Understanding the Global Warming Debate

[CrusaderFrank]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

just out of curiousity, did you read the article konradv? Old Rocks obviously didnt, or at least didnt get past the first couple of paragraphs, and even then he totally misunderstood what was being said.

how did you rationalize away what was said about "feedback loop" in the article? and did you see my comment on that other thread where you were talking about the logrithmic effect of CO2? what do you think has happened to the missing temperature rise that should have already happened if the IPCC central value of 3C per doubling is correct?

The Decline Hiders and Warmers respond:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IanC]

Can you say "feedback loop"?

just out of curiousity, did you read the article konradv? Old Rocks obviously didnt, or at least didnt get past the first couple of paragraphs, and even then he totally misunderstood what was being said.

how did you rationalize away what was said about "feedback loop" in the article? and did you see my comment on that other thread where you were talking about the logrithmic effect of CO2? what do you think has happened to the missing temperature rise that should have already happened if the IPCC central value of 3C per doubling is correct?

The Decline Hiders and Warmers respond:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]Cricket Sound - YouTube[/ame]

hahahaha, pretty funny.

both sides do a pretty good job of talking past each other but the warmers should have the onus to respond because they are the ones that want the world to extravagantly spend our wealth on CO2 cuts that are doomed to failure before they have even left the drawing board.

the warming and CO2's influence is most likely real but with uncertainties much higher than proclaimed by the IPCC.

the feedback from CO2 is much lower than claimed by the IPCC, and a full debate needs to be publicly held with open disclosure, unlike the IPCC method of simply snipping out any unwanted dissent from the final draft.

the climate models are tools to increase understanding of how the factors interact but hopelessly unable to predict the future and no projections should be made to the public without making it very clear that there is a 100% probability that they are wrong.

warmers need to stop claiming that just because there has been some warming, with some portion attributed to CO2, that the rest of their pipe dream of huge feedbacks and climate collapse is undoubtedly true. it is almost undoubtedly false and is simply the product of tunnel vision and fevered imagination.

 

[Oddball]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

just out of curiousity, did you read the article konradv? Old Rocks obviously didnt, or at least didnt get past the first couple of paragraphs, and even then he totally misunderstood what was being said.

how did you rationalize away what was said about "feedback loop" in the article? and did you see my comment on that other thread where you were talking about the logrithmic effect of CO2? what do you think has happened to the missing temperature rise that should have already happened if the IPCC central value of 3C per doubling is correct?

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
~Kevin Trenberth, NCAR

 

[wirebender]

“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming

Wow rocks, you are really off the reservation there. That isn't at all what the IPCC claims with regard to the greenhouse effect. Are you saying that the consensus isn't a consensus at all and that even the definition, and hypothesized cause of the so called greenhouse effect is in contention among the various sects?

Here rocks, quoted from THE Bible of the Church of AGW.

IPCC AR4

1. And lo the Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. 2. Yea roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. 3. Verilly, the remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. 4. And Keil and Trenberth spake unto them and said, "To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.". 5. But be not afraid, 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). 6. And behold, much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. 7.Verily, this is called the greenhouse effect. 8. Surely,the glass walls in a greenhouse reduce air flow and increase the temperature of the air inside. 9. And Kiehl and Trenberth said to them, "Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet." 10. And they quaked with fear for without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. 11. Thus, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. Verily, however, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatly intensifi ed the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.

So you see rocks, your explanation of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is not the official line and you can no more support your claim with the laws of physics and observations than they can support theirs.

 

[daveman]

Forbes is hardly a science journal, and any article that starts out with a quote from Ayn Rand is obviously bullshit.

Here is a real science article from the Geological Society of America.

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

An astrophysicist?

Using your own standards, he's not an expert. So he's dismissed.

 

[daveman]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Yeah, but you can't tax water vapor emissions. So it's not important.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Yeah, but you can't tax water vapor emissions. So it's not important.

"Stop taking such a hot shower!!" won't bring down western civilization the way controlling carbon footprints will

 

[bripat9643]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

You have to prove. You can't just say it. I can say the volcano god is causing the Earth to warm because we haven't sacrificed any virgins in a few centuries.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

You have to prove. You can't just say it. I can say the volcano god is causing the Earth to warm because we haven't sacrificed any virgins in a few centuries.

It's the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster, Charlie Brown!!

 

[daveman]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Yeah, but you can't tax water vapor emissions. So it's not important.

"Stop taking such a hot shower!!" won't bring down western civilization the way controlling carbon footprints will

Yup. And global socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[westwall]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

Can you say 'prove the existence of one.' You've had 20+ years of warning us that if we let the CO2 level get over 350ppm there would be runaway warming. we still don't see it and we're at 390. In other words your theory is false.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"In the case of Earth’s atmosphere, it has been known for some time that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, contributing ~75% of the total atmospheric greenhouse gas warming of some 33 °C."

