• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

Given that Co2 is verified as a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat, what other conclusion can be made from increased Co2 levels but warming? You seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees.
Part of this is the use of the phrase "Traps heat", that is not what happens.
Co2 does absorb energy at selected frequencies, it then re emits the energy over several frequencies as it quickly
returns to ground state (about 1 millisecond).
It is an accepted part of Science to question how someone arrives at a conclusion.
In the case of AGW, they have not even stated how they connected the observations.
If we are being asked to change our lifestyles, and pay more taxes, based on these conclusions,
Don't you think it is important, that their conclusions are based on testable processes?
 
Part of this is the use of the phrase "Traps heat", that is not what happens.
Co2 does absorb energy at selected frequencies, it then re emits the energy over several frequencies as it quickly
returns to ground state (about 1 millisecond).
It is an accepted part of Science to question how someone arrives at a conclusion.
In the case of AGW, they have not even stated how they connected the observations.
If we are being asked to change our lifestyles, and pay more taxes, based on these conclusions,
Don't you think it is important, that their conclusions are based on testable processes?

The latest calculations show that the earth absorbed more energy than it emmited last year. What conclusions could you draw from that?

Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity01.30.12 A new NASA study underscores the fact that greenhouse gases generated by human activity -- not changes in solar activity -- are the primary force driving global warming.

The study offers an updated calculation of the Earth's energy imbalance, the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth's surface and the amount returned to space as heat. The researchers' calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space.
NASA - Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
 
The latest calculations show that the earth absorbed more energy than it emmited last year. What conclusions could you draw from that?

NASA - Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
I am looking for the connection between the sets of Observations.
The case is being made that the increase Co2 is the cause, but no connection has been described.
As to the energy Balance,
As with any CALORIMETRY experiment, it is necessary to identify all of the heat sources and sinks.
Last year they found out Thunderstorms are emitting gamma rays, I wonder if they accounted for them in
their measurements?
What Spectrum range on the input vs output?
At the end of the day, it is still just an observation, without a measurable connection to Co2.
 
I am looking for the connection between the sets of Observations.
The case is being made that the increase Co2 is the cause, but no connection has been described.
As to the energy Balance,
As with any CALORIMETRY experiment, it is necessary to identify all of the heat sources and sinks.
Last year they found out Thunderstorms are emitting gamma rays, I wonder if they accounted for them in
their measurements?
What Spectrum range on the input vs output?
At the end of the day, it is still just an observation, without a measurable connection to Co2.


At present there is scientific consensus without credible scientific challenge since 2007.
 
At present there is scientific consensus without credible scientific challenge since 2007.
And that consensus means nothing, if they have not defined what the believe is happening.
They must connect the observation of the rise in Co2 levels,
to the observation of the rise in global Temperatures.
Unless they can connect these two observations in a scientifically measurably process,
they are just making an unsupported hypothesis.
 
And that consensus means nothing, if they have not defined what the believe is happening.
They must connect the observation of the rise in Co2 levels,
to the observation of the rise in global Temperatures.
Unless they can connect these two observations in a scientifically measurably process,
they are just making an unsupported hypothesis.

Thanks for your opinion!
 
My answer remains the same,
The real issue, is that none of the above hypothesizes a testable connection between the rise in Co2,
and the observed warming.
Without a working theory, there is no way to Scientifically disprove the stated connection.

Co2 has a finite number of energy states, Bending, Stretching, Rotational , Asymmetric.
These states each translate to a fixed frequency ether emitted or absorbed.
In order for Co2 to pass energy to another gas.
The other gas needs to be sending the frequencies that Co2 is capable of receiving,
or the other gas needs to be capable of receiving one of the frequencies Co2 is emitting.
The AGW hypothesis states that the extra Co2 is passing it's captured energy to some yet
to be defined gas, and that interaction is causing the climate forcing.
They have not named the other gas, or defined the frequencies at which it is passing the energy.
If they would define this process, Scientist could test to see if the energy transfers could be
replicated in a lab setting.

