Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[forkup]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.

Not enough content

What would be enough content? The question was is their physical evidence that ties CO2 emissions to global warming. I gave that. They describe methodology and results. What more content do you require?

 

[denmark]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

 

[forkup]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

That's what you read not what is implied.

 

[Wyatt earp]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

That's what you read not what is implied.

So we had space stuff a hundred years ago or Mann's temperature reading tree rings?

 

[forkup]

“Summary:
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

That's what you read not what is implied.

So we had space stuff a hundred years ago or Mann's temperature reading tree rings?

The exert did not claim they had satellites a hundred years ago. It claimed it can and has measured the greenhouse effect using satellites. It's your typical strawman you are trying to use here.

 

[forkup]

Simple empirical evidence for AGW:

1) Measured CO2 concentration.
2) Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
3) Glacial Melt
4) Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
5) Sea Level Rise.
6) Increased ocean acidity

The anthropogenic connection comes from the CO2.

Got any physical evidence of that? No one argues that CO2 concentrations are rising....but every ice core study ever done shows that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures...not the cause.

The oceans are cooling in spite of rising CO2...and what physical evidence do you have that suggests that CO2 could cause the oceans to warm?

Glaciers have been melting for 14,000 years now...

There is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...how do you think that proves that we are the cause

Sea level has been rising at about the same rate for over 100 years....again, how is that evidence that we are causing climate change

Even climate science has dropped the ocean acidification meme...it simply hasn't worked out...the evidence is that we aren't causing it, never could...I will provide you with plenty of published papers on the topic if you like...

No shit? So when were the laws of chemistry changed? CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-

Don't bother. They would claim the laws of physics, math, chemistry and common sense don't apply to perpetuate this thing. I always find it interesting that all these "brilliant" AGW deniers lurk on a political forum but are absent for the most part when it comes to publishing.

 

[denmark]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

 

[Dekster]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

You know the irony here is that "We need MORE coal!!!!" was the environmental movements response to nuclear. They are the reason this happened to begin with. Nuclear has the same carbon footprint as wind.

Yeah....but nuclear probably would't kill anywhere near as many of those pesky raptors like eagles, vultures, hawks, etc, bats, and migratory birds as those wind mills do.

Bats seems to be getting hit pretty hard in some places for sure. I have read a few reports saying that wind turbines kill more bats than any other human activity

 

[Sunsettommy]

More deflection from Sealybobo,

Here is what you Republicans are doing on this and every other issue

"Alternative facts" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

And this dead on arrival assertion, since as usual he doesn't answer SSDD original question from post one, doesn't back it up with evidence either.

There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?

You don't debate, just post evasive and deflecting replies. It is your one skill I can see in you do so well.

 

[MAGAman]

I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists. Piss off russia!

 

[SSDD]

mn

No shit? So when were the laws of chemistry changed? CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-

There was no need to change the laws of chemistry...all that needed to be done was to test the models that predicted ocean acidification and its effects on marine life against reality.....like all climate models, they failed.

The fact that alarmist scientists fail to mention is that prior to the onset of the present ice age, practically every creature in the oceans had already evolved to its present form...at that time, the atmospheric CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm...more than double the present concentrations...and most of the corals that exist today had evolved to their present forms much further back in the earth's history when CO2 levels were in the 3000ppm to 5000ppm range.

There is money to be made in alarmism...not so much in simply stating that what we are seeing in the oceans today is business as usual on planet earth.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...st_Pacific_Evidence_from_coral_d_11_B_records

Cip:
Ocean acidification is predicted to reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in seawater and potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms, such as calcareous microorganisms and corals. Model calculations have indicated an overall decrease in global seawater pH of 0.1 relative to the preIndustrial era value, and a further pH reduction of 0.2–0.3 over the next century.
We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. … [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions.
… The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.

Ocean 'calamities' oversold, say researchers

Clip:
The state of the world’s seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. The team writes that scientists, journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences. The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community. Carlos Duarte, a marine biologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and his colleagues say that gloomy media reports about ocean issues such as invasive species and coral die-offs are not always based on actual observations. It is not just journalists who are to blame, they maintain: the marine research community “may not have remained sufficiently sceptical” on the topic.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Near the vent site, the urchins experienced large daily variations in pH (> 1 unit) andpCO2 (> 2000 ppm) and average pH values (pHT 7.73) much below those expected under the most pessimistic future emission scenarios. Growth was measured over a 17-month period using tetracycline tagging of the calcareous feeding lanterns. Average-sized urchins grew more than twice as fast at the vent compared with those at an adjacent control site, and assumed larger sizes at the vent compared to the control site and two other sites at another reef near-by. … Thus, urchins did not only persist but actually ‘thrived’ under extreme CO2 conditions.

