Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Wuwei]

The question is "how much" ... and "for how long"

I was addressing the fact that many on this thread do not even believe that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.

What you are asking cannot be experimentally done because you cannot experimentally simulate the earth. There are lots of IPCC mathematical models that look into that. But many people on this thread guffaw at the IPCC. There was an experiment that confirmed back-radiation from CO2 is what models predict. That's the extent of my knowledge. See the IPCC for details.
.

 

[ReinyDays]

I was addressing the fact that many on this thread do not even believe that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.

What you are asking cannot be experimentally done because you cannot experimentally simulate the earth. There are lots of IPCC mathematical models that look into that. But many people on this thread guffaw at the IPCC. There was an experiment that confirmed back-radiation from CO2 is what models predict. That's the extent of my knowledge. See the IPCC for details.
.

The IPCC report is seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... I thought you might have more light to shine on this matter ...

 

[Wuwei]

The IPCC report is seven times longer than the Holy Bible ... I thought you might have more light to shine on this matter ...

Some on this board know how to navigate it. I have too many other things to do. IPCC has many detailed papers to slog through but there are executive summaries on climate science and predictions.

APS.org had a great summary of greenhouse gas physics, but it isn't there anymore.

 

[abu afak]

No, your threads contain opinion, and falsified data.

This has been PROVEN to you multiple times.

All you do is laugh like a loon, and hurl insults.

(Still waiting)

Really?
LYING old Clocksupper.

LINK for my "Falsified data?"
LINK for me "PROVEN wrong?"
You can't you LIAR.

You Demented old FRAUD.

I use NASA (alot), Yale, Columbia, Wall Street Journal (my home page), etc x 10.

I don't think you've EVER posted a link you Illiterate POS, and never started a threads in Science or Environment compared to my 100?
You are through..
Demented.
Do the right thing before you lose your last 5%.
Resign.

`

 

[westwall]

(Still waiting)

Really?
LYING old Clocksupper.

LINK for my "Falsified data?"
LINK for me "PROVEN wrong?"
You can't you LIAR.

You Demented old FRAUD.

I use NASA (alot), Yale, Columbia, Wall Street Journal (my home page), etc x 10.

I don't think you've EVER posted a link you Illiterate POS, and never started a threads in Science or Environment compared to my 100?
You are through..
Demented.
Do the right thing before you lose your last 5%.
Resign.

`

Almost everything you post comes from climate reanalyzer, in other words they take raw data, and falsify it. So, yeah, you live in fantasy land and are either to stupid to understand, or simply don't care because it interferes with your religion.

 

[flacaltenn]

And it's your belief that the associated temperature for varying concentrations of CO2 was measured?

That's not my understanding. It's my understanding that no one has ever tried to quantify the associated temperature from CO2 at varying concentrations. Why don't you go back and check and get back to me?

The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations.

When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls.

So -- THERE IS an ad hoc (global) factor to take CO2 warming power to a surface temperature. But the effort to understand either transient or steady state temperatures as DISTRIBUTED by the planet thermodynamics is still in development.

Note: we do see power to temp conversion estimates for various climate zones. But tying them together in an accurate "whole earth model" hasn't been done.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations.

When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls.

So -- THERE IS an ad hoc (global) factor to take CO2 warming power to a surface temperature. But the effort to understand either transient or steady state temperatures as DISTRIBUTED by the planet thermodynamics is still in development.

Note: we do see power to temp conversion estimates for various climate zones. But tying them together in an accurate "whole earth model" hasn't been done.

The problem I have with this climate dilemma, is that from my background in geology, I know the earth's history. I know all the processes of the earth that can increase and decrease co2 levels, amongst other things. I've trekked over Scotland, England and parts of Europe whilst doing my studies. I concentrated on local rocks and glaciation. I understand what organisms etc.. in the past contributed to the rise in co2.

What I object to is, people that feel the whole of the climate is based on co2 and mankind is the sole purpose that the climate is not what these climate alarmists have enjoyed throughout childhood.

And the biggest part I object too, we are told the earth is on the tipping point of destruction, yet we are hundreds and hundreds of percentage points behind where life flourished. And all I see is, alarmists copy and pasting graphs from someone who receives funding to come up with these graphs.

Most of science is flawed and people simply replicate this misinformation. I loved studying glaciation in the Lake District, and what is said on forums about the climate, is beggers belief. When I try to point something out, I'm classed as a climate denier.

