OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[catatomic]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.

You should really keep an open mind. A lot of the posters here really stray away from science and get their "theorys" from blogs. This forum is not the place to form an opinion.

This is one of the best explanations of the green house effect that I've seen.
Simple Models of Climate

Current understanding begins at the paragraph next to Fourier's picture. It starts with

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation?​

The article doesn't require much physics knowledge, but it is long and not an easy read.

Once again this article never got around to putting a sound mathematical footing on Climate Change and explains how people like the IPCC might have fooled around with the data.

 

[SSDD]

So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?

I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.

Still as dishonest, or stupid as the day is long I see. Guess we know that your long absence hasn't been spent on a vision quest of self improvement.

I didn't ask for simple observations and measurements did I? I asked for a single bit of observed, measured data THAT SUPPORTS THE AGW HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY....OR A SINGLE OBSERVED MEASUREMENT THAT ESTABLISHES A COHERENT LINK BETWEEN THE ABSORPTION OF IR BY A GAS AND WARMING THE THE ATMOSPHERE.

So here we are again...you dodging...pretending...sidestepping....lying your ass off rather than simply admitting that you just can't find any such data.

Or maybe you are so stupid that you actually believe that because they have actual observed, measured data there, that it must support the AGW hypothesis...maybe you believe that observations of air temperature support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...maybe you believe that simple observations of sea surface temperatures support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...could it be that you believe that observations of melting ice support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Are you really stupid enough to believe that simple observations of that sort support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Are you one of those idiots who just believes what he is told because he isn't smart enough to do even rudimentary thinking on his own? You think that because someone can tack on a couple of letters behind his name that he is inherently more intelligent than you? Someone with a couple of letters behind his name told you that this temperature observation is proof of AGW and you just said OK..and then went about spreading the word as it was handed down to you? Are you the sort of dim bulb who is easily fooled by instrumentation and simply assumes that because the dial indicates a number, it means just what you were told that it means?

You are......aren't you?

So take your lying ass back to that steaming pile of IPCC bullshit and bring back a single bit of observed, measured data THAT SUPPORTS THE AGW HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VAEIBILITY or simply admit that there is nothing like that over there...admit that there isn't a single thing in all those thousands of pages which you claim to have been through that would support AGW over natural variability......

Or you could skip that part and tell some more lies...that is what comes most natural to you and requires the least effort after all....isn't it?

 

[SSDD]

And... silence

The silence is you inability to produce even one piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or a single measured observation that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.

You should really keep an open mind. A lot of the posters here really stray away from science and get their "theorys" from blogs. This forum is not the place to form an opinion.

This is one of the best explanations of the green house effect that I've seen.
Simple Models of Climate

Current understanding begins at the paragraph next to Fourier's picture. It starts with

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation?​

The article doesn't require much physics knowledge, but it is long and not an easy read.

Once again this article never got around to putting a sound mathematical footing on Climate Change and explains how people like the IPCC might have fooled around with the data.

You won't get anything like real information from warmers...they walk around in a daze believing that the science is settled when the fact is that they wouldn't recognize science if it bit them on the ass. The fact is that there are literally millions of hours of design, observation, measurement, and commercial application that demonstrate very clearly that infrared radiation (which is the basis of the AGW hypothesis) does not, and can not warm the air. Visit the web site of any engineering firm in the business of producing infrared heaters for residential, or commercial applications...they point out that their product, which produces infrared radiation does not waste energy warming air, which is very inefficient...it only warms solid objects which in turn warm the air via conduction. So unless there are some solid objects up there in the atmosphere that we are unaware of, the infrared radiation leaving the surface of the earth is not warming the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is warmed due to a combination of pressure, conduction, and convection. Most CO2 molecules that absorb a bit of infrared radiation lose that energy via a collision with another molecule, usually O2 or N2 before they can move that bit of infrared energy on in the form of radiation. Conduction is how the energy warms the atmosphere...not radiation...it is absurd to claim that the earth is warmed by a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is completely dominated by conduction.

 

[Crick]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Lets see if you will ignore this failure from the1990 IPCC report:

"Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.."

It was PREDICTION made in 1990 that it would warm on average of .30C per decade, but the Satellite data shows that it was HALF that rate:

It has warmed .40C total in 27 full years, and well short of 1C predicted by 2025,just 6 1/2 years from now.

You going to ignore it fella?

 

[SSDD]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Do you think that you are fooling anyone at all with that claim? I have asked repeatedly for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports AGW over natural variability...or a single observed measured piece of data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you can not deliver. All you can do is talk out of your ass and make excuses for why you can't deliver.

The last time you tried bringing a piece of data here, it turned out to be model output...and maybe you brought something that showed nothing more than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...what you haven't...and can't bring here is what I asked for because it doesn't exist...

Lets see it skidmark.....lets see how low you set your own bar for what constitutes evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...I am sure it will be entertaining if you aren't to embarrassed to cut and paste it here...

 

[SSDD]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Lets see if you will ignore this failure from the1990 IPCC report:

"Based on current model results, we predict:
• under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025.."

It was PREDICTION made in 1990 that it would warm on average of .30C per decade, but the Satellite data shows that it was HALF that rate:

View attachment 189243

It has warmed .40C total in 27 full years, and well short of 1C predicted by 2025,just 6 1/2 years from now.

You going to ignore it fella?

In crick's world, model output like that you just posted is observed, measured data....someone observed the paper coming out of the computer and I suppose it was a measurement of sorts...and it purports to show warming at an unprecedented rate so long as you don't look any further back in history than 1900.....so to him, that constitutes observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...his bar for evidence supporting AGW is so low that a sugar ant couldn't walk under it...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Do you think that you are fooling anyone at all with that claim? I have asked repeatedly for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports AGW over natural variability...or a single observed measured piece of data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...and you can not deliver. All you can do is talk out of your ass and make excuses for why you can't deliver.

