The Evolution of "Manmade Global Warming"

[westwall]

Walleyes has been shown repeatedly what the physicists state concerning the feedback from the CO2 and CH4 outgassed as the Milankovic Cycles started the warming of the earth. He just continues the lie that all the denialists use. They know it is a lie, and they don't care. Anything to make points with people like Frankie Boy.

Except they've never been able to reproduce it in an experiment. Only computer models and every time they are checked they are found to be inaccurate...NEXT!

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your impending Ice Age.. A 92% chance of a significant climate change NOT due to CO2.

And David Rose's big whopper lie article makes yet another appearance. Rose lied so brazenly about the Met that the Met, for the first time ever, felt compelled to publicly call someone out for misquoting them and misrepresenting the science.

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

This is what denialists have been reduced to, parroting debunked liars like David Rose.

Not a whopper at all. Rose enlisted at LEAST 4 other institutions to comment on the Met work about the Cooling prediction.. He has no control over what OTHER RESEARCHERS think of the Met's "protect their asses" work.

The MAJOR POINTS of the article STAND -- despite your tribunal and execution.. I don't find ad hominem attacks as workable as they USED TO BE for you alarmists. THERE is a HIGH likelihood of climate movement towards the cooler courtesy of NATURAL Solar cycles. And if the MET wants to cling to the flotsam they created -- that's their perogative.

Like I said -- the jig will up soon...

 

[flacaltenn]

Walleyes has been shown repeatedly what the physicists state concerning the feedback from the CO2 and CH4 outgassed as the Milankovic Cycles started the warming of the earth. He just continues the lie that all the denialists use. They know it is a lie, and they don't care. Anything to make points with people like Frankie Boy.

So the warming CAUSED the CO2 increase just as was stated. (I happen to believe that Ice Cores are just not that well time aligned. ) WTF are you arguing then OldieRocks?

Worse yet for you OldieRocks, those same glacial cycles WENT INTO deep freeze often at the HEIGHT of the CO2 concentrations.

Where's the lie?

And while you're at it.. You might explain how CO2 at 4000ppm didn't boil off the oceans and toast the lush forests of the Tyrannasaurus..

 

[zonly1]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

C02 is plant food moron.

 

[mamooth]

Just what does CO2 being plant food have to do with the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2? More CO2 means more heat is retained around the earth, whether it's plant food or not.

Sadly, this isn't the dumbest argument denialists use. See this thread for some dumber ones.

 

[westwall]

Just what does CO2 being plant food have to do with the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2? More CO2 means more heat is retained around the earth, whether it's plant food or not.

Sadly, this isn't the dumbest argument denialists use. See this thread for some dumber ones.

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2, thus whatever effect CO2 could have is completely blotted out by the water vapors allready operating in that frequency.

Thanks for playing but clearly your knowledge on the subject is lacking. As it is for most science hating AGW religious fanatics.

You guys don't "do" science. It scares you or something.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just what does CO2 being plant food have to do with the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2? More CO2 means more heat is retained around the earth, whether it's plant food or not.

Sadly, this isn't the dumbest argument denialists use. See this thread for some dumber ones.

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2, thus whatever effect CO2 could have is completely blotted out by the water vapors allready operating in that frequency.

Thanks for playing but clearly your knowledge on the subject is lacking. As it is for most science hating AGW religious fanatics.

You guys don't "do" science. It scares you or something.

How much water vapor is there in the atmosphere compared to 20 years ago? Anyone keeping track?

 

[Liability]

MAN invented hockey.

Therefore, MAN invented the hockey stick.

Hockey stick proves AGW.

Therefore AGW is man made.

Amen.

 

[RollingThunder]

Just what does CO2 being plant food have to do with the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2? More CO2 means more heat is retained around the earth, whether it's plant food or not.

Sadly, this isn't the dumbest argument denialists use. See this thread for some dumber ones.

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2,

...clearly your knowledge on the subject is lacking. As it is for most science hating AGW [denying] religious fanatics. You guys don't "do" science. It scares you or something.

