seven stats on climate change

[Silver Cat]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

Water vapour radiates in this range (just a bit less, than CO_2).

 

[Silver Cat]

So, you thionk the fossil fuel industry gets mo subsidies?

Guess you don't know the difference between tax breaks and subsidies....chalk up one more thing you don't know.

AGW is science. Why are you so afraid of it?

If that's the case, why is it that you don't seem to be able to post up any actual science? You post up a misleading chart from NASA and believe it is science and reject actual peer reviewed, published science which calls your NASA opinion into question. It is you who seems to be afraid of science...

I am not a climatologist. I have degrees inb science. I read lot & trust certain scientists.

Ummmm should I believe NASA or a stupid fuck lying piece of shit like you?

Do you believe NASA? No problem.

"Although carbon dioxide gets most of the bad publicity these days as the critical greenhouse gas, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is minuscule compared to that of water vapor. Water vapor is present in such abundance throughout the atmosphere that it acts like a blanket of insulation around our world, trapping heat and forcing surface temperatures higher than they would be otherwise. At most wavelengths within the thermal infrared energy spectrum (basically heat) that get trapped within Earth’s atmosphere you barely even notice the effects of carbon dioxide because water vapor totally dominates the signal."

Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog

 

[Silver Cat]

Because that's how economics works.

That's how capitalism works.

that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.

Technically, modern USA are more socialistic than modern Russia or China.

 

[Silver Cat]

human beings are polluting the earth's air and water. There is no scientific proof that that pollution is causing the earth's climate to change.

my question is this: everyone wants an unpolluted planet to live on, why isn't fighting pollution enough for you lefties? Why must you insist on a false link between pollution and climate?

If there was a direct link, where was it in the previous cooling and warming periods when there were no humans on earth?

I think I know the answer, because this religion of yours is not about climate or pollution, its about finding a way to control the lives and actions of everyone on earth. your movement is a political movement, not a scientific movement. Your prophet Algore said that by now there would be no ice at the poles and that Florida and much of the east coast would be under water. Was he lying or was he simply wrong?

Environmentalism is an ideology heretical by its matter, anti-liberal and anti-humanistic by its goals, pseudoscientific by its methodology, cultists by its organisation.

 

[Silver Cat]

that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.

Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ok. There is an interesting article about empirical evidence of climate change in last two millenia.
Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia.

-----------------------------------
Climate-forced sea-level lowstands in the Indian Ocean during the last two millennia

• Paul S. Kench,
• Roger F. McLean,
• Keven Roy

Nature Geoscience volume 13, pages61–64(2020)Cite this article

• 1077 Accesses
  
  
• 205 Altmetric
  
  
• Metricsdetails

Abstract
Sea-level reconstructions over the past two millennia provide a pre-industrial context to assess whether the magnitude and rate of modern sea-level change is unprecedented. Sea-level records from the Indian Ocean over the past 2,000 years are sparse, while records from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans show variations less than 0.25 m and no significant negative excursions. Here, we present evidence of two low sea-level phases in the Maldives, Indian Ocean, based on fossil coral microatolls. Microatoll growth is constrained by low water levels and, consequently, they are robust recorders of past sea level. U–Th dating of the Maldivian corals identified lowstands at AD 234–605 and AD 1481–1807 when sea level fell to maximum depths of −0.88 m and −0.89 m respectively. These lowstands are synchronous with reductions in radiative forcing and sea surface temperature associated with the Late Antiquity Little Ice Age and the Little Ice Age. Our results provide high-fidelity observations of lower sea levels during these cool periods and show rates of change of up to 4.24 mm yr−1. Our data also confirm the acceleration of relative sea-level rise over the past two centuries and suggest that the current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented.
------------------------------------


"current magnitude and rate of sea-level rise is not unprecedented" - it means, that there were "global warmings" and "global coolings" even in the preindustrial age.

Jesus Fuck.

Who said that CO2 man made emission was the ONLY way to change the Climate.

