Climate Change Brings Warmer Global Temps

[Cardinal Carminative]

That it has never been proven through controlled laboratory experiments.

Everytime you post something it makes it seem less and less likely that you have even a modest acquaintance with science.

And you CLEARLY have no experience in earth science.

I've asked you several times for the temperature difference Tyndall measured.

Was Tyndall working on climate change? Given that his work occurred decades before Arrhenius even proposed the concept of AGW I'd be amazed.

I think all Tyndall was noting was the CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases capable of absorption of IR.

I've even asked you to provide the equation you believe that best represents the associated temperature of CO2 and you never could. I've found radiative forcing equations on my own and have and have used them. I'd be more than happy for someone to repeat Tyndall's experiment at various concentrations of CO2 and record the temperature differentials during the cool down.

If you would like to read what Tyndall actually did I believe this is the paper presented before the Royal Society:

http://pombo.free.fr/tyndall1861.pdf

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You actually think no one has done such experiments since Tyndall? Where do you think CO2 absorption spectrums come from?

It's a strangely non-scientific approach to demand that all things be able to be done in a lab. That's the best way to realize that folks like ding don't really know much about sciences like the earth sciences.

Yes lab work has value, and has helped establish a lot of climate science, but usually when it comes to earth-sized hypotheses it is really hard to do that in a lab.

Also: many people don't ever have a chemistry class and never run an FTIR so they never get to see what just intro chem can show them.

 

[ding]

You actually think no one has done such experiments since Tyndall? Where do you think CO2 absorption spectrums come from?

Great show me the data.

And what is that equation?

 

[Dagosa]

Too much common sense for the left to follow.

Another ignorant reply indicating you don’t have a clue what AGW climate change represents. I bet you don’t know much math or evolution either, both of which support climate change. But if you think you’re smarter then every govt, accredited university and every major related corporation, it’s understandable. People have gold fish that dontn7nderstand cl8mate change either.

 

[ding]

Everytime you post something it makes it seem less and less likely that you have even a modest acquaintance with science.

And you CLEARLY have no experience in earth science.



Was Tyndall working on climate change? Given that his work occurred decades before Arrhenius even proposed the concept of AGW I'd be amazed.

I think all Tyndall was noting was the CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases capable of absorption of IR.



If you would like to read what Tyndall actually did I believe this is the paper presented before the Royal Society:

http://pombo.free.fr/tyndall1861.pdf

I've read it. Have you? What was the temperature differential he measured?

 

[Dagosa]

"700,000 years ago (Climate Change) led to hotter, drier conditions in South Africa and h. heidelbergensis' evolutionary response to those changes eventually gave rise to Homo sapiens."

And we're still here in 2022. 700,000 years ago AOC would have said we only had twelve years left. Imagine that, Climate Change 700,000 years ago caused global temperatures to rise. Few cows were farting at the time, no trains, planes, or automobiles and almost no fossil fuels. No businesses spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. No nothing, and yet the Earth warmed and gave rise to Home sapiens and the spread of civilizations around the planet.

Supercomputer simulations show climate change’s role in early human migration

A research team from South Korea's Pusan National University, revealed research Wednesday that suggests a link between modern humanity's evolution and changes in prehistoric weather.

www.yahoo.com

Another thread from dullards.

 

[ding]

Another ignorant reply indicating you don’t have a clue what AGW climate change represents. I bet you don’t know much math or evolution either, both of which support climate change. But if you think you’re smarter then every govt, accredited university and every major related corporation, it’s understandable. People have gold fish that dontn7nderstand cl8mate change either.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[ding]

It's a strangely non-scientific approach to demand that all things be able to be done in a lab. That's the best way to realize that folks like ding don't really know much about sciences like the earth sciences.

Yes lab work has value, and has helped establish a lot of climate science, but usually when it comes to earth-sized hypotheses it is really hard to do that in a lab.

Also: many people don't ever have a chemistry class and never run an FTIR so they never get to see what just intro chem can show them.

According to Crick those experiments have been done.

 

[ding]

It's a strangely non-scientific approach to demand that all things be able to be done in a lab. That's the best way to realize that folks like ding don't really know much about sciences like the earth sciences.

Yes lab work has value, and has helped establish a lot of climate science, but usually when it comes to earth-sized hypotheses it is really hard to do that in a lab.

Also: many people don't ever have a chemistry class and never run an FTIR so they never get to see what just intro chem can show them.

Do you know the equation that predicts the associated temperature for CO2 due to radiative forcing? Can you post it?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

According to Crick those experiments have been done.

They have, but not in the way you non-scientists think of them. Climate sensitivity is very hard to do if not impossible in a lab setting. That's why there have been a large number of different methods to estimate it.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Do you know the equation that predicts the associated temperature for CO2 due to radiative forcing? Can you post it?

ΔT = 1.66 ln (C/C0)

The change in forcing is:

ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0)

Where C is the current concentration and Co is the original concentration.

 

[ding]

They have, but not in the way you non-scientists think of them. Climate sensitivity is very hard to do if not impossible in a lab setting. That's why there have been a large number of different methods to estimate it.

Great. Can you show me a couple of them?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I've read it. Have you? What was the temperature differential he measured?

What does it have to do with climate per se? I'm asking because he was using rather high concentrations of the gas with an eye toward seeing how much energy was absorbed by a given quantity of gas.

The concept of radiative FORCING in climate is rather more nuanced. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is further nuanced in that it requires the concept of feedbacks like water vapor etc.

So I'm struggling to understand what possible value knowing that number would have.

And doubly so since as I understand it, Tyndall was not thinking about AGW at all. To my understanding no one was until about 30 years later.

 

[ding]

ΔT = 1.66 ln (C/C0)

The change in forcing is:

ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0)

Where C is the current concentration and Co is the original concentration.

Great, what are those units?

 

[ding]

What does it have to do with climate per se? I'm asking because he was using rather high concentrations of the gas with an eye toward seeing how much energy was absorbed by a given quantity of gas.

The concept of radiative FORCING in climate is rather more nuanced. The climate sensitivity of CO2 is further nuanced in that it requires the concept of feedbacks like water vapor etc.

So I'm struggling to understand what possible value knowing that number would have.

And doubly so since as I understand it, Tyndall was not thinking about AGW at all. To my understanding no one was until about 30 years later.

To measure the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 in a controlled laboratory experiment.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Great. Can you show me a couple of them?

How many times have you been shown this article?

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf

Try reading it this time. Pay close attention to figure 3.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Great what are those units?

You already know this. What's with this fake "teacher" game you are trying to pull off now?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

To measure the associated temperature due to radiative forcing of CO2 in a controlled laboratory experiment.

Tyndall wasn't dealing with radiative forcing.

Perhaps you can stop playing this silly coy game and just tell us what is in your confused little mind and how it all fits together for you.

 

[ding]

How many times have you been shown this article?

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf

Try reading it this time. Pay close attention to figure 3.

Can you thumbnail the experiment for me.

 

[ding]

You already know this. What's with this fake "teacher" game you are trying to pull off now?

I know the units but I don't believe you know the units. Because the units aren't in deg C. So again... what is the equation for ASSOCIATED TEMPERATURE in degrees C for CO2