If you don't understand how it works, why don't you study it instead of denying it?

Solar radiation is primarily shortwave radiation which is transparent to greenhouse gases. Incoming solar radiation passes through these gases as if they were not present so the concentration of greenhouse gases does not directly influence incoming sunlight. The sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere. Heat from the surface radiates up into the atmosphere in the form of infrared energy (longwave radiation). Greenhouse gases do absorb longwave radiation so the concentration of these gases is very important in determining how much energy the atmosphere absorbs. Increasing greenhouse gases causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. The greenhouse effect from natural greenhouse gas concentrations prior to the Industrial Revolution has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. For the detailed physics of the greenhouse effect please see Raymond T. Pierrehumber's Infrared radiation and planetary temperature and Arthur Smith's Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (both are .PDF).
(source: Impact of Greenhouse Gases)
 
I am looking for the connection between the sets of Observations.
The case is being made that the increase Co2 is the cause, but no connection has been described.
As to the energy Balance,
As with any CALORIMETRY experiment, it is necessary to identify all of the heat sources and sinks.
Last year they found out Thunderstorms are emitting gamma rays, I wonder if they accounted for them in
their measurements?
What Spectrum range on the input vs output?
At the end of the day, it is still just an observation, without a measurable connection to Co2.

Only if you deny the scientific fact that Co2 reduces the planets heat emmisions. That is total folly and as bad as saying the Earth is flat. Scientists don't have to SEE the heat reflected back by Co2 to know it is happening.
 
Given that Co2 is verified as a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat, what other conclusion can be made from increased Co2 levels but warming? You seem to be unable to see the forest for the trees.
I understand the way CO2 can warm the Earth. I think if you look through my posts you'll find one (addressed to flogger?) where I even went into pretty good detail describing how the lack of CO2 (actual, not percent) in the stratosphere combined with more heat reflected back to Earth in the troposphere could lead to warming of the troposphere but cooling of the stratosphere. The mechanism is pretty straight forward - but I also know the Earth's climate is very complex. I'm not denying the science such as it is.


However, for my own reasons I would like to see us get off fossil fuels for transportation and power generation. Because of that, whether I believe climate change is man-made or not doesn't really matter. We have the same basic goal, reduce the burning of fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
If you don't understand how it works, why don't you study it instead of denying it?

Solar radiation is primarily shortwave radiation which is transparent to greenhouse gases. Incoming solar radiation passes through these gases as if they were not present so the concentration of greenhouse gases does not directly influence incoming sunlight. The sunlight is absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere. Heat from the surface radiates up into the atmosphere in the form of infrared energy (longwave radiation). Greenhouse gases do absorb longwave radiation so the concentration of these gases is very important in determining how much energy the atmosphere absorbs. Increasing greenhouse gases causes an increase in atmospheric temperature. The greenhouse effect from natural greenhouse gas concentrations prior to the Industrial Revolution has kept the Earth's surface about 33 oC warmer than with an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. For the detailed physics of the greenhouse effect please see Raymond T. Pierrehumber's Infrared radiation and planetary temperature and Arthur Smith's Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (both are .PDF).
(source: Impact of Greenhouse Gases)
I am not denying anything, just asking logical questions, that seemed to have slipped through.
The greenhouse effect is a known concept, it is why Earth is warm enough to live on.
The AGW theory needs an additional forcing factor, to support the projected increases.
This forcing factor is what has not been defined.
Those are both good articles, an enjoyable read.
Nether article addressed how moving Co2 levels from 280 ppm to 400 ppm would alter the overall balance.
(Granted out of 1M blackbody photons emitted, some percent will be in the 15um range, and that percent will now have 120 additional targets to strike. Of those 120 additional slightly less than half will re emit lower energy photons vectored down.)
The physics today article, had a decent "ditch" explanation, of Co2 filling one of the transmit windows left open by water vapor.
 