Talking to yourself like this is an indication of insanity, walleyedretard, but of course, we don't really need to see any more indications since you've already demonstrated that you're completely bonkers many times on this forum.

 

[mamooth]

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2,.

Like I said, "CO2 is plant food" isn't the dumbest denialist argument. Westwind just gave us an example of a far dumber argument, dumber because it's so easily shown to be totally false.

(RollingThunder, thanks for posting that so I didn't have to.)

Even though it's a bogus argument, both Frank and Westwind will still continue to use it. Not here, but they'll use it in other forums, knowing full well it's a lie. Truth is not a high priority with denialist cult members. If a big lie helps them hate the dirty liberals, then they love that big lie.

 

[Liability]

Just what does CO2 being plant food have to do with the infrared absorption spectrum of CO2? More CO2 means more heat is retained around the earth, whether it's plant food or not.

Sadly, this isn't the dumbest argument denialists use. See this thread for some dumber ones.

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2,

...clearly your knowledge on the subject is lacking. As it is for most science hating AGW [denying] religious fanatics. You guys don't "do" science. It scares you or something.

Talking to yourself like this is an indication of insanity, walleyedretard, but of course, we don't really need to see any more indications since you've already demonstrated that you're completely bonkers many times on this forum.

Wait wait wait.

The wavelength of light and short wavelength infrared CHANGES after it passes through the atmosphere.

So WHICH wavelength absorption is being measured in that handy dandy little chart? The absorption of the energy on the way down through the atmosphere or the absorption of the energy (mostly heat) on the way back up from the Earth?

I am not a scientist and don't play one on TV. But I do recognize a much greater need for precision in this discussion.

Check this out:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks are too brainwashed to understand this >>>>> http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy/Climate%20Change/Capacity%20Development/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf .........and all you need to do is read the cover of the "playbook".

 

[RollingThunder]

Water vapor covers the exact same wavelengths as CO2,

...clearly your knowledge on the subject is lacking. As it is for most science hating AGW [denying] religious fanatics. You guys don't "do" science. It scares you or something.

Talking to yourself like this is an indication of insanity, walleyedretard, but of course, we don't really need to see any more indications since you've already demonstrated that you're completely bonkers many times on this forum.

Wait wait wait.

The wavelength of light and short wavelength infrared CHANGES after it passes through the atmosphere.

Your understanding of this matter seems very minimal. What happens is that a broad spectrum of radiation from the sun is hitting the Earth and most of the ultraviolet wavelengths get absorbed by the O3 (ozone) in the atmosphere and some of the visible light and infrared frequencies gets reflected back into space by ice and clouds and most of the visible and infrared light gets absorbed by the Earth's surface causing the land and water to heat up a bit. Some of this extra heat energy is then re-emitted as infrared radiation. The re-emitted radiation joins the reflected radiation on a journey up through the almost hundred miles of atmosphere to where this energy finally escapes into space. On its way through the atmosphere, the infrared radiation is absorbed and re-emitted many, many times by a variety of different molecules that we call 'greenhouse gases'. When greenhouse gases are excited into a higher energy state by upwelling infrared radiation, two things can happen with that energy. That higher energy state of that greenhouse gas molecule means it is vibrating faster which can transfer heat energy to the surrounding oxygen and nitrogen molecules, warming the atmosphere. That higher energy state also collapses back into a lower energy state by re-emitting some infrared radiation in all directions. Some of that energy goes upward and eventually makes it into outer space but a good deal of that energy winds up going back down to warm the land and oceans and lower atmosphere. The natural levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere keep the planet from being a frozen ice ball permanently. Mankind's activities have raised atmospheric CO2 levels by 40% over the previous natural levels that has remained fairly constant within a limited range for the last several million years. CO2 levels are now higher than they have been for at least 800,000 years and they are rapidly heading for levels that haven't been seen on Earth since geological ages when the sea levels were several hundred feet higher than today. Mankind's activities have also increased the levels of other greenhouse gases significantly. Methane levels are about 200 times lower than CO2 levels but it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas so its greenhouse effect has been calculated to be about 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.

