CO2, forcings and feedbacks

[daveman]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

Oh, yeah, the CO2-in-a-box experiment. With maybe three variables. That's supposed to accurately represent an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

That the one you're talking about?

He's actually talking about an experiment that proved water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas by far, not CO2.

Oh.

Then he's got nothin'.

 

[daveman]

Utilizing the "Because we say so" method of shoddy scientific "research", ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

There, fixed

they had to put "climate relevant" in front of "greenhouse gas" because CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas by a long shot.

Increased water vapor is a result of warmiing, NOT a cause. It goes up and down in response to other factors like solar flux, seasonal fluctuations AND the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere by GHGs.

CO2 increases lag temperature increases, too. How do you guys spin that?

"CO2 is sooooo dangerous, it goes back in time to heat the earth!!"

 

[bripat9643]

Utilizing the "Because we say so" method of shoddy scientific "research", ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

There, fixed

they had to put "climate relevant" in front of "greenhouse gas" because CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas by a long shot.

Increased water vapor is a result of warmiing, NOT a cause. It goes up and down in response to other factors like solar flux, seasonal fluctuations AND the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere by GHGs.

That's a warmist theory, not a fact.

 

[IanC]

as Pielke, Sr and others put it--- it is no surprise when a computer model that is programed to use CO2 as the control knob, finds that CO2 is the control knob. the paper was simply begging the question.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL. The three stooges can't understand the science or the methodology so, just on that basis, they conclude that it must be wrong, even though they know nothing about the matter and are far too retarded to comprehend it anyway. Hilarious. You morons should make a movie.

 

[daveman]

LOL. The three stooges can't understand the science or the methodology so, just on that basis, they conclude that it must be wrong, even though they know nothing about the matter and are far too retarded to comprehend it anyway. Hilarious. You morons should make a movie.

Explain the centuries-long lag between warming and CO2 increase.

 

[westwall]

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind and Reto A. Ruedy
+ Author Affiliations

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

First sentence.....WHERE oh where is that evidence?

How about just before the "first sentence", walleyedretard? Did you notice the word "Abstract"? Are you too clueless about science to even know what that means? What am I thinking? Of course you are. You've repeatedly demonstrated a total cluelessness about pretty much everything. particularly science. Any evidence would be contained in the paper itself, not the 'abstract'. Too bad you're such an ignoramus. Too bad you're in such absurd denial about the fact that climate scientists have indeed accumulated "ample physical evidence" about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and that the scientific community is well aware of that evidence even if you're not.


Abstract (summary)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given academic paper or patent application.

The abstract can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article but the full text article must be consulted for details of the methodology, the full experimental results, and a critical discussion of the interpretations and conclusions.


***

Yes I know what an abstract is doofus. It also is the paragraph wherein the researcher states their PRIMARY findings. Thus the first sentence should have some support for its bold statement. There is none. There is merely a "this is blah, blah, blah, because we say it is". Just like religion. No facts, just faith.

 

[westwall]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

No, he didn't. He presented evidence that CO2 was a GHG, that's all. Not that it had any effect on the climate. Get your scripture right there buckwheat.

 

[westwall]

Utilizing the "Because we say so" method of shoddy scientific "research", ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

There, fixed

they had to put "climate relevant" in front of "greenhouse gas" because CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas by a long shot.

Increased water vapor is a result of warmiing, NOT a cause. It goes up and down in response to other factors like solar flux, seasonal fluctuations AND the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere by GHGs.

Amazing then how it takes hundreds of years for the CO2 to increase after the planet has started warming. Kind of a backwards "control knob" don't you think?

 

[westwall]

LOL. The three stooges can't understand the science or the methodology so, just on that basis, they conclude that it must be wrong, even though they know nothing about the matter and are far too retarded to comprehend it anyway. Hilarious. You morons should make a movie.

Hey, that's a GREAT idea! What should we call it?? I know, let's call it "TIPPING POINT 3000-THE GLOBALWARMINGCLIMATECHANGEGLOBALCLIMATEDIRUPTION THINGY THAT NEVER HAPPENED"...sounds like a winner to me!

 

[whitehall]

You gotta wonder about the carbon fanatic agenda. What the hell do greenies really ...really want? They could go to Saudi Arabia and Brazil and even China and demonstrate against CO2 emissions but they don't. The greenie revolution is the socialist revolution that Van Jones and Bill Ayers established to bring the US down to a 3rd world country. Freaking history tells us that ice ages happen. We have more to fear from a burp in the sun that locks up all the water on earth and kills most of life than the mythical concept of man-made global warming. Geologically speaking we live in an incredible glitch in the sun's energy output and we should enjoy it but left wing radical political nut cases can't enjoy anything. They have to penalize the freedom of the United States that made their lives comfortable because deep down they hate their Country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

Oh, yeah, the CO2-in-a-box experiment. With maybe three variables. That's supposed to accurately represent an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

That the one you're talking about?

