of hard data we have show that it simply is not true...Increased CO2 follows temperature change it is not the cause...

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's still hotter than all its other measurements. So what's your problem?

The post makes the "problem" perfectly clear...how they got it and why it is hotter.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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

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.

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...

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.


That is nothing but the output of models...failing models I might add...no empirical evidence there

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 CO₂: 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


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.

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

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?

Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

 

[forkup]

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 - Climatica
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.

Baring Head greenhouse gases
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.

Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

 

[forkup]

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?

Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual interglacials have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.

 

[SSDD]

By the way...

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.

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.

Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

No...you are not using your brain...it shows a little way back into a single ice age...what you are seeing are interglacials...not individual ice ages...and the gas data from ice cores in so far as actual atmospheric concentrations are a bit dubious at best....we can see that CO2 increases follow temperature increases...exactly how much CO2 was present, is not so well known... and the further the earth gets out of the ice age, the more CO2 will be released....Like I have already pointed out...at the point when the present ice age began...a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years ago by the way, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. On average, since mammals evolved, atmospheric CO2 has been in the 2000 to 2500ppm range...low numbers such as 300, and even 400 are the product of the cool temperatures of an ice age...most of earth's history has not happened during ice ages and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that the ideal temperatures for life on earth could be found during an ice age...ice at one or both poles on earth is the anomaly...not the norm. Most of earth's history...including the time since mammals evolved has not seen ice at one or both poles.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting on those links s0n....we are not in Starbucks.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual ice ages have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.

We are still in an ice age and it has been going on for a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years....those peaks and valleys your graph showed are interproximals...and the further we get from the depths of ice age, the more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere...and again...the ice cores can tell us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but they don't really give us really reliable numbers regarding the actual CO2 concentrations of the time...this is well known and accepted by both skeptics and alarmists...it isn't difficult to find if you have any interest in learning at all.

Just for your information, the present ice age is something over 2.6 million years old...our oldest ice cores go back to about a million years ago and the concentrations off the gasses found in those bubbles get less reliable as you go further back in time...

 

[forkup]

By the way...

Again if it's volcanoes why would that increase start around 1850. Volcanoes weren't active before that?

Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

No...you are not using your brain...it shows a little way back into a single ice age...what you are seeing are interglacials...not individual ice ages...and the gas data from ice cores in so far as actual atmospheric concentrations are a bit dubious at best....we can see that CO2 increases follow temperature increases...exactly how much CO2 was present, is not so well known... and the further the earth gets out of the ice age, the more CO2 will be released....Like I have already pointed out...at the point when the present ice age began...a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years ago by the way, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. On average, since mammals evolved, atmospheric CO2 has been in the 2000 to 2500ppm range...low numbers such as 300, and even 400 are the product of the cool temperatures of an ice age...most of earth's history has not happened during ice ages and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that the ideal temperatures for life on earth could be found during an ice age...ice at one or both poles on earth is the anomaly...not the norm. Most of earth's history...including the time since mammals evolved has not seen ice at one or both poles.

I stand corrected you are right one ice age. Doesn't help your case one iota tough. That 800000 years cover several interglacials. Never has it shown an increase of this magnitude. What is the difference this time if not humans?

 

[forkup]

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Third time I posted this one I think.

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual ice ages have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.

We are still in an ice age and it has been going on for a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years....those peaks and valleys your graph showed are interproximals...and the further we get from the depths of ice age, the more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere...and again...the ice cores can tell us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but they don't really give us really reliable numbers regarding the actual CO2 concentrations of the time...this is well known and accepted by both skeptics and alarmists...it isn't difficult to find if you have any interest in learning at all.

That graph didn't show an increase in the amount of CO2 as they were going from one interglacial to another. That jump only happened now. And not over the periods that rising CO2 levels usually take from low to high end but that last 100 ppm happened considerably faster.

 

[SSDD]

By the way...

