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

[orogenicman]

Can you show any proof at all that it isn't? We all know that CO2 absorbs and emits IR but absorption and emission do not equal warming....that is an assumption on your part. if there were any actual proof to support your beliefs, it would be everywhere...inescapable and yet, us skeptics are asking continuously and it never seems to come forth.

The energy has to go somewhere? Or are you now going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics?

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

Links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

 

[SSDD]

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

The actual data says the opposite of your claim. Of course, that's never stopped you from making any claims before.

Sorry admiral hairball. The "actual" data says exactly what I said.

As to your papers, you clearly never read them beyond the meager data this side of the firewall. here are the graphs found in those papers...show me the claimed decrease in outgoing LW radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Those experiments mostly show the heat of compression,.

That's a laughably stupid claim, so delusional that only you could make it.

Your response shows how easily, and completely you have been duped. If there were actual experiments that prove the AGW hypothesis, they would be unavoidable...but alas, they are nowhere.

 

[SSDD]

No matter the volume of the atmosphere, we're adding what can be generously described as a "trace amount"

A drop of India ink in a glass of water also has a 100 ppm concentration, yet it blocks all visible light. According to your kook "a trace can't block radiation!" theory, that can't happen. Yet it does. Therefore, your claim is clearly dead wrong.

This is grade school level stuff, but you consistently fail at it. It's tough to get someone to not be stupid when their beloved political cult has ordered them to be stupid.

Really?

Let's say there's 5,000 drops to a cup.

You need 200 cups to make up 1,000,000 drops.

There's 16 cups in a gallon, so 1MM drops takes 12.5 gallon.

And you're telling us that 1 drop in 12.5 gallons will block all visible light?

So, what's your AGW theory again? I must have missed it

That's how they do "science". Make up something that they think sounds intelligent and when it turns out not to be...act as if they never said it.

 

[SSDD]

The energy has to go somewhere? Or are you now going to argue against the laws of thermodynamics?

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

Links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

Look above.

 

[orogenicman]

Satellites tell us that outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for some time.

Links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

Look above.

Yeah, I did. So links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

 

[SSDD]

Links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

Look above.

Yeah, I did. So links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

Those graphs, unfortunately live behind a firewall. I got them way back when and have kept them. The study suggested that outgoing LW was indeed decreasing based on the model predictions as indicated by the red lines....they neglected the fact that reality didn't match the predictions as is so often the case in climate science....model output is treated as if it were observational data and all to often is used instead of observed data.

The fact is that outgoing LW is increasing in direct contradiction to the predictions based on the AGW hypothesis. That hypothesis has failed over and over and over. If climate science were practicing real science, that hypothesis would have been tossed out 20 years ago. One failure of a hypothesis is just cause to disregard it and go back to the drawing board in real science....just one more indication that climate science is, in reality, climate pseudoscience.

 

[orogenicman]

Look above.

Yeah, I did. So links, please. While you are at it show us the outgoing energy levels compared to the incoming levels and the amount retained over time.

Those graphs, unfortunately live behind a firewall. I got them way back when and have kept them. The study suggested that outgoing LW was indeed decreasing based on the model predictions as indicated by the red lines....they neglected the fact that reality didn't match the predictions as is so often the case in climate science....model output is treated as if it were observational data and all to often is used instead of observed data.

The fact is that outgoing LW is increasing in direct contradiction to the predictions based on the AGW hypothesis. That hypothesis has failed over and over and over. If climate science were practicing real science, that hypothesis would have been tossed out 20 years ago. One failure of a hypothesis is just cause to disregard it and go back to the drawing board in real science....just one more indication that climate science is, in reality, climate pseudoscience.

Oh, so now you decide to put an interpretation to your graphs. Perhaps you can also put an original source link to them as well, per my earlier request.

 

[SSDD]

Oh, so now you decide to put an interpretation to your graphs. Perhaps you can also put an original source link to them as well, per my earlier request.

The graphs are what they are. They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.

admiral hairball already provided the link to the data. The abstracts don't show the graphs, I provided the graphs and the challenge to show the decrease in OLR that the paper claimed based on the graphs.

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS

Look at the abstract and then look at the graphs and ask yourself how the claims made in the abstract relate to the graphs.