Impact of high p CO 2 and warmer temperatures on the process of silica biomineralization in the sponge Mycale grandis

Clip:
The long-term exposure experiments revealed no effect on survival or growth rates of M. grandis to high pCO2 (1198 µatm), warmer temperatures (25.6°C), or combined high pCO2 with warmer temperature (1225 µatm, 25.7°C) treatments, indicating that M. grandis will continue to prosper under predicted increases in pCO2 and sea surface temperature.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000136

Clip:
If the forecasts of continued global warming are borne out, the oceans will also become warmer and will tend to outgas CO2, offsetting to some extent the small increased partial pressure that might otherwise occur. … An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility, and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century. … There is no evidence to support the claim that most calcifying marine species will become extinct owing to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lower pH in the oceans.



Boron Isotopic Systematics in Scleractinian Corals and the Role of pH Up-regulation

Clip:
“For example, over seasonal time-scales Porites corals from the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have a large range in pHcf of ~8.3 to ~8.5, significantly greater (~×2 to ~×3) than that of reef-water (pHT ~8.01 to ~8.08), and an order of magnitude greater than that expected from ‘static’ laboratory experiments.”

“Strong physiological controls, but of a different character, are found in corals grown in a Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment Experiment (FOCE) conducted in situ within the Heron Island lagoon (GBR). These corals exhibit near constant pHcf values regardless of external changes in temperature and seawater pH. This pattern of strong physiologically controlled ‘pH-homeostasis’, with elevated but constant pHcf has been found despite large natural seasonal variations in the pH (±0.15 pH units) of the lagoon waters, as well as the even larger super-imposed decreases in seawater pH (~0.25 pH units) designed to simulate year 2100 conditions.”

“In natural reef environments we thus find that the processes influencing the up-regulation of pHcf in symbiont-bearing corals are subject to strong physiological controls, behaviour that is not well simulated in the current generation of aquaria-based experiments with fixed seawater pH and temperature.”



CO 2 sensitivity experiments are not sufficient to show an effect of ocean acidification

If you want more published papers stating that the wild alarmist claims regarding the fate of the oceans is nothing but hysterical handwaving and pseudoscience of the worst sort, I will be happy to oblige... There are plenty. Guess whoever gave you your opinion didn't bother to tell you about the sheer number of published studies that found that the alarmist claims simply don't bear up under the "reality" test.

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

OK...lets continue.

Regarding his "measurements" of the thickness of the "greenhouse blanket"...what crap. Any claim of heat "trapping" ability of additional CO2, and the resulting reduction of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere come with them an inherent necessity of an upper tropospheric hot spot. If energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, then that energy will have a fingerprint in the troposphere...trapped energy will produce a hot spot according to climate science. The fact is that there is no hot spot....

And if the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were actually trapping energy, then the amount of energy leaving the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be reduced. It hasn't been. In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time. Here, as measured by NOAA...

Next, your author goes into an analysis of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere...Do keep in mind that so far, no actual evidence and not a single paper has been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses....so any effort to show our contribution to CO2 gasses as evidence that we are causing warming is nothing more than evidence of increased CO2 with a big assed assumption that more CO2 causes warming tacked on.

But lets look at the CO2 increases and our influence on them. He simply makes an assumption that we are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The actual published science tells an entirely different story. The published science says that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so vanishingly small that it is essentially undetectable in the background noise...



Here are numerous 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”

Then he goes on to note that it has warmed since the little ice age, and makes a big assed assumption that the reason that it has warmed is CO2...and as evidence that it is CO2, he points to an 18th century thought experiment... The fact is that every ice core ever done shows us that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming temperatures, not the cause...

Hell your guy even calls the output of computer models "empirical evidence" NEWSFLASH...it isn't.

Thanks for trying, but alas, there is nothing there but assumption after assumption after assumption being called empirical evidence...he does provide some actual instrumental data, but that is nothing more than evidence that he is easily fooled by instrumentation. It is in the section where he supposedly shows measurements of back radiation...energy moving from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth where said radiation actually warms the surface... Ever look at the second law of thermodynamics? Here...take a look:


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.

Which part of that suggests that energy will move from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth? He uses instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about -80F. He isn't measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...he is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....if you place an identical instrument with the cooling turned off right next to the cooled one, you will get no measurement of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument because according to the second law of thermodynamics (the mother of all physical laws) energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object....