Had you even taken a cursory look at the papers I provided that looked at the human contribution to the total CO2...or any of the numerous ice core studies available, you would know that increases in CO2 follow temperature changes...increases follow by a couple of hundred years on average...more efficient decay of organic material due to warmer temperatures and outgassing of warmer oceans are the primary cause but they lag by, as I said, a couple of hundred years on average...sometimes less, sometimes a good deal longer.

This is well known information, born out by ice core study after ice core study. It should be no surprise whatsoever that as temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 is going to increase at a pretty steady rate as time moves on...climate science knows this quite well...do you possibly wonder why they don't bother publicizing it? Why do you have to find out on the street so to speak?

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

No...you are not using your brain...it shows a little way back into a single ice age...what you are seeing are interglacials...not individual ice ages...and the gas data from ice cores in so far as actual atmospheric concentrations are a bit dubious at best....we can see that CO2 increases follow temperature increases...exactly how much CO2 was present, is not so well known... and the further the earth gets out of the ice age, the more CO2 will be released....Like I have already pointed out...at the point when the present ice age began...a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years ago by the way, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. On average, since mammals evolved, atmospheric CO2 has been in the 2000 to 2500ppm range...low numbers such as 300, and even 400 are the product of the cool temperatures of an ice age...most of earth's history has not happened during ice ages and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that the ideal temperatures for life on earth could be found during an ice age...ice at one or both poles on earth is the anomaly...not the norm. Most of earth's history...including the time since mammals evolved has not seen ice at one or both poles.

I stand corrected you are right one ice age. Doesn't help your case one iota tough. That 800000 years cover several interglacials. Never has it shown an increase of this magnitude. What is the difference this time if not humans.

Like I said...it is well known that the concentrations in ppm found in those bubbles are questionable at best....they can show us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but don't really give us anything like reliable information on the actual amount of CO2 that was present at any given time and the further back you go, the more questionable the data becomes...since all the actual science being done on the topic finds that we are not the cause of the increased CO2, there is little reason to suspect that there is any real difference between CO2 concentrations now and those of other interglacials...

And there remains the fact that there is not the first piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere so your assumption that increased CO2 is somehow causing warming is nothing but that...a great big assumption supported by nothing more than discredited quaint 19th century hobbies level science...there is no empirical data that demonstrates that increased CO2 causes any warming at all...you seem to be keen to ignore that glaring fact as you meander your way down the standard alarmist handwaving account of the disaster to come.

 

[SSDD]

Obsolete, useless data...superceded by the billion dollar plus OCO-2 satellite which paints a far different picture than the manipulated, cherry picked data from ESRL..

Post it 3 more times...or 300...it is still going to be obsolete, cherry picked data contradicted by observed satellite data.

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual ice ages have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.

We are still in an ice age and it has been going on for a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years....those peaks and valleys your graph showed are interproximals...and the further we get from the depths of ice age, the more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere...and again...the ice cores can tell us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but they don't really give us really reliable numbers regarding the actual CO2 concentrations of the time...this is well known and accepted by both skeptics and alarmists...it isn't difficult to find if you have any interest in learning at all.

That graph didn't show an increase in the amount of CO2 as they were going from one interglacial to another. That jump only happened now. And not over the periods that rising CO2 levels usually take from low to high end but that last 100 ppm happened considerably faster.

The CO2 concentrations in that graph and any other graph derived from ice cores are dubious at best...this isn't a secret...any climate scientist will tell you that the numbers are not reliable...hell even alarmist quagmires like skeptical science acknowledge that the only argument that is possible to make regarding gasses derived from ice cores is that they show that increases in CO2 follow temperature increases... there is no argument to be made with ice cores other than that they show increased CO2 follows increased temperatures and warming and cooling periods within interglacials are natural, and that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[forkup]

By the way...

So you changed your position from "it's volcanoes" to outgassing? Don't try to hold a consistent position or anything.