Can you say "feedback loop"?

Can you say prove the existence of one. You've had 20+ years of warning us that if we let the CO2 level get over 350ppm there would be runaway warming. we still don't see it and we're at 390. In other words your theory is false.

It may be false, but its settled

 

[saveliberty]

Forbes is hardly a science journal, and any article that starts out with a quote from Ayn Rand is obviously bullshit.

Here is a real science article from the Geological Society of America.

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

What is the physical theory behind the greenhouse gas effect, and can it be computed from the laws of physics? The answer is a resounding yes! The effects of heat trapping by greenhouse gases was first noted over a century ago and understood from the viewpoint of classical physics involving the absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation by matter and the thermodynamics of gas. The mathematical and physical laws of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter underlie our understanding of greenhouse gas warming.

This understanding gained a firm basis with the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. This development enabled detailed calculations of the physics of absorption, scattering, and emission of electromagnetic radiation by atoms and molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere. Highly sophisticated radiation transfer codes have been perfected to calculate the energy balance in an atmosphere as energy is transferred through atmospheric layers. Trace polyatomic molecules such as water vapor, CO2, and methane have rotation, bending, and vibration degrees of freedom, and are quite effective at intercepting infrared radiation radiated by Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.

At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.

“Greenhouse gas” warming occurs because the collisional de-excitation time for greenhouse molecules in Earth’s lower atmosphere is much shorter than the radiation lifetime of excited molecular states. This is the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, and can be computed from the laws of physics and demonstrated and measured in laboratory experiments. There is no doubt about the efficacy of the science behind greenhouse gas warming (see YouTube video). CO2 experiment - YouTube

The tube stayed the same color.

No warming.

 

[IanC]

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Old Rocks- I am unsure as to what you want me to take away from your two posts here. the Forbes article pointed out that the skeptics for the most part accept some warming and that CO2 can be shown as a mechanism that contributes to that warming. your article just perpetuates the strawman that they dont, and then adds that the null hypothesis that many interacting factors control the climate should be overturned for a new null hypothesis that CO2 controls the climate and therefore skeptics should just shut up until they have overwhelming evidence that proves how some other system runs the climate.

as I have pointed out before, warmers believe CO2 runs the show and all the other factors are just bit players. they then convince themselves with results from GCMs that are programed to use CO2 as the control knob and aerosols as the fudge factor to produce the numbers that are 'consistent with' the past measurements, at least to some extent.

skeptics have always been ,well, skeptical that CO2 is all that important once a certain minimal level has been reached. skeptics get all the other factors and their various interactions to describe how climate is controlled. clouds are a total joker in the deck. they can be either a negative or a positive feedback depending on the conditions. we dont know enough about all the other factors to just put them into a black box that spits out a number that CO2 then adjusts. for instance, do you think it is CO2 that defines 30C as the cutoff maximum temperature for ocean water? or is it clouds? is it CO2 that spreads heat from the equator towards the poles? or convection?

and what is your astrophysicist saying anyways? it sounds like he is making a case for CO2 saturation by stating that all the radiation absorbed in the low atmosphere is converted to heat by kenetic interaction rather than re-radiation. and I thought CO2 vibrated by absorbing its favoured radiation, why is he talking about rotational energy? he certainly wasnt very making a very coherent statement. but then that is par for the course in climate science when only certain factoids are presented, and all the 'messy stuff' is just implied.

and why do you have a problem with the Ayn Rand quote? it makes the point that generic questions asked without defining the parameters means that any answer is correct. what were the two openended questions asked in that internet survey that produced a 97% belief in AGW that is so widely touted? I couldnt be bothered to repost them but they had nothing to do with believing that high positive feedbacks to a small amount of CO2 induced warming will lead to disasterous climatic disruptions. disputing CAGW is not the same thing as totally denying AGW or even GW. going from the reality of a few tenths of a degree of warming and the physical basis of CO2 being able to restrict the loss of some frequencies of radiation into space, to the preposterous claims of CAGW that any and everything is caused by or is evidence for, the sinful effects of mankind living on the planet.

 

[westwall]

GSA Today - Groundwork - An Astrophysicist Looks at Global Warming

In summary, many criticisms of global warming models are specious and fail to reflect an understanding of the basic science behind the models and the extensive history of the development of radiation transfer codes in modeling planetary and stellar atmospheres. Some contrarians engage in arguments that the warming observed is due to “natural” mechanisms that have been in play for millions of years. Such proposals should be required not only to identify the specific natural mechanisms in question, but quantify them and present observational or experimental evidence that the mechanisms play a role on a time scale of the past 150 years. Such proposals also ignore the fact that proxy geochemical data show strong support for the conclusion that CO2 increases have played the largest role in explaining these past intervals of global warmth!