So you as a mod, please enjoy moderating the 12 billion threads on the climate that all too frequently amalgamate in to the same rhetoric.

 

[ding]

The science going back on CO2 that proved CO2 back radiation and energy storage didn't address the conversion to temperatures at the destinations.

When it's an EARTH with multiple ACTUAL climate zones and they all respond differently to "forcings" -- having ONE consolidated conversion factor to temperature (like what appears in the lit) is virtually useless. It's also useless to have a conversion factor if you ignore the THERMAL STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION of the resultant heat where it falls.

So -- THERE IS an ad hoc (global) factor to take CO2 warming power to a surface temperature. But the effort to understand either transient or steady state temperatures as DISTRIBUTED by the planet thermodynamics is still in development.

Note: we do see power to temp conversion estimates for various climate zones. But tying them together in an accurate "whole earth model" hasn't been done.

It seems to me that the actual greenhouse effect is not transient. It's instantaneous or practically instantaneous. Like how a cloudy night is 10 to 20 degrees warmer than a cloudless night. You don't have to wait years to see that effect.

If the original experiment showed slower cool down times for 100% CO2 vs air. Then the delta temperature between the two curves would be the associated temperature of the 100%CO2 case. All I am saying is to do the same experiment at varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the differences to arrive at the greenhouse effect of varying CO2 concentrations. The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere. It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.

What you have described above (i.e. climate sensitivity) seems to be describing the feedback effect which is something entirely different from the choking effect of an atmosphere and should be kept separate from the greenhouse effect.

 

[flacaltenn]

And the biggest part I object too, we are told the earth is on the tipping point of destruction, yet we are hundreds and hundreds of percentage points behind where life flourished. And all I see is, alarmists copy and pasting graphs from someone who receives funding to come up with these graphs.

All very insightful. And you do it with a touch of humility. Not with the ARROGANCE of playing to media or misleading anyone about "what we know".

The quote above is where I throw my marker also. I've spent just as much time arguing with GHouse Deniers and other strange birds as I have the PANICKED folks who dont appreciate that GWarming can NOT BE just ONE QUESTION answered.

The usual Alarmist/Denier scale is measured by ONE QUESTION. Which is actually a trivial compound question.

"Do you believe that the Earth is warming and Mankind is in whole or part responsible for the warming. I (probably you) can relent to ACCEPTING this. The other 170 questions were asked in a series of papers by Bray and von Storch over about a decade where they polled VETTED climate scientists about everything in between "faith in the modeling" and "current (weather) evidence for global warming". There WAS NO CLEAR "consensus".

One of the more interesting questions in the 1st poll was -- "Do you consider Climate science to be a mature discipline capable of forecasting climate" or something close to that -- and the answers were definitely tilted towards NO.
Because it wasn't in 1998 or whenever that 1st poll was taken. We had barely satellite knowledge for 25 years at that point and modeling was REALLY ROUGH.

As far as the adjunct theories about "accelerated or run-away warming" or "tipping points" -- that's my real line in the sand. They make little sense for ALL the reasons you laid out in Geological history. If the Earth survived FOUR periods of glaciation where the CO2 cycle virtually SHUT down and then RECOVERED without all these catastrophic effects (mainly a fear of melting permafrost and releasing EVER INCREASING amounts of CO2) then why after FOUR trials do we still exist to argue this? Each of those events buried and then exposed 100 or more times more permafrost than we have LEFT NOW !!!

And mankind's 5% contribution (nature = 95%) to yearly CO2 cycle IS NOT sufficient to push that over the edge in the NEXT ice age. In fact, instead of catastrophic theories mentioned -- we MAY just be buying another 1000 years of a habitable temperate world.

THEN -- there's the dynamics of GW science CHANGING over the past 40 years. Old bad science and media fear porn still exists on the web. While the SCIENCE has moved on.

Best example of that is the media stories describing how NYCity/Fla and most Pac islands would be underwater by 2100 or so because the West Antarctic Ice sheets were ACCELERATING towards the sea. When YOU say you dont think CO2 is the MAIN climate control knob -- you're probably right. Because yeah -- that ice was speeding up a bit, but NOT BECAUSE of AIR temps or WATER temps in Antarctica. About 2012 -- It was discovered that the many assumed volcanic rifts in that region WERE ACTIVE. And they were RIGHT BENEATH the FOOTERS of those coastal glaciers.