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

No...you are not using your brain...it shows a little way back into a single ice age...what you are seeing are interglacials...not individual ice ages...and the gas data from ice cores in so far as actual atmospheric concentrations are a bit dubious at best....we can see that CO2 increases follow temperature increases...exactly how much CO2 was present, is not so well known... and the further the earth gets out of the ice age, the more CO2 will be released....Like I have already pointed out...at the point when the present ice age began...a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years ago by the way, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. On average, since mammals evolved, atmospheric CO2 has been in the 2000 to 2500ppm range...low numbers such as 300, and even 400 are the product of the cool temperatures of an ice age...most of earth's history has not happened during ice ages and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that the ideal temperatures for life on earth could be found during an ice age...ice at one or both poles on earth is the anomaly...not the norm. Most of earth's history...including the time since mammals evolved has not seen ice at one or both poles.

I stand corrected you are right one ice age. Doesn't help your case one iota tough. That 800000 years cover several interglacials. Never has it shown an increase of this magnitude. What is the difference this time if not humans.

Like I said...it is well known that the concentrations in ppm found in those bubbles are questionable at best....they can show us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but don't really give us anything like reliable information on the actual amount of CO2 that was present at any given time and the further back you go, the more questionable the data becomes...since all the actual science being done on the topic finds that we are not the cause of the increased CO2, there is little reason to suspect that there is any real difference between CO2 concentrations now and those of other interglacials...

And there remains the fact that there is not the first piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere so your assumption that increased CO2 is somehow causing warming is nothing but that...a great big assumption supported by nothing more than discredited quaint 19th century hobbies level science...there is no empirical data that demonstrates that increased CO2 causes any warming at all...you seem to be keen to ignore that glaring fact as you meander your way down the standard alarmist handwaving account of the disaster to come.

As I said before. When you ask for empirical evidence. Some of which you have even posted yourself, you simply reject as being unreliable or a conspiracy all of that evidence that undermines your position. You revert to like now simply making bold statements. I love by the way that you call the greenhouse effect first 19th-century hobby level science and then to claim it's been disproven.

Do this experiment and tell me your result.

 

[forkup]

Luckily for me, you were so friendly to post that data. Lowest end a few spots with 387 ppm. A far cry from the pre-industrial under 300 mark.

The industrial revolution began towards the end of the little ice age....the earth has been warming out of the little ice age ever since...warmer oceans, warmer land equals more outgassing and more efficient decay of organic materials both on land and in the oceans resulting in more CO2...all the available hard data show that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause...this is a very simple concept to grasp and has shown itself to be accurate in ice core after ice core after ice core...one wonders why you deny this well known science in favor of pseudoscience.

And then there is the fact that the earth hasn't even warmed to the temperatures that existed prior to the onset of the little ice age....do you find it unusual that we wouldn't at least warm that far considering that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

-Previous warming periods. I'm talking about coming out of actual ice ages have NEVER in the history of the known records caused an increase in CO2 levels to over 400ppm not even close.

We are still in an ice age and it has been going on for a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years....those peaks and valleys your graph showed are interproximals...and the further we get from the depths of ice age, the more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere...and again...the ice cores can tell us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but they don't really give us really reliable numbers regarding the actual CO2 concentrations of the time...this is well known and accepted by both skeptics and alarmists...it isn't difficult to find if you have any interest in learning at all.

That graph didn't show an increase in the amount of CO2 as they were going from one interglacial to another. That jump only happened now. And not over the periods that rising CO2 levels usually take from low to high end but that last 100 ppm happened considerably faster.

The CO2 concentrations in that graph and any other graph derived from ice cores are dubious at best...this isn't a secret...any climate scientist will tell you that the numbers are not reliable...hell even alarmist quagmires like skeptical science acknowledge that the only argument that is possible to make regarding gasses derived from ice cores is that they show that increases in CO2 follow temperature increases... there is no argument to be made with ice cores other than that they show increased CO2 follows increased temperatures and warming and cooling periods within interglacials are natural, and that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Not reliable? Their ranges are consistent though. Do you have any reason to believe that those ranges are off by a factor of about 100 percent besides the fact that you don't believe it personally? Cause they would have to be to explain the current CO2 levels.

