Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[Crick]

I have to give you credit for realizing that you'll never reject AGW without rejecting the greenhouse effect. But if it ever troubled you to pit yourself against 97% of the world's active climate scientists, the idea of rejecting a physical process that is probably accepted by more than 99% of ALL scientists has to give you some reason to pause.

But apparently not.

 

[Crick]

This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect. I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.

"Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."
Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319–320. doi:10.1080/14786440208636602. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate." "it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)."

"NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97

The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.

John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).

Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.

Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.

Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.

"The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

"Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.

Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115–139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

"Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197&#8211;208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Archived from the original on 2006-03-30. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

"NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming". January 14, 2009.

"Enhanced greenhouse effect &#8212; Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.

"Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Mauna Loa". NOAA.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269&#8211;279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.

"Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.

Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.

Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection"

McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118&#8211;1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit

"Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234&#8211;245. Retrieved 2009.

Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037&#8211;1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. edit

 

[Crick]

I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff. Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references. Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit. ANYONE.

 

[jc456]

It never stops does it. Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all. Prove it. Prove the significant statement you use. The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding. You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does. "Significantly" Now that's just funny. One experiment that proves that, pretty please.

The problem isn't my use of the word "significant", it's your use of the word "prove".

Can I ask you how old you are and how much science education you've completed? I'm 60 years old and have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering. That involved a fair bit of science classes but I'm still no scientist. However, the number of people that think that people studying the natural sciences PROVE things is disconcertingly high.

Can you prove that every atom in the universe is composed of electrons, protons and (aside from hydrogen) neutrons? To PROVE it, you would have to examine every atom in the universe. So, can you do that? No. Could you instead show that the mechanisms that lead to the existence of atoms can only lead to atoms composed of those particles? Well, you could try. You could put it out as a theory and you could test the theory. You could try to think of as many ways as possible to check it - experiments that should fail if our theory about atoms were false. They call that "falsification". That's what scientists do. Read some real science. You'll run into words like significant and likely and probably and majority and a hundred more. You won't run often into "prove".

I'm not sure what my age has to do with anything, or in that fact anyone's age. Do you feel insecure? Are you afraid of someone at any age showing you up? I'm 58. So what?

I'm a Telecommunication Engineer. I'm not a scientist. I do use procedures and work with real live customers who expect proof when the observed does not equal our theory. Which means we do lab experiments to prove out our theory. So, I've been groomed in my background to expect proof. You nor anyone has given any. Sorry, I don't accept your theory, since I don't see evidence in the climate that agrees with your science.

 

[Crick]

It's not my theory. It's the theory that 97% of the world's active climate scientists accept. They don't seem to be worried about proof. They seem to be satisfied with overwhelming evidence.

I asked about your age because your unfamiliarity with science basics led me to think you might be young and still in school.

Just out of curiosity, what theories do you prove with what laboratory experiments?

 

[SSDD]

This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect. I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.

"Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."
Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319–320. doi:10.1080/14786440208636602. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate." "it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)."

"NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97

The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.

John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).

Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.

Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.

Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.

"The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

"Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.

Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115–139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

"Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197–208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Archived from the original on 2006-03-30. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

"NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming". January 14, 2009.

"Enhanced greenhouse effect — Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.

"Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa". NOAA.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269–279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.

"Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.

Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.

Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection"

McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118–1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit

"Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234–245. Retrieved 2009.

Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037–1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. edit

And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

You must really, really, really want people to think you're stupid.

Or you just really are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have to give you credit for realizing that you'll never reject AGW without rejecting the greenhouse effect. But if it ever troubled you to pit yourself against 97% of the world's active climate scientists, the idea of rejecting a physical process that is probably accepted by more than 99% of ALL scientists has to give you some reason to pause.

But apparently not.

Who the **** cares about 97% of the AGWCultists?? You had the same Consensus that the Earth was a flat plane help on the back of a Giant Turtle. In fact, he Giant Turtle Theory makes more sense than your "Wisp of CO2 will cause Cat 5 hurricanes" theory

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[jc456]

It never stops does it. Uses of words like significant is so outstanding with you all. Prove it. Prove the significant statement you use. The heck with all of the other mumbo jumbo you wrote, it is that word that is just outstanding. You have no evidence to support CO2 causes increases in temperature, yet here you are saying it significantly does. "Significantly" Now that's just funny. One experiment that proves that, pretty please.