Of course you won't....you are a warmer wacko....incapable of questioning anything that goes against your politically motivated position. If you were capable of such questions, then you would also be a skeptic.

 

[mamooth]

Let's say there's 5,000 drops to a cup.

You need 200 cups to make up 1,000,000 drops.

There's 16 cups in a gallon, so 1MM drops takes 12.5 gallon.

And you're telling us that 1 drop in 12.5 gallons will block all visible light?

Your amusing failure there is using 1 ppm instead of 400 ppm. 400 drops, hell yes it would block all visible light.

So, what's your AGW theory again? I must have missed it

It can be summarized as "Eat shit, Frank". Being you've consistently been such a dishonest cult asswipe and will never change, nobody is willing to waste time playing your games. Learn to enjoy the joke status you've so richly earned.

 

[mamooth]

The graphs are what they are. They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.

Score! Exactly as predicted, SSDD proceeds to try to bullshit everyone with cherrypicked graphs from an unknown source and no context at all. Damn, I'm good. I said he'd do it, and he didn't disappoint.

Mildly amusing is his claim those graphs came from the very recent papers, even though he said he's had them since way back. He doesn't lie very well. I should feel insulted, as I'm used to deniers putting more effort into their fabrications.

More amusing is how he doesn't know the context of the graphs or what they mean. He tries to bluff his way past that, but it's not working. He has no freaking idea what he's posting. He's just dropping random pictures and claiming victory. And ignoring the actual science, because it all says he's a full of shit.

I can keep going with more papers, but what's the point? SSDD would ignore them too, post bullshit and declare victory. Who ya gonna believe, the actual science, or SSDD raving about mystery graphs?

 

[SSDD]

The graphs are what they are. They show no decrease in OLR as the models predicted.

Score! Exactly as predicted, SSDD proceeds to try to bullshit everyone with cherrypicked graphs from an unknown source and no context at all. Damn, I'm good. I said he'd do it, and he didn't disappoint.

Mildly amusing is his claim those graphs came from the very recent papers, even though he said he's had them since way back. He doesn't lie very well. I should feel insulted, as I'm used to deniers putting more effort into their fabrications.

More amusing is how he doesn't know the context of the graphs or what they mean. He tries to bluff his way past that, but it's not working. He has no freaking idea what he's posting. He's just dropping random pictures and claiming victory. And ignoring the actual science, because it all says he's a full of shit.

I can keep going with more papers, but what's the point? SSDD would ignore them too, post bullshit and declare victory. Who ya gonna believe, the actual science, or SSDD raving about mystery graphs?

Actually admiral hairball...the graphs are from your source...behind the firewall so clearly you never actually looked at anything beyond the abstract. You are pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

If you're not lying, simply give us the full context of that first graph, which means quoting all the text from the paper that you claim the graph is in, that paper you claim to have read completely.

Saying "well, I don't have access anymore" will have everyone laughing at your obvious weasel routine. You gave us a mystery graph, no source, no context, but you expect everyone to accept that it overturns the actual peer-reveiwed science, simply because you say so.

Are you happy with what you've become, a liar for your cult? But the ends justify the means for you, right?

 

[SSDD]

If you're not lying, simply give us the full context of that first graph, which means quoting all the text from the paper that you claim the graph is in, that paper you claim to have read completely.

Saying "well, I don't have access anymore" will have everyone laughing at your obvious weasel routine. You gave us a mystery graph, no source, no context, but you expect everyone to accept that it overturns the actual peer-reveiwed science, simply because you say so.

Are you happy with what you've become, a liar for your cult? But the ends justify the means for you, right?

You do realize admiral hairball, that that paper was published in 2007? Sorry that you can't look at a graph and understand its context. Unsurprising that you have been so completely duped. The first graph depicts snapshots of OLR taken by the satellite IRIS in 1970 and by the satellite IMG in 1977. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of year and under the same weather conditions. It is clear to see that in the CO2 absorption bands (2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers) there is no decrease in OLR.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what?

 

[SSDD]

He doesn't understand that those graphs don't mean anything unless CO2 actually "traps" OLR in the atmosphere. The satellite snapshots and the fact that OLR is increasing....and the fact that there has been no warming for 2 decades while CO2 increased is hard evidence that CO2 is not the climate change culprit.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most of the world disagree's...