 

[SSDD]

By the way...

I am saying that there are multiple natural sources of CO2...they are all variable and they dwarf our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...You on the other hand seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are natural sources of CO2 and prefer to think that man is responsible for the increase regardless of what the actual evidence shows.

By the way.

The highest CO2 level according to the graph found in Ice cores over 800000 years. A bit under 300 ppm. Today well over 400ppm. Care to venture to give a reason for the increase if not human CO2 emissions?CO2 Ice Core Data
Feel free to tell me how it's a conspiracy. Or if you can find a source that claims otherwise.

Lol I'm not using my brain??? The 800000 year time period does show variance which includes several ice ages several supervolcanoes and other gigantic natural disasters. A variance from about 180 ppm to about 300 ppm at its high mark. What you are claiming is that this variance all of a sudden explains an increase that is over 100 ppm higher than any previously recorded measurement. That doesn't sound highly dubious to you?

No...you are not using your brain...it shows a little way back into a single ice age...what you are seeing are interglacials...not individual ice ages...and the gas data from ice cores in so far as actual atmospheric concentrations are a bit dubious at best....we can see that CO2 increases follow temperature increases...exactly how much CO2 was present, is not so well known... and the further the earth gets out of the ice age, the more CO2 will be released....Like I have already pointed out...at the point when the present ice age began...a hell of a lot more than 800,000 years ago by the way, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm. On average, since mammals evolved, atmospheric CO2 has been in the 2000 to 2500ppm range...low numbers such as 300, and even 400 are the product of the cool temperatures of an ice age...most of earth's history has not happened during ice ages and it never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that the ideal temperatures for life on earth could be found during an ice age...ice at one or both poles on earth is the anomaly...not the norm. Most of earth's history...including the time since mammals evolved has not seen ice at one or both poles.

I stand corrected you are right one ice age. Doesn't help your case one iota tough. That 800000 years cover several interglacials. Never has it shown an increase of this magnitude. What is the difference this time if not humans.

Like I said...it is well known that the concentrations in ppm found in those bubbles are questionable at best....they can show us that increases in CO2 follow warming, but don't really give us anything like reliable information on the actual amount of CO2 that was present at any given time and the further back you go, the more questionable the data becomes...since all the actual science being done on the topic finds that we are not the cause of the increased CO2, there is little reason to suspect that there is any real difference between CO2 concentrations now and those of other interglacials...

And there remains the fact that there is not the first piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere so your assumption that increased CO2 is somehow causing warming is nothing but that...a great big assumption supported by nothing more than discredited quaint 19th century hobbies level science...there is no empirical data that demonstrates that increased CO2 causes any warming at all...you seem to be keen to ignore that glaring fact as you meander your way down the standard alarmist handwaving account of the disaster to come.

As I said before. When you ask for empirical evidence. Some of which you have even posted yourself, you simply reject as being unreliable or a conspiracy all of that evidence that undermines your position. You revert to like now simply making bold statements. I love by the way that you call the greenhouse effect first 19th-century hobby level science and then to claim it's been disproven.

Do this experiment and tell me your result.

Terribly sorry guy...once more...fooled by instrumentation. And I have done the experiment myself...and got the same result as he did...or someone else who was doing the same experiment and not knowing what the were demonstrating. Look up a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...that is what that experiment is demonstrating, not a greenhouse effect driven by CO2.

Here is the text from a video which did the same experiment twice...once with the bottles capped as the guy in your video is doing and once with the bottles vented. (note: CO2 is heavier than air so venting the top of the bottle does not result in the CO2 floating away. When you have the bottle capped, you get a fine demonstration of a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...which will be explained in the text....when you have the bottles vented so that they do not build up any pressure, the temperature within the bottles remain the same no matter how much CO2 you have in the "greenhouse" bottle. By the way...the CO2 concentration in those bottles is usually in the 8000 to 10,000ppm range compared to 400ppm in our atmosphere. So without further adieu, here is the text to that very experiment run two times...