The above peer-reviewed scientific studies together with well established greenhouse effect principal have not had any credible scientific challenge since 2007.

Bull****.

Why are you lying to the forum?
 
Only if you deny the scientific fact that Co2 reduces the planets heat emmisions. That is total folly and as bad as saying the Earth is flat. Scientists don't have to SEE the heat reflected back by Co2 to know it is happening.
You seem to be reading something that is not there, I never denied that Co2 slows down the planets heat emissions.
I was pointing out that to do an energy balance, you need to account for all of the sources and sinks.
It looks like the AIRS detects IR between 3.7 and 15 um
AIRS: how AIRS works
clearly some energy outside that range escapes earth, I wonder if they accounted for it.
The other thing about the energy balance, is we have very little history, for understanding trends,
we may if fact, be seeing normal cycling.
 
You seem to be reading something that is not there, I never denied that Co2 slows down the planets heat emissions.
I was pointing out that to do an energy balance, you need to account for all of the sources and sinks.
It looks like the AIRS detects IR between 3.7 and 15 um
AIRS: how AIRS works
clearly some energy outside that range escapes earth, I wonder if they accounted for it.
The other thing about the energy balance, is we have very little history, for understanding trends,
we may if fact, be seeing normal cycling.

Your comments and objections stem only from your own ignorance of the science involved, not from any errors or gaps in the scientific understanding.
 
Your comments and objections stem only from your own ignorance of the science involved, not from any errors or gaps in the scientific understanding.
I await you showing me the flaw in my logic.
The energy Balance is an interesting concept, so I was looking at their methodology.
We live inside a chaotic heat engine. There are many variables that are not well understood.
Our big blue Marble is leaking visible light into space, many of those visible light
photons contain significantly more energy than long wavelength IR.
My question was if they accounted for them.

In the decade I ran the Science labs at a University, one of the most difficult things to
teach students, is how to identify and quantify the sources of error.

Why don't you list off some of the possible errors that might creep in when calculating
an energy balance for a planet.
 
I was pointing out that to do an energy balance, you need to account for all of the sources and sinks.
It looks like the AIRS detects IR between 3.7 and 15 um
AIRS: how AIRS works
clearly some energy outside that range escapes earth, I wonder if they accounted for it.
The other thing about the energy balance, is we have very little history, for understanding trends,
we may if fact, be seeing normal cycling.
Your comments and objections stem only from your own ignorance of the science involved, not from any errors or gaps in the scientific understanding.
I await you showing me the flaw in my logic.
The energy Balance is an interesting concept, so I was looking at their methodology.
We live inside a chaotic heat engine. There are many variables that are not well understood.
Our big blue Marble is leaking visible light into space, many of those visible light
photons contain significantly more energy than long wavelength IR.
My question was if they accounted for them.

In the decade I ran the Science labs at a University, one of the most difficult things to
teach students, is how to identify and quantify the sources of error.

Why don't you list off some of the possible errors that might creep in when calculating
an energy balance for a planet.

"to do an energy balance, you need to account for all of the sources and sinks".....not exactly....you don't seem to understand what is meant by the term.....so:
Earth's energy imbalance is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy the planet radiates to space as heat.
There's only one "source" and that is the Sun. There is only one "sink" and that is outer space. All of the energy transfers within the Earth system have nothing whatsoever to do with the Earth's "energy balance".
Scientists can measure the incoming solar radiation levels very accurately with satellites at the top of the atmosphere and they can also measure all of the outgoing radiation at the TOA. The Earth is taking in more energy than it is radiating away into space so the Earth is warming. If we were radiating more heat than we were taking in, we'd be cooling.

