First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

[Old Rocks]

Frankie Boy is afraid to link to the actual arcticle, because it well explains exactly what is being seen.

 

[bripat9643]

Confirmed at last. All they have to do now is reproduce the results at many more locations. Any deniers care to respond?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0225132103.htm


Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface for the first time. They measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from Earth's surface over an 11-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel emissions.
More at the link.

Also, a video:

What is the quantity "Forcing" and how is it measured? If it isn't measured by the difference in temperature, that is, which it obviously isn't.

 

[jc456]

Do you fellows have to constantly update your status as dumb fucks? Burn a ton of coal, and your produce 3 2/3 tons of CO2. In 2011, about 14,500 million tons of CO2 was put into the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Given that we have been burning coal at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution, and that the atmospheric CO2 was then 280 ppm, today it is over 400 ppm.

so you can't, I see. then it isn't there.

 

[jc456]

Do you fellows have to constantly update your status as dumb fucks? Burn a ton of coal, and your produce 3 2/3 tons of CO2. In 2011, about 14,500 million tons of CO2 was put into the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Given that we have been burning coal at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution, and that the atmospheric CO2 was then 280 ppm, today it is over 400 ppm.

and the PPM levels were in the thousands when man wasn't around. So what's your point?

 

[orogenicman]

Do you fellows have to constantly update your status as dumb fucks? Burn a ton of coal, and your produce 3 2/3 tons of CO2. In 2011, about 14,500 million tons of CO2 was put into the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Given that we have been burning coal at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution, and that the atmospheric CO2 was then 280 ppm, today it is over 400 ppm.

and the PPM levels were in the thousands when man wasn't around. So what's your point?

So what? Man wasn't around, and neither were tens of thousands of other species. Most of the ones alive today are adapted to the climate we have today, not to the climate that existed way back when. None of which has anything to do with the OP. Please stay on topic.

 

[jc456]

Do you fellows have to constantly update your status as dumb fucks? Burn a ton of coal, and your produce 3 2/3 tons of CO2. In 2011, about 14,500 million tons of CO2 was put into the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Given that we have been burning coal at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution, and that the atmospheric CO2 was then 280 ppm, today it is over 400 ppm.

and the PPM levels were in the thousands when man wasn't around. So what's your point?

So what? Man wasn't around, and neither were tens of thousands of other species. Most of the ones alive today are adapted to the climate we have today, not to the climate that existed way back when. None of which has anything to do with the OP. Please stay on topic.

Yeah, so what. CO2 levels were higher in the past. so how does the fact that the ppm today is at 400 mean anything. So what? And, how does the fact that it is at 400 mean the last 120 PPM was due to man?

 

[Crick]

Working backwards: as you've been told repeatedly, 120 ppm of the current 400 ppm show the distinctive isotopic signature of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Additionally, the amount of fossil fuel that humans have burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution can be estimated with good accuracy and the amount of CO2 that would be produced may be calculated. That results agrees with the isotopic analysis.

CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR and causes global warming. As the level increases, the equilibrium temperature it will eventually produce rises. That's why it matters.

You've been participating here for quite some time jc. How is it that you didn't know these things?

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL. Those measurements are giving both causation and correlation. Once again the idiot child brigade loses.

No.. This paper is simply calculating Radiative Forcing. The paper made no such causation or correlation to anything. You alarmists did that out of hand and your presumptions were, shall we say....Bull Shit!

 

[Old Rocks]

Now which one of your 98.6 degrees told you that? LOL.

 

[Billy_Bob]

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

Whoa there cowgirl...

One, I have read the paper and they do not include water vapor in the findings. WHY? Water vapor affects all of the bands they selected so it must have been considered. They do not tell us what the effects were or how they determined them. No, they do not explain water vapor. I had to have been examined but they do not explain what they found.

And 0.02W/M^2 per year is insignificant when clouds can change the dynamics by 1.5W/M^2 in minuets, or a volcano erupts and the dust creates a negative change as Mt St Helen's did of -0.8W/M^2 in the 80's.

As we have seen to date the earth has countered all CO2 rise leaving a Zero trend.

 

[Crick]

PS, CO2 levels have NOT been higher than they are today at any time in the history of homo sapiens and very likely not in the history of neanderthals and likely not in the entire hominid history as well.

 

[Crick]

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

Whoa there cowgirl...

One, I have read the paper and they do not include water vapor in the findings. WHY? Water vapor affects all of the bands they selected so it must have been considered. They do not tell us what the effects were or how they determined them. No, they do not explain water vapor. I had to have been examined but they do not explain what they found.