Without folks like us that have a more objective view of history and science and hype of this circus --- it would be REALLY IRONIC if NYCity/Fla/most Pac Islands went underwater NOT IN 100 or even 50 years -- but if that volcanic activity was to INCREASE -- it could be in a couple decades or less.

GW sucks the air right out of objective science on the topic. It's politically driven at the UN and in the various capitols of the world. DESTROYS emphasis on OTHER environmental emergencies. We need to calm the fuck down a bit and DEBATE and TEST and IMPROVE all the sciences that roll up into GWarming.

Sorry for the length but loved your take on it.

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems to me that the actual greenhouse effect is not transient. It's instantaneous or practically instantaneous. Like how a cloudy night is 10 to 20 degrees warmer than a cloudless night. You don't have to wait years to see that effect.

If the original experiment showed slower cool down times for 100% CO2 vs air. Then the delta temperature between the two curves would be the associated temperature of the 100%CO2 case. All I am saying is to do the same experiment at varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the differences to arrive at the greenhouse effect of varying CO2 concentrations. The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere. It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.

What you have described above (i.e. climate sensitivity) seems to be describing the feedback effect which is something entirely different from the choking effect of an atmosphere and should be kept separate from the greenhouse effect.

I think you're right in the sense that CO2 back radiation goes to work pretty fast. But it also has a long atmos retention time. If you were just measuring thru clear dry sky and could jolt a bolt of CO2 up there -- and ONLY cared to CONTAINE that gas above your lat/long 1000 x 1000 mile square of SAND (say) -- you'd get some quick response.

The complication on a calculating a GLOBAL MEAN temp change however is monumentally more difficult because "the earth" is one of the most complex thermodynamic systems of heat distribution that you can imagine. It's not only SURFACE variations (iced, dry desert, ocean, latitude and sun irradiance differences, WEATHER patterns, ect, ect. -- It's ABOVE the ground due to weather and jet streams and BELOW the ocean with thermal conveyors.

So what they ACTUALLY DO -- and remember they are focused on a whole earth composite model, not building a model from different climate zones -- is to provide a Short Term Climate Sensitivity number and a Long Term Climate Sensitivity number. THOSE numbers are the FACTOR that convert CO2 forcing power to a GMAST (Global Mean Averaged Surface Temp [anomaly]}

Because SOME heat goes into land/ocean storage. Some heat takes decades for the ocean to store and redistribute to the surface and SOME goes into tropospheric "weather storage" as the jet stream and storms and such. It takes a LONG TIME for something that complex to "come to equilibrium" again after any transient on a climate sized time scale. And our little 80 or 100 year event aint even enough time to reach an equilibrium surface temp.

 

[flacaltenn]

The majority of the greenhouse effect occurs just from having an atmosphere. It's ridiculous to assume slight changes in the concentrations of the gases will have any material effect.

Always remember the back rad forcing of CO2 is SMALL. It's about 3 W/m2. That's a couple Christmas lights. And the temperature anomaly EFFECT IS SMALL. Satellites measure about 0.14 DegC/decade. That's 0.014 DegC/YEAR !!!

So YEAH -- ALL of that is a "slight change". But in CAN accumulate over time.

 

[ding]

I think you're right in the sense that CO2 back radiation goes to work pretty fast. But it also has a long atmos retention time. If you were just measuring thru clear dry sky and could jolt a bolt of CO2 up there -- and ONLY cared to CONTAINE that gas above your lat/long 1000 x 1000 mile square of SAND (say) -- you'd get some quick response.

Exactly. If you could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere there should be an immediate effect. That is the greenhouse effect associated with CO2. The retention time is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. The retention time affects climate sensitivity. The greenhouse gas effect is effectively a heat choke. It delays the transfer of heat to outer space by building up heat in the atmosphere. It's just like a choke on a garden hose which builds up pressure in the hose and chokes the transfer of water from the hose to the atmosphere. Same general principle. Anything more than that is what happens as a consequence of the greenhouse gas effect and should be accounted for separately. To me it is disingenuous to lump them together and call all of it the greenhouse effect. One is and the other isn't.

The complication on a calculating a GLOBAL MEAN temp change however is monumentally more difficult because "the earth" is one of the most complex thermodynamic systems of heat distribution that you can imagine. It's not only SURFACE variations (iced, dry desert, ocean, latitude and sun irradiance differences, WEATHER patterns, ect, ect. -- It's ABOVE the ground due to weather and jet streams and BELOW the ocean with thermal conveyors.