So WHICH wavelength absorption is being measured in that handy dandy little chart? The absorption of the energy on the way down through the atmosphere or the absorption of the energy (mostly heat) on the way back up from the Earth?

Again, you just show your complete lack of understanding of this matter. The chart is showing the absorption frequencies of different gases. It is physics. It is irrelevant which direction light is going in terms of what this chart is showing.

But I probably should have included some of the explanation from the Iowa State University site where I got that chart.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum
Iowa State University
(excerpts)

Figure 4 gives the amount of energy absorbed by greenhouse gases in various wavelength regions, from ultraviolet radiation on the left, to visible light in the middle, to infrared radiation on the right. ... Other gases have much different absorption properties. Methane (CH4), for example, has a couple of very small wavelength regions in which it absorbs strongly and these occur at about 3.5 and 8 microns, which are in the infrared region. Nitrous oxide, N2O, having peaks at about 5 and 8 microns, absorbs in fairly narrow wavelength ranges.

Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation. The plot for water vapor shows an absorption spectrum more complex even than carbon dioxide, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared region between 0.8 and 10 microns. The total spectrum of all atmospheric gases is given in the bottom plot. This shows a "window" between 0.3 and 0.8 microns (the visible window), which allows solar radiation (without the lethal UV component) to reach the earth's surface. "Earth radiation", the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns. The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

I am not a scientist and don't play one on TV.

You've made that fact very obvious but perhaps you should try learning a little something about a topic before spouting off with some completely clueless drivel.

But I do recognize a much greater need for precision in this discussion.

You don't actually "recognize" anything because you're so completely ignorant about climate science.

Check this out:

Dude!!! Your chart shows the same thing as the chart I posted. What's your point?

Cold Facts on Global Warming

Good way to conclusively demonstrate that you're another brainwashed and totally clueless denier cultist - link to a bogus denier cult blog run by some unknown non-scientist and loaded with with half-assed pseudo-science. You're soooooo gullible. Here's a response from a real climate scientist.

What is RealClimate’s take on T. J. Nelson’s “Cold Facts on Global Warming”

Response: Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the 'fact' that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. "In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase". No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it's not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. - Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt

(Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He is a co-chair of the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection Panel and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 90 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize in 2011.

More information about his research and publication record can be found here.)

 

[Liability]

RollingBlunder:

You should probably take a deep breath and realize that few people are going to read your wall of words.

If you wish to acquire your first few grams of credibility, you should also consider NOT making silly claims like the one you made about the charts.

Finally, given the massive amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the comparably miniscule amount of CO2, the amount of HEAT radiation "trapped" on the bounce-back up INTO the atmosphere FROM Earth is unquestionably going to be much greater from water vapor than from CO2.

Now, feel free to present another wall of words; but seriously, dud, you'd be better off trying to concisely hone ONE or two valid points (assuming you have any) than trying to hide your general bullshit in that fashion you just attempted.

 

[RollingThunder]

You should probably take a deep breath and realize that few people are going to read your wall of words.

Yeah, I sort of assumed that you were semi-illiterate but thanks for pointing out that you also have the attention span of a fruitfly. Too bad you're so retarded that you project your own inadequacies onto everyone else, 'cause in reality, lots of other people can read and understand written material that is longer than a matchbook cover. Too bad you're sooooo retarded you can't comprehend it when your denier cult bullshit gets debunked by the facts.

If you wish to acquire your first few grams of credibility, you should also consider NOT making silly claims like the one you made about the charts.

LOLOLOLOLOL....oh come on, you silly retard....I said the charts showed the same thing and they do....and I asked you what your point is but I guess your only point is the one on your head.

Finally, given the massive amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the comparably miniscule amount of CO2, the amount of HEAT radiation "trapped" on the bounce-back up INTO the atmosphere FROM Earth is unquestionably going to be much greater from water vapor than from CO2.

