No question that co2 is a postive forcing

[Old Rocks]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

Really? You are not a scientist, so link us to some real information concerning that.

from the first google hit on CO2 saturation global warming. Cold Facts on Global Warming

of course you already knew this. you can't be this interested with AGW without stumbling upon the general physics of the problem. why did you insinuate that you didnt know that there is a diminishing return on added CO2?

So a blog by someone named TJ Nelson is supposed to be given equal weight to an article by the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Revere]

AGW "scientists" are not scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. So all the scientists in all the Scientific Societies are not scientists. Nor those in the National Academies of Science. Nor those in the major Universities around the world.

Yessirreeee......... Keep that tinfoil cap on your head at night so dangerous Librul thoughts do not enter your virgin skull. Watch for black helicopters as well.

 

[elvis]

I see. So all the scientists in all the Scientific Societies are not scientists. Nor those in the National Academies of Science. Nor those in the major Universities around the world.

Yessirreeee......... Keep that tinfoil cap on your head at night so dangerous Librul thoughts do not enter your virgin skull. Watch for black helicopters as well.

You're the one who calls all the scientists who dare be skeptics "shit scientists", dipshit.

 

[elvis]

AGW "scientists" are not scientists.

Yes they are.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. So all the scientists in all the Scientific Societies are not scientists. Nor those in the National Academies of Science. Nor those in the major Universities around the world.

Yessirreeee......... Keep that tinfoil cap on your head at night so dangerous Librul thoughts do not enter your virgin skull. Watch for black helicopters as well.

You're the one who calls all the scientists who dare be skeptics "shit scientists", dipshit.

Bullshit. I have called Lindzen and Singer whores for prostituting their acedemic credentials, not only concerning AGW, but also concerning tobacco.

I have never said the same of Dr. Spencer or Dr. Christie. Both state that it is warming, and that GHGs are a factor in that warming. However, they state it is a minor factor, and that there are other more important factors. The vast majority of climatologists disagree. By a ratio of 75 to 2. After reading the arguements of the scientists, I find those citing the GHGs more believable, expecially after reading the AIP article.

 

[Bern80]

I see. So all the scientists in all the Scientific Societies are not scientists. Nor those in the National Academies of Science. Nor those in the major Universities around the world.

Yessirreeee......... Keep that tinfoil cap on your head at night so dangerous Librul thoughts do not enter your virgin skull. Watch for black helicopters as well.

It's your premise that's wrong Rocks. I know you love to whip out your tired 'all the scientific instutions and organizations' agree with me line of bullshit. I would really like to see that list of organizations that signed said they agree with the statement that man is the main cause of the current warming trend. The only report I can recall any organizations supporting was the '07 IPCC report, which was found to have more than a few problems as I recall.

Then let's look at the concept of some organization somehow officially stating they support the theory that man is the main cause of the current warming trend. Does that mean all the scientists in the organization support that claim? Of course that isn't a conclusion that can be drawn. No, more likely, if such declarations do exist, they were made by whomever was in charge at the time. You couple that with how scientific organizations are funded and such a declarations credibility isn't worth the paper it's printed on even if it does exist. You're a fool if you don't think the source of a groups funding doesn't affect their 'official position' on a scientific theory.

 

[konradv]

They are dealing with parts per million and parts per billion. That is like someone saying that 1/4 teaspoon increase in a measuring cup is "a huge increase". It is made purposefully vague. Tell us about the "overall" percentages. Have they changed? Is nitrogen or oxygen being dispaced by carbon?

Calling someone "ignorant" is not answering the question. Can you answer the question: have the overall percentages of carbon changed in the atmosphere? Please don't answer in ppm or ppb, thanks.

I'm afraid your analysis is faulty. It's not like adding a 1/4 tsp to a cup, but adding a 1/4 cup to a cup. That IS significant, even if you're talking logarithimically, that's a 10% increase in the temperature "forcing" effect of CO2. Overall percentages of CO2 are irrelevant. What's important is the well-known effect of the relatively low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during pre-industrial ages vs. the today's concentration. Displacing O2 and N2 is also irrelevant. They aren't GHGs and really don't figure in the discussion.

That really isn't accurate either. Or at the very least if we want to continue with this kind of analogy, we need to know what's in the cup, if you will. Is the cup representing the atmosphere and all of its 'ingredients' or does the cup just have CO2?