Please don't get me started on the idiocy of people believing we can "measure" the average ambient temperature of the earth - with any precision - where at any point in time parts of the earth are in darkness and sunshine and in opposite seasons. I accept using oxygen isotope curves and seas levels as proxies for temperature - as well as pre-industrialization CO2 levels - but not with the precision they are arguing today.

So what they ACTUALLY DO -- and remember they are focused on a whole earth composite model, not building a model from different climate zones -- is to provide a Short Term Climate Sensitivity number and a Long Term Climate Sensitivity number. THOSE numbers are the FACTOR that convert CO2 forcing power to a GMAST (Global Mean Averaged Surface Temp [anomaly]}

And disingenuously roll that into the radiative forcing equation of CO2. Whereas if they actually measured the associate temperature of just the greenhouse effect they would see how ludicrous their climate sensitivity forcing is. It's a shell game.

Because SOME heat goes into land/ocean storage. Some heat takes decades for the ocean to store and redistribute to the surface and SOME goes into tropospheric "weather storage" as the jet stream and storms and such. It takes a LONG TIME for something that complex to "come to equilibrium" again after any transient on a climate sized time scale. And our little 80 or 100 year event aint even enough time to reach an equilibrium surface temp.

Right, but let's say they measured the greenhouse gas effect at varying concentrations of CO2 in a controlled laboratory experiment. And let's say the measured greenhouse effect for CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm was 0.3C, what do you believe the long term associated temperature would be for a 0.3C greenhouse gas effect?

 

[ding]

Always remember the back rad forcing of CO2 is SMALL. It's about 3 W/m2. That's a couple Christmas lights. And the temperature anomaly EFFECT IS SMALL. Satellites measure about 0.14 DegC/decade. That's 0.014 DegC/YEAR !!!

So YEAH -- ALL of that is a "slight change". But in CAN accumulate over time.

Not only is it small but it is a logarithmic relationship so it's effect per ppm diminishes as the concentration increases. How can it accumulate to more than what the actual greenhouse gas effect actually is?

Without a controlled laboratory experiment their arguments are meaningless to me. There's way too much data that shows CO2 does not drive climate change for me to dismiss that data for no other reason than they say so based upon a rigged model which is uncontrolled with too many variables that are poorly understood and obfuscates the actual greenhouse gas effect instead of directly measuring it in a laboratory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All very insightful. And you do it with a touch of humility. Not with the ARROGANCE of playing to media or misleading anyone about "what we know".

The quote above is where I throw my marker also. I've spent just as much time arguing with GHouse Deniers and other strange birds as I have the PANICKED folks who dont appreciate that GWarming can NOT BE just ONE QUESTION answered.

The usual Alarmist/Denier scale is measured by ONE QUESTION. Which is actually a trivial compound question.

"Do you believe that the Earth is warming and Mankind is in whole or part responsible for the warming. I (probably you) can relent to ACCEPTING this. The other 170 questions were asked in a series of papers by Bray and von Storch over about a decade where they polled VETTED climate scientists about everything in between "faith in the modeling" and "current (weather) evidence for global warming". There WAS NO CLEAR "consensus".

One of the more interesting questions in the 1st poll was -- "Do you consider Climate science to be a mature discipline capable of forecasting climate" or something close to that -- and the answers were definitely tilted towards NO.
Because it wasn't in 1998 or whenever that 1st poll was taken. We had barely satellite knowledge for 25 years at that point and modeling was REALLY ROUGH.

As far as the adjunct theories about "accelerated or run-away warming" or "tipping points" -- that's my real line in the sand. They make little sense for ALL the reasons you laid out in Geological history. If the Earth survived FOUR periods of glaciation where the CO2 cycle virtually SHUT down and then RECOVERED without all these catastrophic effects (mainly a fear of melting permafrost and releasing EVER INCREASING amounts of CO2) then why after FOUR trials do we still exist to argue this? Each of those events buried and then exposed 100 or more times more permafrost than we have LEFT NOW !!!

And mankind's 5% contribution (nature = 95%) to yearly CO2 cycle IS NOT sufficient to push that over the edge in the NEXT ice age. In fact, instead of catastrophic theories mentioned -- we MAY just be buying another 1000 years of a habitable temperate world.

THEN -- there's the dynamics of GW science CHANGING over the past 40 years. Old bad science and media fear porn still exists on the web. While the SCIENCE has moved on.