Yeah, that's correct. So????? That's what all of the climate scientists say too, so again little retard, what is your point exactly????

 

[Liability]

You should probably take a deep breath and realize that few people are going to read your wall of words.

Yeah, I sort of assumed that you were semi-illiterate* * * *

And you ASSumed incorrectly.

But wading through your overly verbose pathetic musings is hardly informative.

You have no cred, little feller.

Seriously.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Finally, given the massive amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the comparably miniscule amount of CO2, the amount of HEAT radiation "trapped" on the bounce-back up INTO the atmosphere FROM Earth is unquestionably going to be much greater from water vapor than from CO2.

Yeah, that's correct. So????? That's what all of the climate scientists say too, so again little retard, what is your point exactly????

Do you see how I reduce your useless and verbose clutter into component parts that can be attended to more fully and intelligently?

No. Of course you don't. But, for grins, let's examine your would-be effort at "logic."

IF, as you just conceded, most of the heat that gets trapped on the way back up through the atmosphere is trapped by water vapor, then the AGW shit you morons are spewing has fucking precious little to do with the trace increases in CO2.

What do you schmucks propose to do about it, anyway? Wringing out the atmosphere?

 

[Liability]

* * * *

If you wish to acquire your first few grams of credibility, you should also consider NOT making silly claims like the one you made about the charts.

LOLOLOLOLOL....oh come on, you silly retard....I said the charts showed the same thing and they do....and I asked you what your point is but I guess your only point is the one on your head.

* * * *

The charts do NOT show the "same thing," you tragically pathetic idiot.

 

[RollingThunder]

* * * *

Finally, given the massive amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the comparably miniscule amount of CO2, the amount of HEAT radiation "trapped" on the bounce-back up INTO the atmosphere FROM Earth is unquestionably going to be much greater from water vapor than from CO2.

Yeah, that's correct. So????? That's what all of the climate scientists say too, so again little retard, what is your point exactly????

Do you see how I reduce your useless and verbose clutter into component parts that can be attended to more fully and intelligently?

No. Of course you don't. But, for grins, let's examine your would-be effort at "logic."

IF, as you just conceded, most of the heat that gets trapped on the way back up through the atmosphere is trapped by water vapor, then the AGW shit you morons are spewing has fucking precious little to do with the trace increases in CO2.

It only seems that way to you because you're a clueless, scientifically ignorant retard with your head jammed up the fossil fuel industry's butthole.

You're clueless about the fact that water vapor is a 'feedback' and atmospheric levels of water vapor increase (thru evaporation from the oceans) and decrease (thru precipitation) rapidly in response to temperature changes, while CO2 is a 'forcing' factor that is steadily accumulating and will persist in the atmosphere for years to centuries. An increase in CO2 levels increases temperatures and causes more evaporation of water vapor which causes further temperature increases which cause more evaporation in a positive feedback loop. Scientists have calculated that for every degree of temperature rise caused by CO2, the increased water vapor will produce another degree of warming, and other factors like the changes in albedo produced by the melting ice cause an additional one degree of warming. So every bit of warming caused by CO2 is effectively tripled by the various feedbacks.

What do you schmucks propose to do about it, anyway? Wringing out the atmosphere?

So you're also completely clueless about the proposed measures to alleviate the problem and reduce the ultimate negative effects??? Why am I not surprised?

The problem is the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that CO2 is primarily coming from the burning of fossil fuels. The main 'solution' is to stop adding fossil carbon to the atmosphere, which would mean getting the world off its addiction to fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas, and switched over to non-polluting, non-CO2 emitting energy sources like solar, wind, and ocean energy. Or possibly some nuclear if they can work all the bugs out of the liquid thorium reactors and ensure their safety. The initial goal would be to stop making the problem worse by continuing to increase CO2 levels as the world is doing now.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nitz has the political IQ of a small soap dish.