Evidence supporting AGW

[Old Rocks]

Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.

 

[jc456]

Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.

You know, you're right. I have no desire to go to school to become a physics major at age 58. Instead, I expect and depend on those with the experience to guide me correctly. And if you are not a physics major or climate type or scientist, then you are like me counting on others for data. To which, I will remain focused on expecting proof from those supposed experts to provide correct data. So, do you have the data set that shows through experiment what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to temperatures or climate. See, i don't need to be an expert, I merely need to stay consistent with my inquisitve nature and expectations as a human being. I do think for myself and don't just jump because someone tells me to jump. I evaluate the situation and make decisions based on factual information. So give me some factual info that agrees with your position. I've provided mine.

 

[SSDD]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......

 

[jc456]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......

I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts. We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid. I can't and never will be one of those. It isn't in my DNA. You see, logic escapes them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

Well, there's the Oregon Oysters, or the Mythbuster 7.38% CO2 experiment

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......

I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts. We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid. I can't and never will be one of those. It isn't in my DNA. You see, logic escapes them.

Just pointing out SSDD's weak understanding of physics.

Still don't think we should crush our economy because watermelons are whining.

 

[jc456]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......

I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts. We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid. I can't and never will be one of those. It isn't in my DNA. You see, logic escapes them.

Just pointing out SSDD's weak understanding of physics.

Still don't think we should crush our economy because watermelons are whining.

I was referring to old stones and his followers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.

You know, you're right. I have no desire to go to school to become a physics major at age 58. Instead, I expect and depend on those with the experience to guide me correctly. And if you are not a physics major or climate type or scientist, then you are like me counting on others for data. To which, I will remain focused on expecting proof from those supposed experts to provide correct data. So, do you have the data set that shows through experiment what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to temperatures or climate. See, i don't need to be an expert, I merely need to stay consistent with my inquisitve nature and expectations as a human being. I do think for myself and don't just jump because someone tells me to jump. I evaluate the situation and make decisions based on factual information. So give me some factual info that agrees with your position. I've provided mine.

I am an industrial milwright with 50 years experiance, and am still working full time. I also have earned 110 credits toward a degree in Geology, and am still attending a university part time to get that degree. And, yes, I am 70 years old.

Here is the information that you requested;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?
- LINKS -



For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

<=Simple models

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

 

[Old Rocks]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

Very easy to do, although you will deny the paper.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

The paper has the math in it, and the predictions made have been pretty much spot on.

 

[SSDD]

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant.......

I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts. We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid. I can't and never will be one of those. It isn't in my DNA. You see, logic escapes them.

Just pointing out SSDD's weak understanding of physics.

Still don't think we should crush our economy because watermelons are whining.

If you want to point out my weak understanding of physics, then provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature with no work being done to make it happen....unless you can provide that, you have pointed out nothing other than your inability to provide evidence to support your faith in post modern science.

 

[SSDD]

While you are answering his question rocks, perhaps you could show the peer reviewed paper in which a greenhouse effect is actually observed, measured and quantified. Should be no problem if such a paper actually exists...if no such paper exists and a greenhouse effect has never, in fact, been observed, measured and quantified, then your hypothesis, and all the claims arising from it have a serious problem....without such actual evidence, you are arguing from a position of faith, not actual science.

Very easy to do, although you will deny the paper.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

The paper has the math in it, and the predictions made have been pretty much spot on.

So the authors say that models predict a temperature increase of 2 to 3.5 degree increase for a doubling of CO2 from 300 to 600ppm...of course that is not spot on...barely a half a degree since the beginning of the 20th century with most of that being prior to 1950 and no warming at all for damned near 2 decades...

Aside from that, you claim to have answered my challenge to have shown a peer reviewed paper which has actually observed, measured, and quantified when the authors state clearly that: "The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2 to 3.5 C for a doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600ppm. I read the paper and may have missed it, so perhaps you can show me where an actual observation, measurement and quantification of the greenhouse effect happened. I do hope you realize that model data is not actual observation.

The math is certainly there, but it is nothing more than the math that has gone into making the models which are failing spectacularly. Arguing that the models are spot on is just stupid.

So this paper claims 2. to 3.5 degrees C for a doubling from 300 to 600. But you made THIS post which says that models suggest a sensitivity of 1.5 to 5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. without going out and looking at all of the model predictions you have posted, we have a margin of error of 4 degrees attached to an observed warming of barely half a degree with most of that happening in the early part of the 20th century when CO2 levels were "safe".

Of what value are model predictions with a margin of error of 4 degrees when those models are failing?

Go back and try again....lets see a peer reviewed paper where a greenhouse effect was actually observed, measured, and quantified......or be a grown up and simply admit that after hundreds of billions of dollars flushed down the climate science toilet, there is still no actual observation of a greenhouse effect, no actual measurement of a greenhouse effect, and no quantification of a greenhouse effect.

 

[Crick]

That's what I thought.

 

[SSDD]

That's what I thought.

What, that he would not be able to produce anything in which an actual observation, measurement and quantification of a greenhouse effect was documented?

Just what I thought too.