You deniers are just too fuclkng stupid to be alive.

Ok. If so, why do you think, that
1) the current (not unprecedented) warming (if it really exists) is bad, not good?
2) it was caused by human activity, not by solar activity, Earth position, volcanic erruptions, etc?
3) it was caused by burning fossil fuel, not by agricultural activity, wide usage of fertilizers, the draining all that marshes, forestation and deforestation, etc?

 

[bripat9643]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

"CLAIM: 'There isn’t any warming. All they’ve got is computer model predictions, folks. There isn’t yet any empirical evidence for their claim that greenhouse gases even cause temperatures to increase. There isn’t any empirical data for that.'

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Sorry. Wrong. You're talking about "homogenized" data, which means fake data.

 

[bripat9643]

georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.

Russia between 1917 and 1989.

Gulags are cool, eh comrade?

That's what he and his leftwing buddies have in mind for America.

 

[ReinyDays]

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

Wrong ... widely available references all show just CO2 and H2O radiating at 15µm ... try again ...

 

[SSDD]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

Sorry guy...In that wavelength we also have H20, CO2, and O3 emitting if you think that means something...not empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect...now toss in all wavelengths of cosmic radiation since that must mean as much as CO2 ...

And I already pointed out that if you bring your piece of paper into a dark room with plenty of CO2...heck pump some in if you like...and leave the paper on the counter till the cows come home, you won't get any fogging...

 

[georgephillip]

Provide proof of this claim..

Your Wiki cut and paste has no link to any scientific paper..

What Wiki "cut and paste" are you referring to?

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

"The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1..."

"1-Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature"

 

[SSDD]

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

See my previous post

There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:

Great...lets see some empirical evidence proving that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. This may surprise you, but to date, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...since no such paper exists, exactly where does all this evidence "proving" that we are causing the earth to warm up reside...don't you think there would be at least one published paper on the topic if such evidence existed?

"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Sorry guy...your graph is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting..it doesn't show anything like our year to year emissions...it has all been smoothed in order to create an impression....if you want to see our actual CO2 emissions vs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year to year, look at the graphs I provided above which are all from peer reviewed, published literature

"The Smoking Gun

"The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.

"CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

"Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sorry guy, but that is not evidence that CO2 is causing anything...that is nothing more than an absorption spectrum which shows pretty clearly that CO2 only absorbs in a very small portion of the infrared spectrum emitted by earth..and it only shows half the picture...that shows the absorption spectrum...there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...

Now there is one gas that can absorb and retain energy, but your graph doesn't show it...wonder why? That gas would be H2O...or water vapor...and your pseudoscientific graph leaves it out because it completely dominates the infrared spectrum rendering CO2 impotent...and unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, H2O can actually retain the energy it absorbs.

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).

"But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."

As you can see, H2O completely dominates CO2...and again, your graph is an absorption spectrum...it isn't an emission spectrum...an emission spectrum would show that all the energy being absorbed by CO2 is then immediately emitted on to space...although, CO2 generally doesn't actually get to emit any radiation at all.

But that isn't really the entire story either...the fact is that it is estimated that about 8% of the energy emitted from the surface of the earth actually radiates through the troposphere...the rest is moved via convection and conduction...which means that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible...which explains why you are unable to provide any empirical evidence of it. Here is an email exchange between Dr William Happer...you may have heard of him...he is a physicist who resides on the very top shelf of scientists in his field, which is atomic physics, optics, and spectrometry...

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

You provide a link to skeptical science and call it evidence...are you kidding? Do tell..which part of that do you believe to be empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming...feel free to cut and paste.

"Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

That isn't what the observation shows...observation shows that more energy is escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere as the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..Your hypothesis fails right out of the gate...you have been lied to and tricked. Why is that so hard to admit when the observed, measured evidence proves it beyond question?

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Since the observations show us that energy is not being trapped, and in fact the amount of energy leaving the earth is increasing, your point is meaningless...your mechanism is non existent...the argument is based on a lie...