Best example of that is the media stories describing how NYCity/Fla and most Pac islands would be underwater by 2100 or so because the West Antarctic Ice sheets were ACCELERATING towards the sea. When YOU say you dont think CO2 is the MAIN climate control knob -- you're probably right. Because yeah -- that ice was speeding up a bit, but NOT BECAUSE of AIR temps or WATER temps in Antarctica. About 2012 -- It was discovered that the many assumed volcanic rifts in that region WERE ACTIVE. And they were RIGHT BENEATH the FOOTERS of those coastal glaciers.

Without folks like us that have a more objective view of history and science and hype of this circus --- it would be REALLY IRONIC if NYCity/Fla/most Pac Islands went underwater NOT IN 100 or even 50 years -- but if that volcanic activity was to INCREASE -- it could be in a couple decades or less.

GW sucks the air right out of objective science on the topic. It's politically driven at the UN and in the various capitols of the world. DESTROYS emphasis on OTHER environmental emergencies. We need to calm the fuck down a bit and DEBATE and TEST and IMPROVE all the sciences that roll up into GWarming.

Sorry for the length but loved your take on it.

"Do you believe that the Earth is warming and Mankind is in whole or part responsible for the warming. I (probably you) can relent to ACCEPTING this. The other 170 questions were asked in a series of papers by Bray and von Storch over about a decade where they polled VETTED climate scientists about everything in between "faith in the modeling" and "current (weather) evidence for global warming". There WAS NO CLEAR "consensus".

Yeah, but 75/77!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly. If you could remove all CO2 from the atmosphere there should be an immediate effect. That is the greenhouse effect associated with CO2. The retention time is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. The retention time affects climate sensitivity. The greenhouse gas effect is effectively a heat choke. It delays the transfer of heat to outer space by building up heat in the atmosphere. It's just like a choke on a garden hose which builds up pressure in the hose and chokes the transfer of water from the hose to the atmosphere. Same general principle. Anything more than that is what happens as a consequence of the greenhouse gas effect and should be accounted for separately. To me it is disingenuous to lump them together and call all of it the greenhouse effect. One is and the other isn't.

OK -- maybe you caught me snoozing a bit there. CO2 doesn't CREATE any heat, it acts to restrain the LOSS of heat to space. So does water vapor which is the dominant GHouse gas. All heat comes from the core or from the sun or FROM STORAGE elsewhere -- like deep in the oceans.

But CO2 is no different from H2O in how it acts. H2O vapor is LESS "persistent" because it cycles back to earth more readily in the troposphere. But nonetheless, they CAN accumulate and they CAN grow over time in concentration.

The climate sensitivity is inherent in the REGION of the earth in which it exists tho. It's a measure of how the back rad converts to a temperature. It's independent of the POWER that comes in the form of InfraRed. It's the material constitution of what is radiated, the amount of power it TAKES to make a degree on a thermometer which would vary in the Arctic and at the equator.

The 2 diffs between H2O and CO2 are in the TOTAL GHouse system are --

1) H2O not only has back rad capability, like on the clouds warming up the desert night, but it also has REFLECTIVE properties in the form of clouds that REDUCES solar irradiance in PRETTY much totality at the surface. Which reduces the heat available at the surface instantaneously to be "restrained" by your GH gas blanket.

2) H2O is FAR AND AWAY a broader spectral absorber and emitter of the LWave IR and it's VOLUME makes CO2 LESS of GHouse gas because there are fewer holes in the "back rad" spectrum that CO2 can fill. So unless your "experiment" is in the desert AT NIGHT -- you'd never unwind the two in terms of contributions for anything "instantaneous".

 

[flacaltenn]

Not only is it small but it is a logarithmic relationship so it's effect per ppm diminishes as the concentration increases. How can it accumulate to more than what the actual greenhouse gas effect actually is?

Even tho its log, - a log never ends. So if you started from ZERO concentration, a small amount would make a huge diff. At each doubling of concentration, you'll get approx the same number of degree(s) (actually 1.2DegC to be exact). So -- we're not EVEN AT the first doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Age. It just takes a LOT of CO2 to get there. From 270 ppm to 540ppm. We'll be there in about 2080 if China doesn't sputter out. FROM THERE -- you need an additional 540 this time to make the next doubling,.

The GreenHouse is not INHERENTLY stable. Even more water vapor could tip it one way or the other. There's room for heavy man-made chemicals up there too that could REEK disastrous effects on the GH with just SMALL concentrations.

