How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

 

[SSDD]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

Another thing that climate "scientists" don't spend much time educating people about...there is a correlation between rising CO2 and temperature but that correlation is that CO2 follows temperature around like a puppy and is a result of rising temporaries..not a cause.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

Another thing that climate "scientists" don't spend much time educating people about...there is a correlation between rising CO2 and temperature but that correlation is that CO2 follows temperature around like a puppy and is a result of rising temporaries..not a cause.

I have no intention of debating facts. A strong consensus exists. - Crick

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

Another thing that climate "scientists" don't spend much time educating people about...there is a correlation between rising CO2 and temperature but that correlation is that CO2 follows temperature around like a puppy and is a result of rising temporaries..not a cause.

Bah. Who needs any education when you can say instead, "we have consensus"

 

[abu afak]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.


EDIT:
`

 

[SSDD]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.

`

Got any observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

I predict that you have none...and in response to your lack of evidence, you will impotently hit your funny button because that is all you have left. Go for it goober...hit that funny button and show us all just how impotent you are.

 

[abu afak]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.

`

Got any observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

I predict that you have none...and in response to your lack of evidence, you will impotently hit your funny button because that is all you have left. Go for it goober...hit that funny button and show us all just how impotent you are.

We went through this in the beginning and middle of this thread.
Science has shown the trapping frequencies are the precise ones of GH Gases.
Go Vomit your daily denial in the Conspiracy section.

`

`

 

[SSDD]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.

`

Got any observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

I predict that you have none...and in response to your lack of evidence, you will impotently hit your funny button because that is all you have left. Go for it goober...hit that funny button and show us all just how impotent you are.

We went through this in the beginning and middle of this thread.
Science has shown the trapping frequencies are the precise ones of GH Gases.
Go Vomit your daily denial in the Conspiracy section.

`

`

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

 

[Wuwei]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

.

 

[SSDD]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

.

Sorry guy...all the gasses that absorb IR lose it to collisions with other molecules like O2 and N2 before they can warm....there is no radiative greenhouse effect. The only thing in the atmosphere that actually heats is water vapor...

 

[abu afak]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.

`

And of course... in the absence of other traditional causes like solar forcing...
CO2 and other GHGs like Methane/CH4 are enough to warm the planet all alone.
Which is what happened on earth since the Industrial Revolution.
See OP and many others in the thread.

`

 

[Wuwei]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

Sorry guy...all the gasses that absorb IR lose it to collisions with other molecules like O2 and N2 before they can warm....there is no radiative greenhouse effect. The only thing in the atmosphere that actually heats is water vapor...

Randomly loosing absorbed energy to other molecules like O2 and N2 by collisions means those other molecules gain kinetic energy. Otherwise where does the energy go? Remember the conservation of energy. And remember a random gain in kinetic results in heat.

.

.

 

[SSDD]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

Sorry guy...all the gasses that absorb IR lose it to collisions with other molecules like O2 and N2 before they can warm....there is no radiative greenhouse effect. The only thing in the atmosphere that actually heats is water vapor...

Randomly loosing absorbed energy to other molecules like O2 and N2 by collisions means those other molecules gain kinetic energy. Otherwise where does the energy go? Remember the conservation of energy.

.

Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by 1,000 years. Modern CO2 must be different

CO2 is BOTH a trailing indicator and Contributor to Warming.
This is basic stuff Crusader/anti-Evolution guy.


EDIT:
`

Lol.

So the ice cores are "deniers!"

 

[Billy_Bob]

There are no "trapping" frequencies...there are absorption and emission frequencies...if "trapping" were happening, there would be an upper tropospheric hot spot...no such hotspot exists..the number one predictive failure that falsifies the AGW hypothesis.

If GHG's absorb their resonant wavelengths from the earth's LWIR. The region of atmosphere that absorbs those wavelengths must heat. Don't forget the conservation of energy principle.

.

SO explain why it does not...

 

[Wuwei]

Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.

There is also a radiative green house effect.
It is needed to explain the less complex atmosphere of Venus. Otherwise where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.

 

[deanrd]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

How can anyone asked this question with all the data that’s out there and how it’s studied and how it’s interpreted.

Next, these right wingers will be blaming the Greenland debacle on the left and insisting the world is only a few thousand years old.

If they spend more time learning stuff then sniffing trumps b@lls, they wouldn’t have so many questions.
And their questions wouldn’t be so laughable.

 

[SSDD]

Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.

There is also a radiative green house effect.
It is needed to explain the less complex atmosphere of Venus. Otherwise where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.

Do you ever actually "THINK" about any of the shiny objects you glom onto before you pronounce them as evidence to support your beliefs? Ever? The radiative greenhouse effect, as described by climate science doesn't even begin to explain the temperature on venus...the venus / runaway greenhouse effect is pablum for the useful idiots that climate science gets from the very top shelf...