"I wonder if they accounted for it"....you don't know, you're not sure, and yet you try to build a whole case against the validity of the conclusions of the experts, the climate scientists who design and conduct the research studies that use satellite instrumentation and ground based observations to study the Earth's energy balance. As I just said: "Your comments and objections stem only from your own ignorance of the science involved, not from any errors or gaps in the scientific understanding." Your next line only reinforces this conclusion. "The other thing about the energy balance, is we have very little history, for understanding trends, we may if fact, be seeing normal cycling." Scientists actually have a great deal of climate history to work with, as you would know if you actually knew anything about this and weren't just parroting denier cult drivel. Gas bubbles in ice cores are just one of many proxies that reveal information about past climates and atmospheric compositions. Scientists understand the "normal cycles" caused by variations in natural factors that usually affect the Earth's climate and those factors are not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Dismissing modern climate science and its conclusions by citing supposed mysterious, unknown "natural cycles" is just a kind of magical thinking and has nothing to do with science.

You say:"Our big blue Marble is leaking visible light into space, many of those visible light photons contain significantly more energy than long wavelength IR. My question was if they accounted for them."....and once again there are more questions than knowledge and the supposed 'facts' are not facts. Very little energy is radiated away from the Earth as visible light. Heat energy is almost entirely transferred away in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Try reading more on the physics of light.

you say: "In the decade I ran the Science labs at a University"....but your general cluelessness about scientific basics makes this claim very suspect and just the kind of fraudulent 'claim to authority' that is impossible to prove on an anonymous forum like this one.
 
"
to do an energy balance, you need to account for all of the sources and sinks
".....not exactly....you don't seem to understand what is meant by the term.....so:
Earth's energy imbalance is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth and the amount of energy the planet radiates to space as heat.
There's only one "source" and that is the Sun. There is only one "sink" and that is outer space. All of the energy transfers within the Earth system have nothing whatsoever to do with the Earth's "energy balance".
It is the measuring of the amount of energy entering and exiting I am speaking of.
You have to account for the entire electromagnetic spectrum, The papers cited above,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
were both good.
The first paper covered what we know of as the greenhouse effect, and why our planet
is warmer than one without an atmosphere, but did not expand on what adding Co2 might do.
The second paper assumed all of the spectrum below 3.7um was a constant.
To exclude 90% of the spectrum, has the potential for significant error.
It's like saying, I want to count all the people who enter and leave a city each day,
but I am only going to count bicycles.


Scientists can measure the incoming solar radiation levels very accurately with satellites at the top of the atmosphere and they can also measure all of the outgoing radiation at the TOA. The Earth is taking in more energy than it is radiating away into space so the Earth is warming. If we were radiating more heat than we were taking in, we'd be cooling.
Saying they are measuring ALL of the outgoing radiation, is a broad statement.

"I wonder if they accounted for it"....you don't know, you're not sure, and yet you try to build a whole case against the validity of the conclusions of the experts, the climate scientists who design and conduct the research studies that use satellite instrumentation and ground based observations to study the Earth's energy balance. As I just said: "Your comments and objections stem only from your own ignorance of the science involved, not from any errors or gaps in the scientific understanding." Your next line only reinforces this conclusion. "The other thing about the energy balance, is we have very little history, for understanding trends, we may if fact, be seeing normal cycling." Scientists actually have a great deal of climate history to work with, as you would know if you actually knew anything about this and weren't just parroting denier cult drivel. Gas bubbles in ice cores are just one of many proxies that reveal information about past climates and atmospheric compositions. Scientists understand the "normal cycles" caused by variations in natural factors that usually affect the Earth's climate and those factors are not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend. Dismissing modern climate science and its conclusions by citing supposed mysterious, unknown "natural cycles" is just a kind of magical thinking and has nothing to do with science.
Wrong natural cycle. My overall comment was based on the fact that we have gathering satellite energy
balance data for less than 30 years.
If we observe an energy imbalance, is it changing? Is that change normal? what is normal?
We first have to define normal, before we can define abnormal!