Just CO2 in my analogy. O2 and N2 are irrelevant, since they're not GHGs, and water vapor, while a very potent GHG, does not have an effect on CO2 levels and enters and leaves the atmosphere readily. Rather it's the other way around. Increased CO2, trapping increased energy, leads to higher temps and therfore more water evaporation, further increasing temps through the GHG action of H2O. Therefore, while increases in CO2 may be small in absolute terms the danger is that it can act as like a stereo amplifier in which a small change in voltage leads to a large change in volume. In this case CO2 is the voltage and temps are the volume.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science that refuses to test itself in a laboratory is no longer science; it's fiction

 

[konradv]

Science that refuses to test itself in a laboratory is no longer science; it's fiction

How would you know? There's lots of science that's not done in a laboratory. Nobody's refusing to do experiments you suggest, it's just ludicrous to think you can create a whole climate in a lab. Science usually isn't done that way, anyway. Things are usually dissected into its component parts to test each without the confounding interference from the others. After that's complete, the story is then reconstructed in an attempt to recreate the whole. You can have issues with the conclusions, but to say it's not science because they don't do experiments the way you want them to is ludicrous.

 

[Bern80]

Just CO2 in my analogy. O2 and N2 are irrelevant, since they're not GHGs, and water vapor, while a very potent GHG, does not have an effect on CO2 levels and enters and leaves the atmosphere readily. Rather it's the other way around. Increased CO2, trapping increased energy, leads to higher temps and therfore more water evaporation, further increasing temps through the GHG action of H2O. Therefore, while increases in CO2 may be small in absolute terms the danger is that it can act as like a stereo amplifier in which a small change in voltage leads to a large change in volume. In this case CO2 is the voltage and temps are the volume.

That's another interesting debate that has come up recently. Do you count water vapor or not? If you don't count water vapor as a GHG, then CO2 makes up about 99% of the various GHGs in the atmosphere. If you do count water vapor as one of those GHGs then the percentage of the total that CO2 makes up plummets to about 4%.

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. So all the scientists in all the Scientific Societies are not scientists. Nor those in the National Academies of Science. Nor those in the major Universities around the world.

Yessirreeee......... Keep that tinfoil cap on your head at night so dangerous Librul thoughts do not enter your virgin skull. Watch for black helicopters as well.

It's your premise that's wrong Rocks. I know you love to whip out your tired 'all the scientific instutions and organizations' agree with me line of bullshit. I would really like to see that list of organizations that signed said they agree with the statement that man is the main cause of the current warming trend. The only report I can recall any organizations supporting was the '07 IPCC report, which was found to have more than a few problems as I recall.

Then let's look at the concept of some organization somehow officially stating they support the theory that man is the main cause of the current warming trend. Does that mean all the scientists in the organization support that claim? Of course that isn't a conclusion that can be drawn. No, more likely, if such declarations do exist, they were made by whomever was in charge at the time. You couple that with how scientific organizations are funded and such a declarations credibility isn't worth the paper it's printed on even if it does exist. You're a fool if you don't think the source of a groups funding doesn't affect their 'official position' on a scientific theory.

A partial list

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

A much more complete list with parts of the statements by each organization.


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements by dissenting organizations

With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.[2][3]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases.

 

[westwall]

Science that refuses to test itself in a laboratory is no longer science; it's fiction

How would you know? There's lots of science that's not done in a laboratory. Nobody's refusing to do experiments you suggest, it's just ludicrous to think you can create a whole climate in a lab. Science usually isn't done that way, anyway. Things are usually dissected into its component parts to test each without the confounding interference from the others. After that's complete, the story is then reconstructed in an attempt to recreate the whole. You can have issues with the conclusions, but to say it's not science because they don't do experiments the way you want them to is ludicrous.

You don't need to recreate a whole climate in a lab to test the theory konrad. You need to design a box (it needs to be about the size of a small building) that has zero outside influence except for sunlight. Then you have to recreate the atmospheric content and finally you need to run the experiment one time with no added CO2 for about a month. Then again with added CO2 levels up till you can see a effect.

It is a simple, relatively inexpensive experiment, and no climatologist has ever done it. Because they know it will not have the effect they want it to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just CO2 in my analogy. O2 and N2 are irrelevant, since they're not GHGs, and water vapor, while a very potent GHG, does not have an effect on CO2 levels and enters and leaves the atmosphere readily. Rather it's the other way around. Increased CO2, trapping increased energy, leads to higher temps and therfore more water evaporation, further increasing temps through the GHG action of H2O. Therefore, while increases in CO2 may be small in absolute terms the danger is that it can act as like a stereo amplifier in which a small change in voltage leads to a large change in volume. In this case CO2 is the voltage and temps are the volume.

