"""Global Warming"""

[Billy_Bob]

With the billions of cubic kilometers/miles that compose the Earths atmosphere, how much pollution can cause any significant temperature/climate change and to what degree? Take into consideration that if you fly from New York to Paris, you're only utilizing a miniscule amount of 3,000 miles of cubic kilometers. Anyone have any data?

Of course we do. The CO2 level during the depths of the ice age was 180 ppm. During the interglacials, like the one we are in, about 280 ppm. Now we are at 410 ppm. An increase of more than 130 ppm, 10 ppm more than the difference of a continental glacier reaching Illinois, and the present climate we enjoy. But through our own actions we are not going to enjoy that climate in the near future. The oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying. The Arctic Sea Ice is melting, in the near future, it will be gone for part of the summer. The permafrost is melting, and releasing more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

The only time in geological history that there has been as increase in GHGs this rapid have been periods of extinction.

And every ice core study ever done tells us that increasing CO2 follows rising temperatures...rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause...and don't bother spewing your dogma about feedbacks because observation has shown that CO2 does not enhance anything other than the already abject stupidity of liberals like you. If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science existed, and CO2 behaved as you claimed, the water vapor emission level of the troposphere would now be found at a higher altitude and would be considerably warmer...it isn't...in fact, the water vapor emissions level of the troposphere has been observed to decrease in altitude as CO2 levels have increased...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicted...and grounds to throw that failed hypothesis out the window...the fact that the WVEL has decreased in altitude is strong reason to suspect that CO2 is, in fact, a cooling agent in the atmosphere.

With the billions of cubic kilometers/miles that compose the Earths atmosphere, how much pollution can cause any significant temperature/climate change and to what degree? Take into consideration that if you fly from New York to Paris, you're only utilizing a miniscule amount of 3,000 miles of cubic kilometers. Anyone have any data?

Of course we do. The CO2 level during the depths of the ice age was 180 ppm. During the interglacials, like the one we are in, about 280 ppm. Now we are at 410 ppm. An increase of more than 130 ppm, 10 ppm more than the difference of a continental glacier reaching Illinois, and the present climate we enjoy. But through our own actions we are not going to enjoy that climate in the near future. The oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying. The Arctic Sea Ice is melting, in the near future, it will be gone for part of the summer. The permafrost is melting, and releasing more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

The only time in geological history that there has been as increase in GHGs this rapid have been periods of extinction.

And every ice core study ever done tells us that increasing CO2 follows rising temperatures...rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause...and don't bother spewing your dogma about feedbacks because observation has shown that CO2 does not enhance anything other than the already abject stupidity of liberals like you. If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science existed, and CO2 behaved as you claimed, the water vapor emission level of the troposphere would now be found at a higher altitude and would be considerably warmer...it isn't...in fact, the water vapor emissions level of the troposphere has been observed to decrease in altitude as CO2 levels have increased...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicted...and grounds to throw that failed hypothesis out the window...the fact that the WVEL has decreased in altitude is strong reason to suspect that CO2 is, in fact, a cooling agent in the atmosphere.

IF you follow the laws of thermal dynamics a mandatory result of CO2 increase would be a tropospheric hot spot, where heat was slowed or retained. The absence of that hot spot indicates that our understanding of the dynamics is either flawed or the hypothesis is flawed..

All mass radiates energy at certain rates dependent on the temperature of surrounding mass. Therefore, when equilibrium is met the input vs out put remain the same. The trace gas is incapable of holding heat long enough to change equilibrium in earths atmosphere. And empirical evidence of this is no net decrease in LWIR at the TOA (top of the atmosphere).

My take is two fold. Our understanding of the Law is lacking in some and that the hypothesis is incapable of modeling the earths systems as empirical evidence proves.

 

[SSDD]

With the billions of cubic kilometers/miles that compose the Earths atmosphere, how much pollution can cause any significant temperature/climate change and to what degree? Take into consideration that if you fly from New York to Paris, you're only utilizing a miniscule amount of 3,000 miles of cubic kilometers. Anyone have any data?

