The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[CultureCitizen]

Well then again , thanks for everyone's contribution here , but what I would like to settle first is if

A) Global warming is occurring
B) Warming is a thrend that will continue until the next century.

There's really not much point arguing regarding the causes if we can't first have an agreement on these two basic questions.

 

[joewp]

Feelings is what you have because there isn't a single hard, observed, measured, empirical piece of evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

Oh yes there is.

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

So according to lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.

Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case - that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming. Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

Now, I don't know who told ya there was no evidence for CO2 causing warming, but they were also misinformed or maybe even lying to you.

I'm posting this on the off chance that you're really looking for the answers and not just being a knee-jerk denier, but if you base your doubt of AGW on the false assertion that there's no empirical evidence of CO2 warming the climate, maybe you should re-consider.

Somehow I doubt you will.

 

[PMZ]

The most costly aspect of a warmer climate is that we built civilization around the old climate. We located agriculture based on rainfall and our cities typically on shores. We can relocate. It only takes money which we then won't have for other things.

Of course for the vast majority of the past mankind didn't care about the climate. Now we are very, very sensitive to it. And, there is no doubt that co2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher the concentration in our atmosphere, the less incoming energy gets radiated back into space. That spells warmer.

Those simple facts, plus the limited supply of the remaining fossilfuels, especially oil, determine mankind's focus for the next 100 years. Our only choice is between orderly and efficiently or chaotically.

I'm betting on chaos. Sorry kids. The Greatest Generation is gone and we are stuck with the Greediest Generation now.

 

[KissMy]

One thing's certain... THIS global warming thread is for real.

This thread only exist in cyber-space.

 

[SSDD]

Oh yes there is.

Sorry, but there isn't. You loons regularly post that crap from SS but inevetably fail to grasp the fact that SS is only giving you half the story, and they are lying about the half that they do give you.

How much creedence can you give a paper that claims to compare OLR from one period to another but only gives you one graph? Here is the whole picture.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Contrary to what you believe, the OLR as measured by satellites has been increasing.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.

There are no, and never have been any measurements of downward longwave radiation made at ambient temperature. The instruments that measure downward longwave radiation are all cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. There is no downward longwave radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.

So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming.

You have no lines of empirical evidence. You have pseudoscientific fraud.

Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation.

The same lab tests show that CO2 emits lw radiation about a billionth of a second after it has been absorbed.

Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space.

Satellites measure more long wave radiation escaping into space in spite of increasing CO2.

Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming.

No measurement of downward LW radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface of the earth has ever been made at ambient temperature.

And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

There is no energy imbalance as evidenced by the lack of warming for going on 2 decades now.

Now, I don't know who told ya there was no evidence for CO2 causing warming, but they were also misinformed or maybe even lying to you.

I am afriad that it is you who has been misinformed. There doesn't exist a scrap of hard evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Ok finally I'm able to post links. My point of view :
Global warming is occurring and it will continue. I am not completely certain it is due to human activity but the correlation makes me think it is so.

Now a couple of images taken in the Andes range with a difference of 36 years :

October - December ( spring - summer ) . Snow made the task of getting down from the mountain an appaling task.

Nowdays going down seems an easy task.

 

[Old Rocks]

Same could be said about aliens or dragons, dude. It's a lousy argument to make. Saying, well, it could very well be a feiry tale (it is, climate change isn't) but do you really want to risk it? And at what cost?

Should wwe have carbon taxes? Is that a solution? What is the solution if we dont want to 'risk' it?

One of the things that has made me skeptical of the global warming theory is that it seems like the answer to it that they are pushing on us is socialism.

Ever notice how the liberal solution to every problem is for the government to take more of your money or freedom?

Ever notice when really ignorant fucks don't have an answer, they try to change the format of the debate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? The Tesla S is socialism? The windfarms that Scottish Power is building are socialism? Detail in what way converting to an energy system that does not endanger the lives of the future generations is socialism.