Most important, contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect. It remains unfortunate that the opinions of a handful of contrarians should be given the same weight in the press and the popular media as the studied conclusions of thousands of scientists. This reinforces the general perception that the “science” of global warming is uncertain, and provides fodder for some (but by no means all) business and political factions to question the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

Old Rocks- I am unsure as to what you want me to take away from your two posts here. the Forbes article pointed out that the skeptics for the most part accept some warming and that CO2 can be shown as a mechanism that contributes to that warming. your article just perpetuates the strawman that they dont, and then adds that the null hypothesis that many interacting factors control the climate should be overturned for a new null hypothesis that CO2 controls the climate and therefore skeptics should just shut up until they have overwhelming evidence that proves how some other system runs the climate.

as I have pointed out before, warmers believe CO2 runs the show and all the other factors are just bit players. they then convince themselves with results from GCMs that are programed to use CO2 as the control knob and aerosols as the fudge factor to produce the numbers that are 'consistent with' the past measurements, at least to some extent.

skeptics have always been ,well, skeptical that CO2 is all that important once a certain minimal level has been reached. skeptics get all the other factors and their various interactions to describe how climate is controlled. clouds are a total joker in the deck. they can be either a negative or a positive feedback depending on the conditions. we dont know enough about all the other factors to just put them into a black box that spits out a number that CO2 then adjusts. for instance, do you think it is CO2 that defines 30C as the cutoff maximum temperature for ocean water? or is it clouds? is it CO2 that spreads heat from the equator towards the poles? or convection?

and what is your astrophysicist saying anyways? it sounds like he is making a case for CO2 saturation by stating that all the radiation absorbed in the low atmosphere is converted to heat by kenetic interaction rather than re-radiation. and I thought CO2 vibrated by absorbing its favoured radiation, why is he talking about rotational energy? he certainly wasnt very making a very coherent statement. but then that is par for the course in climate science when only certain factoids are presented, and all the 'messy stuff' is just implied.

and why do you have a problem with the Ayn Rand quote? it makes the point that generic questions asked without defining the parameters means that any answer is correct. what were the two openended questions asked in that internet survey that produced a 97% belief in AGW that is so widely touted? I couldnt be bothered to repost them but they had nothing to do with believing that high positive feedbacks to a small amount of CO2 induced warming will lead to disasterous climatic disruptions. disputing CAGW is not the same thing as totally denying AGW or even GW. going from the reality of a few tenths of a degree of warming and the physical basis of CO2 being able to restrict the loss of some frequencies of radiation into space, to the preposterous claims of CAGW that any and everything is caused by or is evidence for, the sinful effects of mankind living on the planet.

He doesn't like Rand because he's a socialist.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Is there warming? Well, not all scientists agree.

Even scientist funded by Exxon agree warming is happening. So basically you are lying. The 10 warmest years on record all occurred after 2000

Is it caused by CO2s, or are CO2s a result? Scientists don't all agree.

Actually they all do agree CO2 warms the earth it is basic 5th grade science So you are lying again

Are we putting out a sufficient amount of CO2 to the degree that the vast CO2 sink that is called the oceans cannot compensate for? Scientists cannot agree.

COnsdiering CO2 levels have been increasing for the past 200 years its apparently to anyone with a brain that carbon sinks can't remove the emissions from the atmosphere

Is CO2 more of a factor than sun spot activity? Most scientists would say no.

Sun spot activity or sun irridance is actually currently slightly lower then it used to be, meaning that if the sun were the only factor the earth should be cooling.

There are blatent cover ups and political and financial pressures that influence the AGW mania that exists today.

name one

It used to be called Global Warming, now it's called Climate Change. Change the name so that any kind of climate change can be blamed on man. It's a scam.

The name was changed due to the realization that melting arctic ice and other factors would result in some areas cooling. Things change as new evidence and data comes in
Basically you are a clueless brainwashed tool

 

[saveliberty]

Planet warming and cooling are cycles the planet has gone through numerous times before man ever showed up. Sometimes these periods have been warmer than now, sometimes cooler. Labeling man as the culprit is insane.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Planet warming and cooling are cycles the planet has gone through numerous times before man ever showed up. Sometimes these periods have been warmer than now, sometimes cooler. Labeling man as the culprit is insane.

No one is saying that man is responsible for every warming period ever to occur, they are saying that man is responsible this time, of which all the evidence and logic point to man being the culprit. What is insane is people like you who reject reality

 

[saveliberty]

Planet warming and cooling are cycles the planet has gone through numerous times before man ever showed up. Sometimes these periods have been warmer than now, sometimes cooler. Labeling man as the culprit is insane.

No one is saying that man is responsible for every warming period ever to occur, they are saying that man is responsible this time, of which all the evidence and logic point to man being the culprit. What is insane is people like you who reject reality

Okay, you have such good science, what will be the average temperature in 2013? Should be an easy calculation given how dominate CO2 is in the equation according to you.

 

[saveliberty]

We could try something a little easier. Tell me whether sea level will go up or down in 2012.