Of course we do. The CO2 level during the depths of the ice age was 180 ppm. During the interglacials, like the one we are in, about 280 ppm. Now we are at 410 ppm. An increase of more than 130 ppm, 10 ppm more than the difference of a continental glacier reaching Illinois, and the present climate we enjoy. But through our own actions we are not going to enjoy that climate in the near future. The oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying. The Arctic Sea Ice is melting, in the near future, it will be gone for part of the summer. The permafrost is melting, and releasing more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

The only time in geological history that there has been as increase in GHGs this rapid have been periods of extinction.

And every ice core study ever done tells us that increasing CO2 follows rising temperatures...rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause...and don't bother spewing your dogma about feedbacks because observation has shown that CO2 does not enhance anything other than the already abject stupidity of liberals like you. If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science existed, and CO2 behaved as you claimed, the water vapor emission level of the troposphere would now be found at a higher altitude and would be considerably warmer...it isn't...in fact, the water vapor emissions level of the troposphere has been observed to decrease in altitude as CO2 levels have increased...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicted...and grounds to throw that failed hypothesis out the window...the fact that the WVEL has decreased in altitude is strong reason to suspect that CO2 is, in fact, a cooling agent in the atmosphere.

With the billions of cubic kilometers/miles that compose the Earths atmosphere, how much pollution can cause any significant temperature/climate change and to what degree? Take into consideration that if you fly from New York to Paris, you're only utilizing a miniscule amount of 3,000 miles of cubic kilometers. Anyone have any data?

Of course we do. The CO2 level during the depths of the ice age was 180 ppm. During the interglacials, like the one we are in, about 280 ppm. Now we are at 410 ppm. An increase of more than 130 ppm, 10 ppm more than the difference of a continental glacier reaching Illinois, and the present climate we enjoy. But through our own actions we are not going to enjoy that climate in the near future. The oceans are warming, rising, and acidifying. The Arctic Sea Ice is melting, in the near future, it will be gone for part of the summer. The permafrost is melting, and releasing more CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

The only time in geological history that there has been as increase in GHGs this rapid have been periods of extinction.

And every ice core study ever done tells us that increasing CO2 follows rising temperatures...rising CO2 is an effect, not a cause...and don't bother spewing your dogma about feedbacks because observation has shown that CO2 does not enhance anything other than the already abject stupidity of liberals like you. If the greenhouse effect as described by climate science existed, and CO2 behaved as you claimed, the water vapor emission level of the troposphere would now be found at a higher altitude and would be considerably warmer...it isn't...in fact, the water vapor emissions level of the troposphere has been observed to decrease in altitude as CO2 levels have increased...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicted...and grounds to throw that failed hypothesis out the window...the fact that the WVEL has decreased in altitude is strong reason to suspect that CO2 is, in fact, a cooling agent in the atmosphere.

IF you follow the laws of thermal dynamics a mandatory result of CO2 increase would be a tropospheric hot spot, where heat was slowed or retained. The absence of that hot spot indicates that our understanding of the dynamics is either flawed or the hypothesis is flawed..

All mass radiates energy at certain rates dependent on the temperature of surrounding mass. Therefore, when equilibrium is met the input vs out put remain the same. The trace gas is incapable of holding heat long enough to change equilibrium in earths atmosphere. And empirical evidence of this is no net decrease in LWIR at the TOA (top of the atmosphere).

My take is two fold. Our understanding of the Law is lacking in some and that the hypothesis is incapable of modeling the earths systems as empirical evidence proves.

Fake physics aside, I think one of the primary causes of the failure of the AGW hypothesis is the emphasis they put on radiation...radiation is at best a bit player in the troposphere...Sure CO2 absorbs IR, but atmospheric density being what it any given CO2 molecule will collide with a billion other molecules...most likely O2, or N2, followed way behind by H2O and pass on the energy it absorbed via that pathway rather than actually emit the energy it absorbed as radiation. Maybe one in a billion CO2 molecules that absorb IR radiation actually emit it.

Had they considered the simple fact that convection dominates energy transfer within the troposphere by a very very wide margin, they could have got away with the fake physics because the predicted warming due to CO2 would have been so small as to be statistically meaningless...of course, had they taken that fact into account, there would never have been an alarm and it might have been a very long time before the fake physics were actually discovered and corrected.