Question is, don't you think that after the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by climate science that it is unreasonable to expect that some actual observation, measurement, and quantification of a greenhouse effect would have been documented if it actually exists outside of computer models?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe he and the others are of the position that if one isn't an expert, then one is not allowed to ask questions of said experts. We are all supposed to just drink the koolaid. I can't and never will be one of those. It isn't in my DNA. You see, logic escapes them.

Just pointing out SSDD's weak understanding of physics.

Still don't think we should crush our economy because watermelons are whining.

If you want to point out my weak understanding of physics, then provide an observed, measured example of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature with no work being done to make it happen....unless you can provide that, you have pointed out nothing other than your inability to provide evidence to support your faith in post modern science.

Photons (or waves, if you don't believe in photons) move from cold objects to warmer objects all the time. Check it out, an ice cube is colder than my eye, and not invisible.

I'm still waiting for your refutation of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant....


The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature .

Check it out! The higher the temperature, the more power emitted.
Nothing about your smart photons.

Or is Stefan-Boltzmann too post-modern for you?

 

[jc456]

Crick, you are assuming that these people actually read anything at all on the subject. They do not, they merely mouth the twaddle that is fed them by the likes of the obese junkie on the radio. They neither understand science nor do they care to. For them, work is a four letter word, and they are not going to do such to understand basic physics and chemistry.

You know, you're right. I have no desire to go to school to become a physics major at age 58. Instead, I expect and depend on those with the experience to guide me correctly. And if you are not a physics major or climate type or scientist, then you are like me counting on others for data. To which, I will remain focused on expecting proof from those supposed experts to provide correct data. So, do you have the data set that shows through experiment what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to temperatures or climate. See, i don't need to be an expert, I merely need to stay consistent with my inquisitve nature and expectations as a human being. I do think for myself and don't just jump because someone tells me to jump. I evaluate the situation and make decisions based on factual information. So give me some factual info that agrees with your position. I've provided mine.

I am an industrial milwright with 50 years experiance, and am still working full time. I also have earned 110 credits toward a degree in Geology, and am still attending a university part time to get that degree. And, yes, I am 70 years old.

Here is the information that you requested;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?
- LINKS -



For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

<=Simple models

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)

So like me you are no pysics genious. SSDD already replied to you concerning models and the fact that models are not proof or evidence if the observed data doesn't support them. So all of th hypothesis in the world doesn't mean or make an argument to which you have no evidence. That is all we're asking for on this board.

Since you are now studying geology, haven't you learned that the earth has hot magma at it's core? Isn't it just possible that some of the magma that is released, causes warming to the surface of the planet? Also, over the course of time isn't there now more rock on the surface to which becomes warm due to te sun's rays? And wouldn't you expect that the science provide some evidence that human CO2 does anything to the atmosphere?

Sorry, I just don't believe them or their failed models. BTW, as an engineer myself, I am disappointed that they, the scientists, don't behave as one would expect when a model doesn't fit the observed. That doesn't cut it in my field. I have customers who count on accuracy of a hypothesis before buying a product. Well I'm the customer of the climate science group and I ain't buyng it.

 

[Old Rocks]

And as a multidecade experianced millwright, over half the engineers I deal with do not cut it. I have had to rework too many abysmally stupid designs to kowtow to anyone because they are an engineer.

 

[jc456]

And as a multidecade experianced millwright, over half the engineers I deal with do not cut it. I have had to rework too many abysmally stupid designs to kowtow to anyone because they are an engineer.

Right!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Isn't it just possible that some of the magma that is released, causes warming to the surface of the planet?

No. That is, the heat flowing out from the earth is fairly constant. It would require a thousand-fold increase in vulcanism to account for the increased temps, and that clearly hasn't happened.

Also, over the course of time isn't there now more rock on the surface to which becomes warm due to the sun's rays?

There has been no increase in the amount of rockiness over the past 50 years that would account for warming. There have been changes in earth's albedo due to humans changing the landscape, which are closely tracked by scientists.

And wouldn't you expect that the science provide some evidence that human CO2 does anything to the atmosphere?

It has done so, over and over, but you've chosen to deliberately ignore the evidence. If you act like that on the job, ignoring all the evidence you don't like, your products must suck.

Sorry, I just don't believe them or their failed models. BTW, as an engineer myself, I am disappointed that they, the scientists, don't behave as one would expect when a model doesn't fit the observed. That doesn't cut it in my field. I have customers who count on accuracy of a hypothesis before buying a product. Well I'm the customer of the climate science group and I ain't buyng it.

Engineers are often deniers, and the the worst kinds, because they stupidly think their technical training has made them scientists. In general, they don't even understand the difference between engineering and science.

 

[mamooth]

The smoking guns keep coming. This one confirms the water vapor feedback.

Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming
---
Eui-Seok Chunga,
Brian Sodena,1,
B. J. Sohnb, and
Lei Shic
---

Uh-oh. No big names from the denier hate-list, so they can't instantly handwave it away. They'll have to add those names to their hate-list.

---
Abstract

Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change.
---

Part one, they looked at the outgoing infrared in the water vapor absorption band between 1979 and 2005, and they found lots more water vapor.

Part two, they tried to figure out why, and the only explanation that worked was higher temps had led to more water vapor in the upper troposphere, exactly as the models had predicted.