And 0.02W/M^2 per year is insignificant when clouds can change the dynamics by 1.5W/M^2 in minuets, or a volcano erupts and the dust creates a negative change as Mt St Helen's did of -0.8W/M^2 in the 80's.

As we have seen to date the earth has countered all CO2 rise leaving a Zero trend.

0.2 Wm^-1, not 0.02Wm^-1

 

[Crick]

As we have seen to date the earth has countered all CO2 rise leaving a Zero trend.

In your dreams. Do you have a link to a reputable source claiming this point?

 

[Billy_Bob]

once again old crock fails....

here are a few other questions and oddities that should have made the two stations very different but didn't... Things that make you go hmmmmmm

"
1) Barrow is in total darkness for just over two months a year and not a lot of light for probably half that (total 1/3 of a year).
2) because of the snow and ice, albedo and angle of incidence, 70-80% of the incident light is reflected from October until April-May.
3) there aren’t any plants to speak of for this robust absorbtion of CO2.

The responses should be markedly different for Oklahoma and Barrow, unless you are actually measuring something different than you think."

Source

And yet Barrow is seeing more warming that most temperate regions, as is most of the rest of the arctic.

Please post attribution as to cause of warming... Most of those I work with agree that the cause is the massive polar low and cooling creating instability in the low and weak magnetic fields allowing the atmosphere to expand. This expansion allows faster cooling at high altitudes and temperature imbalance ie;polar jet size and power increase. The resulting collision with the equatorial jet causes massive swings of warm air to be pulled to the cooling Arctic. Its called the earths paradoxical presentation. This is exactly what the Antarctic did 4 years ago and you see what has resulted in the cooling of the southern hemisphere..

This is only the beginning of the cold phase we have just entered..

 

[Billy_Bob]

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

Whoa there cowgirl...

One, I have read the paper and they do not include water vapor in the findings. WHY? Water vapor affects all of the bands they selected so it must have been considered. They do not tell us what the effects were or how they determined them. No, they do not explain water vapor. I had to have been examined but they do not explain what they found.

And 0.02W/M^2 per year is insignificant when clouds can change the dynamics by 1.5W/M^2 in minuets, or a volcano erupts and the dust creates a negative change as Mt St Helen's did of -0.8W/M^2 in the 80's.

As we have seen to date the earth has countered all CO2 rise leaving a Zero trend.

0.2 Wm^-1, not 0.02Wm^-1

Per Year... or did you fail to read that? Yep you failed to read...

0.02W/M^2 per year
0.2W/M^2 per decade
2.0W/M^2 per 100 years...

In one hundred years we can assume just a 0.36 Deg C Rise if we use the LOG and extrapolate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As we have seen to date the earth has countered all CO2 rise leaving a Zero trend.

In your dreams. Do you have a link to a reputable source claiming this point?

I have already shown you multiple times the empirical evidence. I laugh at your determination of "reputable" as if you are the arbiter of that...

 

[Billy_Bob]

PS, CO2 levels have NOT been higher than they are today at any time in the history of homo sapiens and very likely not in the history of neanderthals and likely not in the entire hominid history as well.

It really doesn't matter.. The earth had mammal life and lots of it when the CO2 levels were+4000ppm..

 

[Old Rocks]

History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

The last time there was 4000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, longterm, was about 350 million years ago. Quite a bit before the evolution of mammals. Even before the evolution of therapsids. At about 250 million years ago, there was a very large spike in CO2 and CH4, that was the P-T Extinction. Really, Billy Boob, look up things before making a fool of yourself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the Article:
“The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now.”.

From the Abstract;
“However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2″ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html

Its fun to watch these people fall all over themselves to run away from a failing paper... The articles writer made an assumption that is not proven in the paper.. and now others begin to run away from the lie before it collapses.

 

[Billy_Bob]

History of Atmospheric CO2 through geological time (past 550 million years: from Berner, Science, 1997). The parameter RCO2 is defined as the ratio of the mass of CO2in the atmosphere at some time in the past to that at present (with a pre-industrial value of 300 parts per million). The heavier line joining small squares represents the best estimate of past atmospheric CO2 levels based on geochemical modeling and updated to have the effect of land plants on weathering introduced 380 to 350 million years ago. The shaded area encloses the approximate range of error of the modeling based on sensitivity analysis. Vertical bars represent independent estimates of CO2 level based on the study of ancient soils.

The last time there was 4000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, longterm, was about 350 million years ago. Quite a bit before the evolution of mammals. Even before the evolution of therapsids. At about 250 million years ago, there was a very large spike in CO2 and CH4, that was the P-T Extinction. Really, Billy Boob, look up things before making a fool of yourself.

And the temperature NEVER ran away...