The problem isn't my use of the word "significant", it's your use of the word "prove".

Can I ask you how old you are and how much science education you've completed? I'm 60 years old and have a bachelor's degree in ocean engineering. That involved a fair bit of science classes but I'm still no scientist. However, the number of people that think that people studying the natural sciences PROVE things is disconcertingly high.

Can you prove that every atom in the universe is composed of electrons, protons and (aside from hydrogen) neutrons? To PROVE it, you would have to examine every atom in the universe. So, can you do that? No. Could you instead show that the mechanisms that lead to the existence of atoms can only lead to atoms composed of those particles? Well, you could try. You could put it out as a theory and you could test the theory. You could try to think of as many ways as possible to check it - experiments that should fail if our theory about atoms were false. They call that "falsification". That's what scientists do. Read some real science. You'll run into words like significant and likely and probably and majority and a hundred more. You won't run often into "prove".

Ever hear of company and place called Fermilabs? See they test atoms there. TEST. See they operate from a position that one needs to prove something before actually releasing a statement of fact. Top notch Scientists work there. Does an MRI machine sound familiar to you?

 

[jc456]

It's not my theory. It's the theory that 97% of the world's active climate scientists accept. They don't seem to be worried about proof. They seem to be satisfied with overwhelming evidence.

I asked about your age because your unfamiliarity with science basics led me to think you might be young and still in school.

Just out of curiosity, what theories do you prove with what laboratory experiments?

equipment at times fails and causes outages in telecommunicatons network. We find root cause of the outage. We theorize based on observed logs what may have happened and go to the lab to prove the theory in simulations. It should be what all of your 97% you love to boast about ought to be doing. To date, zero proof. ZERO again.

One more thing, what do you mean it isn't your theory. Sure it is. You have nothing but that that you're arguing. So therefore it's your theory. So prove it.

 

[jc456]

I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff. Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references. Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit. ANYONE.

Ah, the old invite trick. How about, instead, you provide evidence of your claim. Let's start there first eh?

 

[mamooth]

While you're at it, would you also like evidence for the round earth theory?

So what do you hope to accomplish by denying century-old physics?

 

[SSDD]

I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff. Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references. Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit. ANYONE.

It may come as a surprise to you, but as smart as I am, I didn't come up with my position regarding energy transfer within the atmosphere. I have shifted over the years from actually believing in the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for a very short while (see, at one time I was as gullible as you...I grew out of it) to where it is now based mainly on the writings of physicists.. It became evident quite early that climate scientists as a group aren't particularly well educated...being a soft science and all.

At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere. They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking. It doesn't even bear consideration.

In real science, one failure is enough to legitimately disregard a hypothesis and return to the drawing board...the greenhouse hypothesis, via the models based on it has failed spectacularly over and over and over. It remains alive due to politics...not science. If you care to look at Nikolov and Zeller's work, it can be found here.

Unified Theory of Climate

Unified Theory of Climate accompanying documentation

Then you might take a look at these....they include actual observed evidence of the failure of the greenhouse effect...CAUTION: ACTUAL SCIENCE

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/19/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-19.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/22/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-22.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf

Summary: ?The physics of the Earth?s atmosphere? Papers 1-3 | Global Warming Solved

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I invite any of you that have the slightest question as to the existence of the greenhouse effect to visit your nearest high school, college or university and query their science staff. Ask them if they have the SLIGHTEST uncertainty in the existence of the process as described in these references. Print out poster SSDD's comments and see if you can find ANYONE with a science education who believes his view on the issue has any merit. ANYONE.

It may come as a surprise to you, but as smart as I am, I didn't come up with my position regarding energy transfer within the atmosphere. I have shifted over the years from actually believing in the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for a very short while (see, at one time I was as gullible as you...I grew out of it) to where it is now based mainly on the writings of physicists.. It became evident quite early that climate scientists as a group aren't particularly well educated...being a soft science and all.

At this point, I believe that Dr's Nikolov and Zeller have come the closest to what actually happens to energy in the atmosphere. They swayed me because when put to the test, their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here with constant tweaking. It doesn't even bear consideration.