Climate science says that for each doubling of CO2, the temperature increases 3.5 degrees (although that number is trending closer to zero every year)...but lets go with 3.5 degrees....18 doublings of the amount of CO2 on earth would give you the same CO2 concentration as on venus...3.5 degrees times 18 doublings equals 63 degrees...so according to the greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 63 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be once you account for the difference in solar energy reaching the surface...which is ~17 W/m^2.... The fact is that it would take thousands of doublings of CO2 to reach the temperatures on venus if it were a greenhouse effect as described by climate science that was responsible for the temperature there. The numbers simply don't add up.

If you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect is at work on venus, do explain how it is that the CO2 in the atmosphere of venus multiplies the ~17W/m^2 of solar energy that reaches the ground to ~16,000 W/m^2. Do provide the formula by which you believe this happens.

The actual accounting for that ~16/000 W/m^2 is that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

The last time I provided this to you, you had a strangely incomplete notion of what enthalpy was. You were under the impression that enthalpy was nothing more than a tool for calculating the lapse rate.

Here...have a definition:

enthalpy - a quantity associated with a thermodynamic system, expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process. Symbol: H

 

[SSDD]

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

How can anyone asked this question with all the data that’s out there and how it’s studied and how it’s interpreted.

Next, these right wingers will be blaming the Greenland debacle on the left and insisting the world is only a few thousand years old.

If they spend more time learning stuff then sniffing trumps b@lls, they wouldn’t have so many questions.
And their questions wouldn’t be so laughable.

The actual data don't support your claims...and output from failing computer models which is what you are talking about is little more than evidence of the incompetence of climatologists. You are right however, that there is a lot of interpreting going on...a great deal of interpreting is required to change real world data which doesn't support the hypothesis into an explanation for why the earth has seen a bit of warming.

 

[Wuwei]

Whoever said that the O2 and N2 that gain energy via conduction don't get warmer...of course they warm....and so does water vapor...but it isn't due to a radiative greenhouse effect and more CO2 can't make it warmer...more water vapor could make it warmer...but not more of any of the other so called greenhouse gasses.

There is also a radiative green house effect.
It is needed to explain the less complex atmosphere of Venus. Otherwise where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

Do you ever actually "THINK" about any of the shiny objects you glom onto before you pronounce them as evidence to support your beliefs? Ever? The radiative greenhouse effect, as described by climate science doesn't even begin to explain the temperature on venus...the venus / runaway greenhouse effect is pablum for the useful idiots that climate science gets from the very top shelf...

Climate science says that for each doubling of CO2, the temperature increases 3.5 degrees (although that number is trending closer to zero every year)...but lets go with 3.5 degrees....18 doublings of the amount of CO2 on earth would give you the same CO2 concentration as on venus...3.5 degrees times 18 doublings equals 63 degrees...so according to the greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 63 degrees warmer than it otherwise would be once you account for the difference in solar energy reaching the surface...which is ~17 W/m^2.... The fact is that it would take thousands of doublings of CO2 to reach the temperatures on venus if it were a greenhouse effect as described by climate science that was responsible for the temperature there. The numbers simply don't add up.

If you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect is at work on venus, do explain how it is that the CO2 in the atmosphere of venus multiplies the ~17W/m^2 of solar energy that reaches the ground to ~16,000 W/m^2. Do provide the formula by which you believe this happens.

The actual accounting for that ~16/000 W/m^2 is that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas. Since the atmosphere of Venus is above 10kPa, convection occurs. Convection, and the action of auto-compression causes the potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy the 50% of the gas that is descending in the atmosphere of Venus.

This happens in accord with the equation

H = PV=U

Where

H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V - Specific Volume (m^3)
U = Specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

Half of the very large mass of the atmosphere of Venus holds a VERY large amount of potential energy.....hence the 16,000W/m2 at the surface.

The last time I provided this to you, you had a strangely incomplete notion of what enthalpy was. You were under the impression that enthalpy was nothing more than a tool for calculating the lapse rate.

Here...have a definition:

enthalpy - a quantity associated with a thermodynamic system, expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process. Symbol: H

My question was where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?
Your first paragraph was mostly the usual bitter insults.
Your second paragraph was non sequitur.

Your third paragraph asks for a formula that gives the 1600 W/m² from the surface of Venus. It's the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface of Venus was observed measured and confirmed to be around 864 °F. Plug that temperature into a SB calculator and you get a radiation of 16582 W/m²

The remaining paragraphs are non sequitur again. There you only hand wave why you think the surface is hot, but you don't answer the question,

Where does the 16582 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

.