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among those who believe...at least this one isn't an opinion piece from a newspaper as most provide....it is at least pseudoscience masquerading as science.....

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.

Great....lets have a look.

In your first one, the instrument used is a radiance interferometer...an instrument cooled to a temperature of about -80F... Fooled by instrumentation. Refer again to the second law of thermodynamics...energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object (the sky) to a warm object (the surface of the earth)...the instrument is measuring the movement of energy from the warmer atmosphere to itself...the cooler instrument.

Your second "paper" is nothing more than evidence that it has become very slightly warmer if one uses adjusted temperature records...the earth is still warming out of the little ice age...no surprise that it would be warming.

It seems that being fooled by instruments, and making big assed assumptions about what might cause warming is the international pastime of climate pseudoscientists...

 

[SSDD]

Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.

You think the sun doesn't warm venus? Of course it does...Your lack of knowledge is the problem. According to climate science, the radiative greenhouse effect operates on the principle that the sun warms the surface of the planet, and then the planet warms the atmosphere, and then the greenhouse gasses radiate back to the surface and warm the planet further which makes the planet radiate more energy than it could from the energy it receives from the sun alone...in the case of the earth, the claim is that the atmosphere radiates as much energy back to the surface of the planet as the planet receives from the sun...does that not strike you as completely absurd? Can you imagine claiming that the atmosphere radiates as much energy to the surface as the sun?

Very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus, so it isn't warmed enough by solar energy to support a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...of course the planet receives solar energy, but it isn't a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the very fact that the dark side of the planet is the same temperature as the daylight side even though the nights on venus are 120 of our days long is evidence of that fact...the dark side remains hot because of pressure...not because of a greenhouse effect...

According to the climate science, and the radiative greenhouse effect, every doubling of CO2 is supposed to produce approximately 2.5 degrees of temperature increase (although that number is trending lower every year....it is down to about 1 degree or less now)...but lets go with the 2.5 degrees of warming for every doubling of CO2.

On venus, we have to calculate for about 11.5 doublings...so according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on earth is about 29 degrees warmer than here on earth. What do you know? They are off by how many hundreds of degrees?

You also are widely of the mark by comparing Venus to Saturn or Jupiter.
Jupiters core is 650 million psi. And at its core they estimate 43000 degrees Fahrenheit. This means the pressure creates a build-up of 0.0066 percent.

Venus Surface pressure is 1348 psi. And it's temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 64 percent.[/quote]

Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.

Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.

The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun...pressure is where the temperature comes from, not a radative greenhouse effect. Again, using the math from the greenhouse effect, the temperature of venus should increase 2.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2...on venus, we would have to calculate for 11.6 doublings of CO2 which should make venus 29 degrees warmer than it is here on earth (discounting the ~.6% difference in incoming solar radiation. Again, according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 29 degrees warmer than here on earth...how many hundreds of degrees are they off?

Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.

The math says that you are a dupe...it isn't as if it were even difficult math...2.5 degrees of temperature increase per doubling of CO2...11.6 doublings of CO2 on venus...29 degrees warmer on venus than here on earth according to the radiative greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here on earth, and then only with a completely made up fudge factor...it doesn't even get close to predicting the temperatures of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres...The ideal gas law...pv=nrt, adjusted for incoming solar energy on the other hand accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system without regard to what gasses the atmospheres of the various planets are made of...no greenhouse effect necessary, no ad hoc fudge factor necessary.

Here are ideal gas law calculations of the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere... The numbers above the calculations are the atmospheric parameters necessary to do ideal gas law calculations as provided by NASA. The ideal gas law calculations do not factor in incoming solar energy so the difference between the temperature predicted by the ideal gas law in the actual calculation and the temperature noted by NASA will vary....and for the calculations of the gas giants that really have no surface, the calculations are deep enough in the atmospheres so that the pressure is 1 bar.....equal to that on earth.

Feel free to try the greenhouse effect calculations on any other planet and see how far off they are...try it on earth without a fudge factor and it will be off as much.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.

Not enough content

What would be enough content? The question was is their physical evidence that ties CO2 emissions to global warming. I gave that. They describe methodology and results. What more content do you require?

Sorry guy, but you didn't ...obviously there was enough there to fool you...and plenty of other people...but no physical evidence that supports the contention that our CO2 is the primary driver of temperature....not even close...assumptions are not physical evidence...being fooled by what you are measuring with instruments are not physical evidence...and the output of computer models are most certainly not physical evidence...