Tesla motors receives massive subsidies from the federal government, and Scottish Power is entirely a creature created by the British government. Furthermore, wind power in the UK receives massive subsidies from the government. So, yes, both your examples are socialism. Both are massive failures.

Dumb ass, Tesla paid back every cent of the government loan about two weeks ago. Not only that, they have already sold out their years production. And wind is providing two digit contributions to power in several states right now.

 

[PMZ]

Oh yes there is.

Sorry, but there isn't. You loons regularly post that crap from SS but inevetably fail to grasp the fact that SS is only giving you half the story, and they are lying about the half that they do give you.

How much creedence can you give a paper that claims to compare OLR from one period to another but only gives you one graph? Here is the whole picture.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. All found on the far left side of the graph. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Contrary to what you believe, the OLR as measured by satellites has been increasing.

NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means, via the KNMI Climate Explorer




There are no, and never have been any measurements of downward longwave radiation made at ambient temperature. The instruments that measure downward longwave radiation are all cooled to a temperature far below that of the atmosphere. There is no downward longwave radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth.



You have no lines of empirical evidence. You have pseudoscientific fraud.



The same lab tests show that CO2 emits lw radiation about a billionth of a second after it has been absorbed.



Satellites measure more long wave radiation escaping into space in spite of increasing CO2.



No measurement of downward LW radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface of the earth has ever been made at ambient temperature.

And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.

There is no energy imbalance as evidenced by the lack of warming for going on 2 decades now.

Now, I don't know who told ya there was no evidence for CO2 causing warming, but they were also misinformed or maybe even lying to you.

I am afriad that it is you who has been misinformed. There doesn't exist a scrap of hard evidence to support the claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

I just know that you are a totally objective scientist and are anxious for all of the data in order to form an opinion based on all of the evidence. Like:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

 

[petro]

Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.

If those are so worried about it, better log off as the electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.

 

[PMZ]

Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.

If those are so worried about it, better log off as the electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.

We certainly are capable of adapting. All we need is the will to devote the resources that it will take. I believe that many want to wish it away. They will cause us to lose the opportunity to adapt in a coordinated way and the result will be chaos.

 

[Saigon]

However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

And yet 2012 was the hottest year on record in North America.

There is no scientific doubt at all that temperatures have risen during the past 50 years. It's a clear, undisputed scientific fact.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.

If those are so worried about it, better log off as the electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.

Well , if it is a trend and we can't controll weather change ,then we should at least plan for it . I'm sure that weather projections can be made to establish the best course of action : build dams , move people out of certain cities ... etc.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is the global climate changing? Possibly. However it is hard to accept that as I just went through the coldest winter on record and am currently living through a cold spring. 40 degrees I woke up to on June 2 north of Mpls. I would be happy with palm trees in MN.

The globe has gone through many changes to it's climate during its history with massive extinctions as the result. Humanity is the first species that is capable of adapting to these changes, so I don't see this as the sky falling.

If those are so worried about it, better log off as the electronic device you us is powered by electricity produced by coal fired plants. Solar and wind power also have environmental costs, and the battery in your electric car is by no means clean energy as lithium mining is not environmentally friendly, and needs to connect to the grid to recharge. There is no such thing as green, clean energy.

OK. Explain to us in what way lithium 'mining' is less environmentally friendly than coal mining? Do you know how and where we get lithium? I am willing to bet that you are merely repeating the words of an obese junkie on the radio without even a scrap of knowledge about the sources of lithium.

And the majority of the power in Musk's charging stations is going to come from the solar installations in those stations. Not only that, because of the inherent inefficiences of the Carnot Cycle, you will put less CO2 into the air from using electricity generated by coal, that by burning gas or diesel.

 

[Trakar]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.

Not among those who have the education, understanding and experience within the relevant fields of knowledge for the question you ask.