"A popular science experiment that purports to prove that adding extra carbon dioxide to the air will cause an enhanced "greenhouse effect" goes something like this.

Start with two bottles:

One of the bottles is left with regular air in it
and the other bottle is filled with carbon dioxide
from a seltzer bottle, carbon dioxide cartridge, dry ice or whatever.

Experiment #1

Since I used data recorders to monitor the temperature inside the bottles in my experiment, I put these recorders into the bottles before adding the carbon dioxide to one of them.

I left a third data recorder outside of the bottles away from the experiment but in the same room so that I could measure the temperature change of each gas above room temperature when they were heated with infrared radiation.

I then closed the lids on both bottles tight enough to keep the gases from escaping during the experiment. Once the bottles were prepared heat lamps of equal strength were positioned at equal distance from each bottle and the lamps were then turned on.

I recorded what happened and here are my results.

On this graph the red line is the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is the temperature of the regular air.

The carbon dioxide reached about 22 degrees Celsius above room temperature, while the regular air only reached about 16 degrees Celsius above room temperature.

As you can also see in this graph the carbon dioxide got warmer more quickly than the regular air and stayed about 6 degrees Celsius warmer throughout the experiment.

This experiment has been performed hundreds of times at science fairs around the country and it is proclaimed to be empirical evidence of the 'greenhouse effect', which postulates that the greater warming of the carbon dioxide in this experiment is caused by the carbon dioxide absorbing more infrared radiation than did the regular air, thus affirming the belief that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will cause it to be warmer than it would otherwise be.

Experiment #2

So, after the bottles cooled to room temperature
I repeated the experiment with the lids vented to allow the gases to expand as they would in the real atmosphere and these are the results that I got.

As you can see, that which was being called the "greenhouse effect" disappeared when the gases were allowed to expand freely the way they do in the outside atmosphere.

On this second graph the red line is still the temperature of the carbon dioxide and the blue line is still the temperature of the air, but as you can see they now track together quite nicely.

Also notice that without the 'heat of compression' even the air only warms about 7 degrees Celsius, which is less than half of the 16 degrees Celsius of warming that it experienced under the 'heat of compression.'

....you get the graph on the right, which shows virtually no temperature differential between carbon dioxide and air when heated by infrared radiation.

What can we conclude from this experiment?

When carbon dioxide is allowed to expand when heated it does not become any warmer than does regular air, therefore this experiment contains no evidence that carbon dioxide causes an enhanced "greenhouse effect".

Rather it confirms what is already know, that carbon dioxide has, what is called, a greater "coefficient of thermal expansion" than does regular air.
If you are paying attention though, this experiment has an even greater lesson to teach us.

The Greater Lesson

So, how then might this experiment serve as a metaphor for what's happening in the larger world of climate science today?

Is it possible that a similar misidentification of natural forces exists on a larger scale within the real world atmosphere? Let's take a look.

And it goes on with the discussion...if you want a link, I can provide it for you...I performed this experiment several times for kids in school and always got the same result..

By the way...the experiment above used dry bottles..no water was inside. He used a CO2 tank to add CO2 to the "greenhouse" bottle. Using bottles with water and adding CO2 by Alka Seltzer bubbles up a fair amount of water vapor into the bottle and skews your results as water vapor, unlike CO2 actually can absorb and retain heat....water vapor has some properties due to its ability to exist in several phases (ice, water, vapor) at atmospheric temperatures that CO2 does not.

So no...you still haven't provided any evidence that CO2 can cause warming...you have demonstrated that A) you were being honest when you said that you didn't have any real grasp of science or B) you have a grasp of the science and thought that perhaps I didn't and could be fooled by that sort of side show huxterism which is perhaps good enough to fool little school kids, but certainly not anyone with even a basic understanding of physics...