 

[SSDD]

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

That's what you read not what is implied.

So we had space stuff a hundred years ago or Mann's temperature reading tree rings?

The exert did not claim they had satellites a hundred years ago. It claimed it can and has measured the greenhouse effect using satellites. It's your typical strawman you are trying to use here.

Sorry guy, but no measurement of a greenhouse effect has ever been made....it is all the output of computer models...

 

[SSDD]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from? The vatican? really? If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...

With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...

No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published... The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...

 

[forkup]

Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.

You think the sun doesn't warm venus? Of course it does...Your lack of knowledge is the problem. According to climate science, the radiative greenhouse effect operates on the principle that the sun warms the surface of the planet, and then the planet warms the atmosphere, and then the greenhouse gasses radiate back to the surface and warm the planet further which makes the planet radiate more energy than it could from the energy it receives from the sun alone...in the case of the earth, the claim is that the atmosphere radiates as much energy back to the surface of the planet as the planet receives from the sun...does that not strike you as completely absurd? Can you imagine claiming that the atmosphere radiates as much energy to the surface as the sun?

Very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus, so it isn't warmed enough by solar energy to support a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...of course the planet receives solar energy, but it isn't a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the very fact that the dark side of the planet is the same temperature as the daylight side even though the nights on venus are 120 of our days long is evidence of that fact...the dark side remains hot because of pressure...not because of a greenhouse effect...

According to the climate science, and the radiative greenhouse effect, every doubling of CO2 is supposed to produce approximately 2.5 degrees of temperature increase (although that number is trending lower every year....it is down to about 1 degree or less now)...but lets go with the 2.5 degrees of warming for every doubling of CO2.

On venus, we have to calculate for about 11.5 doublings...so according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on earth is about 29 degrees warmer than here on earth. What do you know? They are off by how many hundreds of degrees?

You also are widely of the mark by comparing Venus to Saturn or Jupiter.
Jupiters core is 650 million psi. And at its core they estimate 43000 degrees Fahrenheit. This means the pressure creates a build-up of 0.0066 percent.

Venus Surface pressure is 1348 psi. And it's temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 64 percent.

Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.

Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.

The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun...pressure is where the temperature comes from, not a radative greenhouse effect. Again, using the math from the greenhouse effect, the temperature of venus should increase 2.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2...on venus, we would have to calculate for 11.6 doublings of CO2 which should make venus 29 degrees warmer than it is here on earth (discounting the ~.6% difference in incoming solar radiation. Again, according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 29 degrees warmer than here on earth...how many hundreds of degrees are they off?

Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.

The math says that you are a dupe...it isn't as if it were even difficult math...2.5 degrees of temperature increase per doubling of CO2...11.6 doublings of CO2 on venus...29 degrees warmer on venus than here on earth according to the radiative greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here on earth, and then only with a completely made up fudge factor...it doesn't even get close to predicting the temperatures of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres...The ideal gas law...pv=nrt, adjusted for incoming solar energy on the other hand accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system without regard to what gasses the atmospheres of the various planets are made of...no greenhouse effect necessary, no ad hoc fudge factor necessary.

Here are ideal gas law calculations of the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere... The numbers above the calculations are the atmospheric parameters necessary to do ideal gas law calculations as provided by NASA. The ideal gas law calculations do not factor in incoming solar energy so the difference between the temperature predicted by the ideal gas law in the actual calculation and the temperature noted by NASA will vary....and for the calculations of the gas giants that really have no surface, the calculations are deep enough in the atmospheres so that the pressure is 1 bar.....equal to that on earth.

Feel free to try the greenhouse effect calculations on any other planet and see how far off they are...try it on earth without a fudge factor and it will be off as much.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K[/QUOTE]

the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet

You think the sun doesn't warm venus?

I know it does you, on the other hand, don't seem as sure.

Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.

1psi of a heavier gas is the same as 1 psi of lighter gas. The only thing that changes is the volume. Your whole premise stands on the principle that pressure is what causes Venus to be so hot. The composition of the gas is only relevant for the greenhouse effect. You are trying to claim that pressure to temperature ratio of 0.0066 percent is an explanation for pressure to temperature ratio of 64 percent. If you don't see the utter ridiculousness of that claim I can't help you.

The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun

Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Satellites where around in 1890?

Why do you say that?

That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?

That's what you read not what is implied.

So we had space stuff a hundred years ago or Mann's temperature reading tree rings?

The exert did not claim they had satellites a hundred years ago. It claimed it can and has measured the greenhouse effect using satellites. It's your typical strawman you are trying to use here.

?

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.