 

[daveman]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

Oh, yeah, the CO2-in-a-box experiment. With maybe three variables. That's supposed to accurately represent an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

That the one you're talking about?

Yes, that will act JUST LIKE an entire planet and sun!

 

[RollingThunder]

First sentence.....WHERE oh where is that evidence?

How about just before the "first sentence", walleyedretard? Did you notice the word "Abstract"? Are you too clueless about science to even know what that means? What am I thinking? Of course you are. You've repeatedly demonstrated a total cluelessness about pretty much everything. particularly science. Any evidence would be contained in the paper itself, not the 'abstract'. Too bad you're such an ignoramus. Too bad you're in such absurd denial about the fact that climate scientists have indeed accumulated "ample physical evidence" about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and that the scientific community is well aware of that evidence even if you're not.


Abstract (summary)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose. When used, an abstract always appears at the beginning of a manuscript, acting as the point-of-entry for any given academic paper or patent application.

The abstract can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article but the full text article must be consulted for details of the methodology, the full experimental results, and a critical discussion of the interpretations and conclusions.


***

Yes I know what an abstract is doofus. It also is the paragraph wherein the researcher states their PRIMARY findings. Thus the first sentence should have some support for its bold statement. There is none. There is merely a "this is blah, blah, blah, because we say it is". Just like religion. No facts, just faith.

No, you obviously still don't know what it means, you retarded dingbat, even after I showed you the definition. "An abstract is a brief summary of a research article" that "can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article". You still mistakenly imagine that the scientists were supposed to dump all of their evidence in the 'Abstact' when in fact, as the definition stated, "the full text article must be consulted for details of the methodology, the full experimental results, and a critical discussion of the interpretations and conclusions". You didn't read the actual scientific paper, walleyedretard, and you have no idea what is in it, what evidence, references, citations to other papers, etc., but you still moronically sneer at it because the evidence they refer to in the abstract wasn't laid out in detail in the brief one paragraph 'abstract'. Way to go, cretin.

You continue to conclusively demonstrate your utter cluelessness about science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, yeah, the CO2-in-a-box experiment. With maybe three variables. That's supposed to accurately represent an entire planet's atmosphere and oceans with millions of variables.

That the one you're talking about?

Yes, that will act JUST LIKE an entire planet and sun!

Still demonstrating how totally ignorant you are. Doubt that you even know what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what it meant.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. The three stooges can't understand the science or the methodology so, just on that basis, they conclude that it must be wrong, even though they know nothing about the matter and are far too retarded to comprehend it anyway. Hilarious. You morons should make a movie.

Explain the centuries-long lag between warming and CO2 increase.

Been done many times on this board. Just that you are too stupid to comprehend the answer.

 

[daveman]

Yes, that will act JUST LIKE an entire planet and sun!

Still demonstrating how totally ignorant you are. Doubt that you even know what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what it meant.

He proved CO2 is a greenhouse gas. His experiment did not address how it acts in the atmosphere, your little hissy-fit notwithstanding.

 

[daveman]

LOL. The three stooges can't understand the science or the methodology so, just on that basis, they conclude that it must be wrong, even though they know nothing about the matter and are far too retarded to comprehend it anyway. Hilarious. You morons should make a movie.

Explain the centuries-long lag between warming and CO2 increase.

Been done many times on this board. Just that you are too stupid to comprehend the answer.

Then you admit AGW is a fraud, because the timing of the Industrial Revolution does not support AGW and the CO2 lag.

Unless you want to claim CO2 goes back in time.

Your call.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

No, he didn't. He presented evidence that CO2 was a GHG, that's all. Not that it had any effect on the climate. Get your scripture right there buckwheat.

LOL. CO2 is a GHG. But it has no effect on the climate?

Good God and little fishes. Do you understand what the hell you said? CO2 is a GHG. Therefore, it absorbs energy. Now, were it to just keep that energy, it would increase it's rate of vibration, and collide with the molecules around it, thereby transfering that heat and warming the atmosphere.

But if it re-radiates that heat, 1/2 of the heat goes back to the earth. In either case, the result is a warmer troposphere and surface.

Hard to believe someone claims to be degreed in a discipline of science and makes statements as stupid as this.

 

[daveman]

Of course, anyone that knows anything at all about this subject knows that Tyndall presented the defining evidence in 1861.

No, he didn't. He presented evidence that CO2 was a GHG, that's all. Not that it had any effect on the climate. Get your scripture right there buckwheat.

LOL. CO2 is a GHG. But it has no effect on the climate?

Good God and little fishes. Do you understand what the hell you said? CO2 is a GHG. Therefore, it absorbs energy. Now, were it to just keep that energy, it would increase it's rate of vibration, and collide with the molecules around it, thereby transfering that heat and warming the atmosphere.

But if it re-radiates that heat, 1/2 of the heat goes back to the earth. In either case, the result is a warmer troposphere and surface.

Hard to believe someone claims to be degreed in a discipline of science and makes statements as stupid as this.

Got an experiment to back that up?

No?

Then it's not science, is it?