Without a controlled laboratory experiment their arguments are meaningless to me. There's way too much data that shows CO2 does not drive climate change for me to dismiss that data for no other reason than they say so based upon a rigged model which is uncontrolled with too many variables that are poorly understood and obfuscates the actual greenhouse gas effect instead of directly measuring it in a laboratory.

Dont need to model the whole thing. If you ACCEPT the GreenHouse theory, you then acknowledge that a tighter blanket of GHouse gases COULD affect the surface the temps in a transient or longer steady way depending on how the COMPLEX Earth Thermodynamical system redistributes and stores this "retained" heat.

Any gas that can vibrate in modes that allows it to emit LWave IR when warmed IS part of the GH.

 

[ding]

OK -- maybe you caught me snoozing a bit there. CO2 doesn't CREATE any heat, it acts to restrain the LOSS of heat to space. So does water vapor which is the dominant GHouse gas. All heat comes from the core or from the sun or FROM STORAGE elsewhere -- like deep in the oceans.

But CO2 is no different from H2O in how it acts. H2O vapor is LESS "persistent" because it cycles back to earth more readily in the troposphere. But nonetheless, they CAN accumulate and they CAN grow over time in concentration.

The climate sensitivity is inherent in the REGION of the earth in which it exists tho. It's a measure of how the back rad converts to a temperature. It's independent of the POWER that comes in the form of InfraRed. It's the material constitution of what is radiated, the amount of power it TAKES to make a degree on a thermometer which would vary in the Arctic and at the equator.

The 2 diffs between H2O and CO2 are in the TOTAL GHouse system are --

1) H2O not only has back rad capability, like on the clouds warming up the desert night, but it also has REFLECTIVE properties in the form of clouds that REDUCES solar irradiance in PRETTY much totality at the surface. Which reduces the heat available at the surface instantaneously to be "restrained" by your GH gas blanket.

2) H2O is FAR AND AWAY a broader spectral absorber and emitter of the LWave IR and it's VOLUME makes CO2 LESS of GHouse gas because there are fewer holes in the "back rad" spectrum that CO2 can fill. So unless your "experiment" is in the desert AT NIGHT -- you'd never unwind the two in terms of contributions for anything "instantaneous".

I didn't think you were saying CO2 creates heat. I get all that about water vapor and clouds too. Which is why the only way they can ever precisely determine the associated temperature of CO2 for varying concentrations is through a controlled laboratory experiment.

Science is good. They should actually do some.

 

[ding]

Even tho its log, - a log never ends. So if you started from ZERO concentration, a small amount would make a huge diff. At each doubling of concentration, you'll get approx the same number of degree(s) (actually 1.2DegC to be exact). So -- we're not EVEN AT the first doubling of CO2 since the Industrial Age. It just takes a LOT of CO2 to get there. From 270 ppm to 540ppm. We'll be there in about 2080 if China doesn't sputter out. FROM THERE -- you need an additional 540 this time to make the next doubling,.

The GreenHouse is not INHERENTLY stable. Even more water vapor could tip it one way or the other. There's room for heavy man-made chemicals up there too that could REEK disastrous effects on the GH with just SMALL concentrations.


Dont need to model the whole thing. If you ACCEPT the GreenHouse theory, you then acknowledge that a tighter blanket of GHouse gases COULD affect the surface the temps in a transient or longer steady way depending on how the COMPLEX Earth Thermodynamical system redistributes and stores this "retained" heat.

Any gas that can vibrate in modes that allows it to emit LWave IR when warmed IS part of the GH.

See that's exactly what I am challenging. How do they know that unless they have tested that at varying CO2 concentrations?

 

[flacaltenn]

ding

You want an experiment to directly measure the LWave IR back radiation from A REAL SKY anywhere in the world? At LEAST 80 studies out there that do exactly that. That cuts your goalpost for experimental evidence at least in half.

You can stop laughing when they attribute everything they measured to a 22 ppm change in the amount of CO2 between start/end of the measurements. LOL. ALTHOUGH the CO2 very likely was a major contributor.

There are others like this that measure the back rad (reflected radiative heat) from the GHouse.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 - PubMed

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D R Feldman 1, W D Collins 2, P J Gero 3, M S Torn 4, E J Mlawer 5, T R Shippert 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 25731165 DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Free article
Abstract
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m(-2) (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations-the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska-are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m(-2) per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m(-2) per decade and ±0.07 W m(-2) per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m(-2). This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

 

[flacaltenn]

I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.

All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.