What the science says

[IanC]

CO2 is both a symptom and a reinforcing cause of temperature change.

CO2 and temperature are correlated in proxies of the past, typically with a lag period where CO2 follows temperature. presumably by equilibrium forces driven by natural factors.

the recent increase of CO2 concentration is mostly manmade, therefore correlations of the past are not reliable predictors of what is happening

The only relation CO2 has to the climate is the fact that it follows climate around like a lost puppy. Claiming that CO2 reinforces both warming and cooling is to claim that it has a magical power that it most certainly doesn't....

First, what "actual" evidence do you have that the recent increase of CO2 is mostly manmade? Isotopes certainly don't prove it...I just read a paper suggesting that we have VASTLY missed the mark on the numbers of undersea volcanoes and the amount of CO2 they emit....and we have little idea of the number and magnitude of CO2 sinks....and emitters for that matter....the fact is that we (mankind) don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own natural CO2 production

Second...why do you believe that manmade CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2 in its "effect" on the climate...more magic?

The only relationship CO2 has to global temperatures and their trends is the fact that it follows them around...it has no effect beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.

I did not know that you are a skeptic I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate. I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions. I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.

Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists

 

[SSDD]

Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists

So lets see an actual measurement of back radiation in the narrow band of CO2 measured by an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

 

[ding]

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.

I did not know that you are a skeptic I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate. I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions. I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.

Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists

I could not agree more. I will look for those threads. I have not gotten into the details of the manipulations. I have taken a more holistic approach by studying past climates throughout the geologic record. I have also built my own models to predict radiative forcing of CO2 and plotted up historic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2. I have crossplotted the emission with atmospheric CO2. I understand who and what is responsible for the nearly 1 billion ton per year increase in global emissions that have been occurring for the past 14 years. The trends are remarkably linear and quite easy to extrapolate.

 

[IanC]

Radiative physics says otherwise.

Natural sinks and sources for CO2 will adapt to the extra CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. In time. I have seen no compelling evidence for volcanoes, underseas or not, to be the reason for the recent spike in CO2.

And radiative physics says there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and associated temperature and that the effect diminishes as the level of CO2 rises. Given that their predictions have not come true or can explain past climates, I would say it is valid to question their dire predictions. Just curious, what do you predict the CO2 level will be if we continue on the same trend of emissions that we have been on for the past 14 years?

I hope you realize that I am a mainstream climate skeptic.

I don't typically make predictions but given the increasing population I fully expect the CO2 concentration to continue rising in much the same fashion as the last few decades. With a warming influence. Temperatures go up or down depending on the totality of factors but the influence will still be there.

I did not know that you are a skeptic I accept the radiative forcing of CO2 too. I just don't agree that CO2 drives the climate. I most certainly do not agree with any of the "A" forecasts of the IPCC as they are devoid of reality when it comes to predictions of CO2 emissions. I also do not believe their models accurately model so-called "feedback" as I believe they have stacked their deck in their "feedback" favor.

Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists

I could not agree more. I will look for those threads. I have not gotten into the details of the manipulations. I have taken a more holistic approach by studying past climates throughout the geologic record. I have also built my own models to predict radiative forcing of CO2 and plotted up historic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2. I have crossplotted the emission with atmospheric CO2. I understand who and what is responsible for the nearly 1 billion ton per year increase in global emissions that have been occurring for the past 14 years. The trends are remarkably linear and quite easy to extrapolate.

If you like geological proxies etc then I strongly suggest you peruse the Climate Audit archives. McIntyre is not only a good source for the data and methodologies but also has laid down a comprehensive history of how climate science has gone off the rails in support of the 'Noble Cause' of AGW.

 

[IanC]

Most of the threads I have created describe manipulations of the temperature datasets or the exaggerated climate sensitivity claims, with the knock-on foolish predictions for sea level rise, catastrophic biotic effects, etc.

I believe that the nonsensical denial of any CO2 effect at all by many of the wackos here is counter productive.

Telling and believing lies is just as bad for our side as it is for the alarmists

So lets see an actual measurement of back radiation in the narrow band of CO2 measured by an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?

BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

So lets see an actual measurement of back radiation in the narrow band of CO2 measured by an instrument not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

My gosh you still don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.

There is absolutely nothing in the second law that forbids EM radiation from going from a cooler object to a warmer object.

http://cmcd.hms.harvard.edu/activities/_media/bcmp201/lecture5.pdf?id=bcmp201:class
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.

 

[SSDD]

You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?

Why persist in that lie ian? You have provided measurements of "something" measured with uncooled instruments which were merely measuring temperature changes of an internal thermopile...certainly not discrete wavelengths of energy....All measurements of of actual energy in the narrow CO2 wavelength were measured with instruments cooled to at least -80F. If you believe that you have provided the measurements that I have asked for....then you have been well and truly fooled by instrumentation....a chronic problem in the soft climate science community.

BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.

Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....if you want to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground, you must first cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere to give the atmosphere a cooler place to radiate to.

 

[Wuwei]

Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm.

There is nothing in the science of physics that implies that. That is only your opinion with not a shred of truth behind it.

 

[IanC]

You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?

Why persist in that lie ian? You have provided measurements of "something" measured with uncooled instruments which were merely measuring temperature changes of an internal thermopile...certainly not discrete wavelengths of energy....All measurements of of actual energy in the narrow CO2 wavelength were measured with instruments cooled to at least -80F. If you believe that you have provided the measurements that I have asked for....then you have been well and truly fooled by instrumentation....a chronic problem in the soft climate science community.

BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.

Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....if you want to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground, you must first cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere to give the atmosphere a cooler place to radiate to.

I gave you pictures and diagrams of the instrumentation, documentation of the methods and response of those instruments, data produced by those instruments.

You give us nothing. No alternant instruments, no documentation to support your claims, nothing. The only thing you produce is hysterical denial and the repetition of your unsupported talking points.

Start providing evidence instead of just your bizarre opinions on physics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have already been given that information. You chose to ignore it. Why would it be different this time?

Why persist in that lie ian? You have provided measurements of "something" measured with uncooled instruments which were merely measuring temperature changes of an internal thermopile...certainly not discrete wavelengths of energy....All measurements of of actual energy in the narrow CO2 wavelength were measured with instruments cooled to at least -80F. If you believe that you have provided the measurements that I have asked for....then you have been well and truly fooled by instrumentation....a chronic problem in the soft climate science community.

BTW, you still haven't given any information or explanations about the necessity of cooled instruments although you have been asked repeatedly. The reasonable conclusion is that it is not there to be produced. Prove me wrong.

Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....if you want to measure radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground, you must first cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere to give the atmosphere a cooler place to radiate to.

Neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm....

You make this claim, but still can't explain why we can see the Sun.