That's another interesting debate that has come up recently. Do you count water vapor or not? If you don't count water vapor as a GHG, then CO2 makes up about 99% of the various GHGs in the atmosphere. If you do count water vapor as one of those GHGs then the percentage of the total that CO2 makes up plummets to about 4%.

Of course you count water vapor. It is the primary GHG. However, it has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than 10 days. That means that if you put as much water vapor in the air as possible, in ten days, it would be gone, and only a minor blip in the heat content of the atmosphere to show for it.

Now if you double the amount of CO2, it will be millenia before we are back to 280 ppm. And for that whole time, it will be adding heat to the atmosphere, which results in more water vapor, and even more heat.

In other words, water vapor is potent feedback to CO2. In fact, there have been times when most of the CO2 was removed from our atmosphere by the weathering of rock, and there was ice on the ocean clear down to the equator.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is the Earth Warming?

 

[Bern80]

Is the Earth Warming?

Umm, did you by chance actually read that before you posted it?

Problems abound with these directions for a high school science class experiment;

First the title, 'Is the Earth Warming' if you actually read the experiment you will see the purpose of the experiment is not to measure wether temp increases with an influx of CO2. Its purpose is to measure how quickly heat is lost. Two very different things.

Second would be the list of gases and their sources. They only list one, burning fossil fuels. Which is not only NOT the only source of CO2, but one of the smaller ones.

Third and maybe most damning is the question is never answered. There are no results. All you posted were directions for conducting a high school science experment that doesn't even answer the question in its title. Bravo rocks!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science that refuses to test itself in a laboratory is no longer science; it's fiction

How would you know? There's lots of science that's not done in a laboratory. Nobody's refusing to do experiments you suggest, it's just ludicrous to think you can create a whole climate in a lab. Science usually isn't done that way, anyway. Things are usually dissected into its component parts to test each without the confounding interference from the others. After that's complete, the story is then reconstructed in an attempt to recreate the whole. You can have issues with the conclusions, but to say it's not science because they don't do experiments the way you want them to is ludicrous.

Still having troubling posting the one repeatable laboratory experiment that show a temperature increase form a 200PPM increase in CO2.

I am CrusaderFrank's shock and disbelief.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is the Earth Warming?

Umm, did you by chance actually read that before you posted it?

Problems abound with these directions for a high school science class experiment;

First the title, 'Is the Earth Warming' if you actually read the experiment you will see the purpose of the experiment is not to measure wether temp increases with an influx of CO2. Its purpose is to measure how quickly heat is lost. Two very different things.

Second would be the list of gases and their sources. They only list one, burning fossil fuels. Which is not only NOT the only source of CO2, but one of the smaller ones.

Third and maybe most damning is the question is never answered. There are no results. All you posted were directions for conducting a high school science experment that doesn't even answer the question in its title. Bravo rocks!

Care to show any significant source of non-cyclic CO2? And volcanos don't cut it, they emit less than 1% of the amount of CO2 that the burning of fossil fuels does, USGS figures.

 

[Bern80]

Is the Earth Warming?

Umm, did you by chance actually read that before you posted it?

Problems abound with these directions for a high school science class experiment;

First the title, 'Is the Earth Warming' if you actually read the experiment you will see the purpose of the experiment is not to measure wether temp increases with an influx of CO2. Its purpose is to measure how quickly heat is lost. Two very different things.

Second would be the list of gases and their sources. They only list one, burning fossil fuels. Which is not only NOT the only source of CO2, but one of the smaller ones.

Third and maybe most damning is the question is never answered. There are no results. All you posted were directions for conducting a high school science experment that doesn't even answer the question in its title. Bravo rocks!

Care to show any significant source of non-cyclic CO2? And volcanos don't cut it, they emit less than 1% of the amount of CO2 that the burning of fossil fuels does, USGS figures.

What on earth are you talking about now? You posted a link that asked 'Is the earth warming'. The link is lacking to say the least. What was your original point there?

 

[westwall]

Is the Earth Warming?

Umm, did you by chance actually read that before you posted it?

Problems abound with these directions for a high school science class experiment;

First the title, 'Is the Earth Warming' if you actually read the experiment you will see the purpose of the experiment is not to measure wether temp increases with an influx of CO2. Its purpose is to measure how quickly heat is lost. Two very different things.

Second would be the list of gases and their sources. They only list one, burning fossil fuels. Which is not only NOT the only source of CO2, but one of the smaller ones.

Third and maybe most damning is the question is never answered. There are no results. All you posted were directions for conducting a high school science experment that doesn't even answer the question in its title. Bravo rocks!

The vast majority of these types of "experiments" and I use the term very loosly, measure the Ideal Gas Laws. They don't measure CO2 effect at all.