For the purposes of this thread I would only like to debate whether the Earth is actually warming or not.

It is not genuinely debatable. It is possible to discuss some of the details and how those details will play out given various public policy choices that we make from here on out, but whether or not the climate is warming, and the primary reasons for it warming, are simply observational facts not something that can be rationally and logically disputed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

There's a lot of debate regarding global warming.

Here maybe. But not much elsewhere.

 

[Oddball]

One of the things that has made me skeptical of the global warming theory is that it seems like the answer to it that they are pushing on us is socialism.

Ever notice how the liberal solution to every problem is for the government to take more of your money or freedom?

Ever notice when really ignorant fucks don't have an answer, they try to change the format of the debate?

Yes, we do notice when your warmerist moonbats do that.

 

[SSDD]

Is global warming occurring ? and even more important is the warming a trend that will continue in the forseeable future.

Refer back to the graph above. Look at the temperature history of the earth. Then look at the present. Then look back at the temperature history of the earth. Now tell me exactly what a rational person would conclude regarding the long term temperature trend starting today.

Later on we could debate whether the change is due to human activity or not, and if so if there is a way to "tame" the weather, but none of that is relevant if we can't agree on the basic question : are we witnessing a global warming phenomena ?

The warming for this particular interglacial started when the ice started melting back some 14,000 years ago. In that time, it has been warmer than the present, and colder than the present, but during all that time, it has been far colder than the average mean temperature across the history of the earth. The short term will be up and down based on whatever forces we still don't come close to understanding happen to be prevalent at any given time but the overall long term trend will be warmer. What actually drives the climate on planet earth remains to be seen but you can be sure it isn't a trace atmospheric gas and certainly not mankind's meager contribution to the total of that trace atmospheric gas.

 

[SSDD]

I just know that you are a totally objective scientist and are anxious for all of the data in order to form an opinion based on all of the evidence. Like:

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

P.T. Barnum was right...there is one born every minute. In the case of you warmists, the rate seems to be much higher. Did you actually read the tripe on that page, or do you just blindly accept it because it meshes with your political point of view.

It starts off with Tyndal and the so called greenhouse gas qualities of CO2. Do you know what Tyndal actually said about CO2? Here is a quote from his writings:

"Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.”

And do you know what he wrote about the radiative power of CO2 in his experiments?

"carbonic acid gas is “extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate”.

In short, Tyndal knew all those years ago that CO2 was a weak absorber and emitter of IR radiation....as opposed to water which completely overwhelms it in the atmosphere but then there is no political power to be gained by demonizing water vapor is there?

Then it goes on to talk about satellite measurements of OLR. I gave you the whole picture above and I am sure that you didn't find any difference between the graphs. You should be able to figure out why your source only gave you one graph and simply claimed a difference..

Then it moves on to downward long wave radiation. The first paper referenced was wang. Did you bother to read the abstract. It described methods to ESTIMATE downward longwave radiation. Why would there be a need to estimate it if it actually existed. We certainly have no problem actually measuring incoming radiation from the sun but we can't actually measure downward longwave because it doesn't exist.

The next paper referenced was Philopona. Clearly you didn't read that abstract either. Here are some passages for your consideration:

"Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far."

"Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. "

So in Philopona, there, again, were no actual measurements but simply model predicitions. You guys need to understand that model output is not data.

Evans claims to have measured downward longwave with FTIR spectroscopy. The AIRS type instruments are the sort of devices used for FTIR spectroscopy and such instruments operate at temperatures between 58K and 145K or between -258C and -128C. So no downward longwave is being measured from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...what is being measured is downward radiation from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler FTIR instrument. In short, anything being called actual data proving the AGW hypothesis is falsified and or fabricated.

 

[Old Rocks]

As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.” Source: John Tyndall, 1862

Understanding the Science of CO2?s Role in Climate Change: 3 ? How Green House Gases Trap Heat | Climate Charts & Graphs