In real science, one failure is enough to legitimately disregard a hypothesis and return to the drawing board...the greenhouse hypothesis, via the models based on it has failed spectacularly over and over and over. It remains alive due to politics...not science. If you care to look at Nikolov and Zeller's work, it can be found here.

Unified Theory of Climate

Unified Theory of Climate accompanying documentation

Then you might take a look at these....they include actual observed evidence of the failure of the greenhouse effect...CAUTION: ACTUAL SCIENCE

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/19/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-19.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/22/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-22.pdf

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/atmospheric-science/25/oprj-article-atmospheric-science-25.pdf

Summary: ?The physics of the Earth?s atmosphere? Papers 1-3 | Global Warming Solved

Interesting. I have noticed that all the AGW Faither peer reviewed alarmist "science" starts with, is premised upon, inevitably reaches the conclusion that and is utterly dependent upon the proposition that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cause of and proof of AGW.

Without the pre-supposition that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 cause global warming (and/or "climate change), we might not have such shrill alarms ringing about the alleged increase in those atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It might be more of an interesting side-note: "Hm. How about that? It appears that there is a slight increase in the already bare trace amount of CO2 in our atmosphere."

Then someone might wonder if that observed increase has any impact on the Earth's global climate changes over time?

THEN someone might try to honestly set about the task of attempting to find out if there is any actual correlation.

But that's not how it "works" with present day "climate scientists."

No no. NOWADAYS, even suggesting that the basic premise of the AGW Faith is subject to testing via the scientific method is condemned. Heretic. Denier! SKEPTIC!

 

[jc456]

While you're at it, would you also like evidence for the round earth theory?

So what do you hope to accomplish by denying century-old physics?

That century old physics can't explain millions of year old climate. And that you have no evidence to support your claim on your post. Zip, zero nadda!!!!

That's what I accomplished.

 

[IanC]

This is the list of references for Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect. I see quite a bit of work here SIGNIFICANTLY more recent than the 19th century.

"Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."
Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.

Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319–320. doi:10.1080/14786440208636602. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate." "it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."

Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)."

"NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97

The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion

Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.

John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).

Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.

Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.

Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.

"The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

"Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.

Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115–139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.

"Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.

"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197–208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Archived from the original on 2006-03-30. Retrieved 2006-05-01.

"NASA: Climate Forcings and Global Warming". January 14, 2009.

"Enhanced greenhouse effect — Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.

"Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa". NOAA.

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm

Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269–279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.

"Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.

Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.

Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.

Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.

Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection"

McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118–1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit

"Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

"Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.

Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234–245. Retrieved 2009.

Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037–1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. edit

And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

You are an ass you give skeptics a bad name your pompous and incorrect statements give warmers a reason to ignore everything we say.

Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.

You believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.

 

[Crick]

And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature

Atmospheric absorption and scattering at different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. The largest absorption band of carbon dioxide is in the infrared.

You are so-o-o-o-o-o stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Of course CO2 affects surface temperatures surface temp is the equilibrium between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation cO2 disperses 15 band IR it makes a difference period I certainly don't think it makes as big of change to the equilibrium as the warmers claim but its effect is undeniable.

You say it as if it were true...even though that undeniable effect has never been either measured or quantified.

believe that pressure is the only worthwhile variable. While I consider it important as well for initial conditions, it is quite static and unable to explain ongoing changes of the order of tenths of a degree. I have begged you to clarify your position but you duck hard questions just like the warmers do.

And when I directed you to the sources that I believe have come closest to accurately describing what is happening in the atmosphere, you had no interest in reading the material.

You believe in the magic also ian, the only difference between you and the hysterical hand wavers is that you don't believe the magic is as strong as they do.

 

[SSDD]

And nowhere in all that is there the smallest bit of hard physical evidence that any amount of CO2 can alter the global temperature

Atmospheric absorption and scattering at different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. The largest absorption band of carbon dioxide is in the infrared.

You are so-o-o-o-o-o stupid.

This may come as a surprise to you but absorption and emission do not equal warming. I am sure that in your little mind it does, but alas, it does not. It merely proves that the gasses in question absorb and emit...a fact that I agree with wholeheartedly.

If absorption and emission were sufficient to cause warming, then experiments could be performed that would show x amount of warming for y increase in CO2 and the alleged greenhouse effect could be quantified. It doesn't and hasn't.