The last time you tried bringing a piece of data here, it turned out to be model output...and maybe you brought something that showed nothing more than how easily you are fooled by instrumentation...what you haven't...and can't bring here is what I asked for because it doesn't exist...

Lets see it skidmark.....lets see how low you set your own bar for what constitutes evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...I am sure it will be entertaining if you aren't to embarrassed to cut and paste it here...

He will NEVER answer your reasonable request, since he doesn't know.

I see this a lot at another blog where similar question is asked of a certain warmist loon, who NEVER answer it.

 

[catatomic]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Right, but we have no data even telling when those experiments were done, and they may have noticed a starting trend and doubled down on it.

 

[SSDD]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Right, but we have no data even telling when those experiments were done, and they may have noticed a starting trend and doubled down on it.

Oh, there is data. Warmers just choose to ignore it. Tyndall, one of the so called "fathers" of the greenhouse hypothesis had this to say regarding carbonic acid gas...or as we know it CO2.. "Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources" That was in reference to experiments where he passed "calorific rays" (infrared radiation) through copper tubes filled with various gasses to see how they reacted.....how much they absorbed and how much they radiated...and he was working with concentrations in the range of 80,000ppm... He characterized CO2 as one of the feeblest absorbers of infrared radiation but warmers simply ignore that inconvenient bit of scientific history.

He further noted, in reference to the behavior of CO2 in his experiments..." Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays". Meaning that even when he cranked up the heat, the temperature of CO2 didn't change in any significant way.

 

[Crick]

"Feeble"? Just how do you quantify that term? Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?

Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since? Really? God are you stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Feeble"? Just how do you quantify that term? Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?

Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since? Really? God are you stupid.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You just destroyed your own argument with that chart, which clearly shows how little of the IR spectrum it absorbs in and how little it absorbs OUTGOING Terrestrial IR. Water Vapor partially competes with CO2's main band The other two CO2 bands are in the very low energy part of the IR, that it is negligible.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Feeble"? Just how do you quantify that term? Are you suggesting that the absorption spectra below, measured slightly more recently than John Tyndall's 1859 publication or Eunice Foote's 1856 publication, is incorrect?

Do you really think it Tyndall's use of the term (despite the fact that he concluded CO2 was warming the planet) merits throwing out all the research conducted and measurements made (with better and better and better instrumentation) in the 158 years since? Really? God are you stupid.

You never learn..... No matter how many times you are shown...

Do you know how to calculate the energy involve in a wave length of specific bandwidth? The longer the wave the less energy it contains. Of the four regions of the spectrum only 2 are capable of interacting with water vapor. The other two are released to space. SO were really dealing with the energy contained in just two very narrow spectrum which is calculated to be less than 0.3w/m^2 (2.3um in the down welling band) and 0.34 w/m^2 (12-16um in the up-welling band). Up-welling energy is essentially 1/24 of the down welling energy.

IT is the interaction of energy with water vapor that was supposed to be the key in CAGW. Recent papers show there is ZERO positive interaction with increased water vapor and that water vapor is absorbing the heat and rising above the cloud boundary, releasing that energy at much longer wave lengths. Thus it is having a dampening or NEGATIVE forcing impact. The cooling is seen in the satellite records.. No hot spot is present.

Your whole hypothesis is laid waste by the 490 papers this last year alone..

"feeble"... Is the correct term to use.

You not only do not understand how our atmosphere works you refuse to learn.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Facts hard for you? The IPCC's AR are filled with evidence supporting AGW. That is a fact. The proportion of published literature providing evidence to refute AGW, compared only to that science referenced in the ARs, is measured in the thousandths (if that). Your position is logically and - considering the effect your choices are willfully attempting to produce for my children - morally, insupportable.

Right, but we have no data even telling when those experiments were done, and they may have noticed a starting trend and doubled down on it.

Oh, there is data. Warmers just choose to ignore it. Tyndall, one of the so called "fathers" of the greenhouse hypothesis had this to say regarding carbonic acid gas...or as we know it CO2.. "Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources" That was in reference to experiments where he passed "calorific rays" (infrared radiation) through copper tubes filled with various gasses to see how they reacted.....how much they absorbed and how much they radiated...and he was working with concentrations in the range of 80,000ppm... He characterized CO2 as one of the feeblest absorbers of infrared radiation but warmers simply ignore that inconvenient bit of scientific history.

He further noted, in reference to the behavior of CO2 in his experiments..." Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays". Meaning that even when he cranked up the heat, the temperature of CO2 didn't change in any significant way.

We (as in I and others) replicated these experiments this year in the lab. We confirmed his findings. We were amazed to find that the atmosphere failed to warm at all with water vapor concentrations below 10%. After three days of narrow LWIR energy pass nothing warmed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Warmists fails to understand the law of diminishing returns, as this CO2 logarithmic chart shows:

LINK

 

[Crick]

Your reliance on a simple equation to accurately describe a complex process is a mistake. Radiation from the atmosphere takes place at its upper limits. The air temperature there is cold and the air is dry. As you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you raise the altitude at which radiant energy can escape to space. Increased altitude means colder air and thus less radiation.

From How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.

The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

 

[Crick]

The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The point is that greater than 75% of the warming since the beginning of satellite observations can be SHOWN to be the result of increased CO2. Those data refute your simple logarithmic relationship. And, of course, you're ignoring the several positive feedback processes such as increased humidity and reduced snow and ice cover.

Ha ha ha,

Yet the ONLY time it warms since 1979 is when an El-Nino come along, otherwise flat to a cooling in its absence.

Where is the CO2 warming?

 

[Billy_Bob]

These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.

Your prediction failed to produce. Thus the theory fails..