Also, this proves that co2 emissions aren't just caused by a single volcano on Hawaii!!!!

Barrow, Alaska, United States
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Summit, Greenland
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

South Pole, Antarctica, United States
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts

Tutuila, American Samoa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SMO&program=ccgg&type=ts

World wide!

Methane at Summit! Also, there's one for Barrow too
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Methane at the south pole!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts


ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

 

[SSDD]

Most of the world disagree's...


Also, this proves that co2 emissions aren't just caused by a single volcano on Hawaii!!!!

Barrow, Alaska, United States
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Summit, Greenland
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

South Pole, Antarctica, United States
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Tutuila, American Samoa
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

World wide!

Methane at Summit! Also, there's one for Barrow too
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Methane at the south pole!
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization


ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

Most of the world disagreed with me when I told my doctor that my stomach ulcer was not due to stress also....I am about the most laid back person you could ever meet...my normal heart rate is in the 50 bpm and my blood pressure is, and has always been enviable to those who measure it. Stress is not my enemy. Turns out that he, and practically all of medical science (a much more credible branch of science than climate pseudscience by the way) were, in fact wrong about the cause of my ulcer. Most of the world's scientists have been wrong about many things over the centuries....CO2 being a climate driver is just one more in a long string of scientific errors.

Just as my doctor should have looked at my level of health, my overall condition, my nutrition, and lifestyle and questioned whether or not stress was causing my ulcer, climate science should be looking at the repeated failures of the AGW hypothesis and returning to the drawing board for a new hypothesis on climate. They don't because of money.

As to sources of CO2....there is an untold amount bubbling up from the ocean floor....we have no idea how much volcanic activity is happening at the floor of the ocean... It makes no difference though because CO2 isn't driving the climate.

 

[mamooth]

You do realize admiral hairball, that that paper was published in 2007?

Which paper? The only study you linked to is clearly dated May 18, 2013. So you got some 'splainin to do. A helpful hint, if you'd just tell the truth, you wouldn't always end up forgetting which particular lie you told.

SPIE | Proceeding | A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS

Sorry that you can't look at a graph and understand its context. Unsurprising that you have been so completely duped.

This is going to be fun, running you around in circles and watching you flail.

The first graph

This is the first graph. Which you won't tell us the source of. Just a big mystery, it is.

If I had to guess, it looks like an amateur plotted raw data and thought it meant something, not understanding how the satellite drift over the years has to be compensated for.

depicts snapshots of OLR taken by the satellite IRIS in 1970 and by the satellite IMG in 1977. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of year and under the same weather conditions. It is clear to see that in the CO2 absorption bands (2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers) there is no decrease in OLR.

That's your second graph.

The source of that graph is Harries 2001. The abstract notably says the opposite of what you claim.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 : Abstract : Nature
---
Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
--

So, you clearly didn't know the date or source of the graph, because you cribbed it from a denialist source (tallbloke). You also have little idea what it was about. But I can help you out there, being my soul oozes with a desire to help educate the less able.

First, while the black IMG line is 1970, the grey IRIS line is 1996, not 1977. Again, you don't know the basics.

Second, it shows the opposite of what you claim. This is more obvious if you take the second graph from Harries 2001 that plots the difference. You know, the graph that was right below the graph you posted and which would be impossible to miss, if someone had actually looked at the paper.

The top line shows the OLR difference between the years. Dips at 700 (15 microns) for CO2, also for ozone and methane. Your other CO2 bands (2.7, 4.3) are off the chart scale to the right. OLR rises outside the greenhouse gas bands, as it's supposed to. The middle line shows the model predictions, which match reality quite nicely.

Notably, your denier source took the first graph from Harries 2001, but then deliberately left out the second graph that clearly shows the OLR decreasing. Rather dishonest cherrypicking on their part. And you fell for it. If you had any self-respect, you'd publicly condemn that source for lying to you like that. However, if you're too deep into the cult, you'll keep defending your cult masters no matter how often they lie to you. And you'll keep parroting them and then lying outright about how you supposedly read the paper, like you got caught doing here.

Oh, your graphs 3 and 4. Tell us what paper they came from, and what they mean. You say you've read the original sources, hence that should be as easy task for you. Since I've got the original source of those graphs open in front of me, I'd suggest you not try to bullshit everyone yet another time.