You say:"Our big blue Marble is leaking visible light into space, many of those visible light photons contain significantly more energy than long wavelength IR. My question was if they accounted for them."....and once again there are more questions than knowledge and the supposed 'facts' are not facts. Very little energy is radiated away from the Earth as visible light. Heat energy is almost entirely transferred away in the infrared portion of the spectrum. Try reading more on the physics of light.
A single photon of blue light has about 7 times the energy of the highest energy photons AIRS is measuring.
Argon blue 488nm=2.54 eV, AIRS 3.7um=.335 eV.
If Earth did not radiate in the visible, we could not see it from space.

you say: "In the decade I ran the Science labs at a University"....but your general cluelessness about scientific basics makes this claim very suspect and just the kind of fraudulent 'claim to authority' that is impossible to prove on an anonymous forum like this one.
Research is painful, especially new art research (when you start moving into uncharted areas)
It is very easy to fool yourself, that is the reason people conduct blind studies.
I see no reason why the science basis of AGW should not be subjected to the
same level of scrutiny as every other field of science!
Questioning possible errors, is a core part of the scientific method.
 
[h=3]Anthropogenic CO2?[/h] The human-caused origin (anthropogenic) of the measured increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is a cornerstone of predictions of future temperature rises. As such, it has come under frequent attack by people who challenge the science of global warming. One thing noteworthy about those attacks is that the full range of evidence supporting the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 increase seems to slip from sight. So what is the full range of supporting evidence? There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:


  1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
  2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
  4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
  5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
  6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
  7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
  8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
  9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation; and
  10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing. Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2



The warming trend that we are currently enjoying goes back to about 1580. The industrial revolution did not start until at least 200 years later. it depends on how you want to measure it. The rise in CO2 did not start until about 1880.

Are you seriously proposing that the warming that started in 1580 was caused by CO2 concentrations that did not increase until 1880?

There are serious issues with the "proof' put forth to support this notion. You really need to address them instead of simply ignoring them if you want to appear to be unbiased.
 
Every single piece of evidence listed above is from on peer-reviewed science. You shooting the messenger doesn't refute the scientific evidence.



The scientific source is talking abut warming and talking about Anthropogenic causation and never bothers to connect the two.
 
Translated from science denier speak - The peer reviewed evidence of AGW:

1. Wolfgang Knorr, 2009)
2. (Scripps Institute)
3. Cawley, 2011; data from CDIAC)
4. Levin and Hesshaimer 2006)
5. (Bohm et al, 2002)
6. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm
7. 7A: Carbon Dioxide and Ocean pH: What's the Connection?
8. American Geophysical Union
9.All datasets and modeling output to complete the Global Carbon Budget 2012 are described in detail in Le Quere et al. (2012) [http://bit.ly/UY8GTQ]
All datasets contributing to this year’s update have been integrated in one single file. It is archived at CDIAC doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/GCP_V2012 (Excel, 263kb)
10. Lawdome75yrco2.svg



Any peer reviewed articles to explain why the warming seems to have stopped again?

Any peer reviewed articles explaining why all of the AGW Science based predictions on climate are wrong?
 
We have the evidence and we have the well established scientific principle that connects them to the observed warming.



Please present the evidence and show why the cause happened 300 after the effect.
 
Exactly MG! I think there has to be some denial involved not to see that connection.



I have been to the tropics many times. Probably not the best idea when one is a fair skinned Swedish/Irish mutt, but i love the sunshine and the Resort living on vacation.

On every visit, I have gotten Sun burned and have spent a bunch of time on the beach playing volleyball, drinking coconut shelled beverages, trying to remove sand from places it should never reside and having a great time with a lovely companion.

All of these things are connected with me getting a Sun burn and yet none of them caused the Sun Burn.

Do you see how connection is not causation?
 
The scientific source is talking abut warming and talking about Anthropogenic causation and never bothers to connect the two.

Thanks for your personal denial.
 
Back
Top Bottom