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

Again..the observations show precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...outgoing radiation is not decreasing...it is increasing..and has been for a good long time.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

Brilliant deduction...except it is completely wrong...again...the observations show that the amount of energy exiting the earth that the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and there is no upper tropospheric hot spot which would be inevitable if energy were being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses...your case is built on assumptions which observation proves to be wrong..

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.

Yet another pointless point...Since your whole case is based on flawed information...there is not and never was a crime....

"The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

The investigation is an abject failure proven wrong by simple observation...do you suppose there might be a reason why your "detective" didn't provide you with the actual observations to support his case...they were all available...of course he didn't because his whole case would have failed as he tried to make his first point as the observations show clearly that energy is not being trapped in the atmosphere...the amount of energy exiting the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts...yet another predictive failure..

Fake analysis from a denier.

Refute his points.. WITH FACTS and not with your antiscience left wing drivel.

NASA already refuted his pile of bullshit.

]Sorry guy...but it was NASA's opinion which has just been proven false with actual science...now if you can provide some peer reviewed, published science, based on empirical evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...by all means bring it on...otherwise, you are just showing yourself to be a denier of actual science and a purveyor of pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

See my previous post

There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:

Great...lets see some empirical evidence proving that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. This may surprise you, but to date, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...since no such paper exists, exactly where does all this evidence "proving" that we are causing the earth to warm up reside...don't you think there would be at least one published paper on the topic if such evidence existed?

"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Sorry guy...your graph is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting..it doesn't show anything like our year to year emissions...it has all been smoothed in order to create an impression....if you want to see our actual CO2 emissions vs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year to year, look at the graphs I provided above which are all from peer reviewed, published literature

"The Smoking Gun

"The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.

"CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

"Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sorry guy, but that is not evidence that CO2 is causing anything...that is nothing more than an absorption spectrum which shows pretty clearly that CO2 only absorbs in a very small portion of the infrared spectrum emitted by earth..and it only shows half the picture...that shows the absorption spectrum...there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...

Now there is one gas that can absorb and retain energy, but your graph doesn't show it...wonder why? That gas would be H2O...or water vapor...and your pseudoscientific graph leaves it out because it completely dominates the infrared spectrum rendering CO2 impotent...and unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, H2O can actually retain the energy it absorbs.

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).

"But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."

As you can see, H2O completely dominates CO2...and again, your graph is an absorption spectrum...it isn't an emission spectrum...an emission spectrum would show that all the energy being absorbed by CO2 is then immediately emitted on to space...although, CO2 generally doesn't actually get to emit any radiation at all.

But that isn't really the entire story either...the fact is that it is estimated that about 8% of the energy emitted from the surface of the earth actually radiates through the troposphere...the rest is moved via convection and conduction...which means that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible...which explains why you are unable to provide any empirical evidence of it. Here is an email exchange between Dr William Happer...you may have heard of him...he is a physicist who resides on the very top shelf of scientists in his field, which is atomic physics, optics, and spectrometry...

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

You provide a link to skeptical science and call it evidence...are you kidding? Do tell..which part of that do you believe to be empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming...feel free to cut and paste.

"Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

That isn't what the observation shows...observation shows that more energy is escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere as the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..Your hypothesis fails right out of the gate...you have been lied to and tricked. Why is that so hard to admit when the observed, measured evidence proves it beyond question?

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Since the observations show us that energy is not being trapped, and in fact the amount of energy leaving the earth is increasing, your point is meaningless...your mechanism is non existent...the argument is based on a lie...

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

Again..the observations show precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...outgoing radiation is not decreasing...it is increasing..and has been for a good long time.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

Brilliant deduction...except it is completely wrong...again...the observations show that the amount of energy exiting the earth that the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and there is no upper tropospheric hot spot which would be inevitable if energy were being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses...your case is built on assumptions which observation proves to be wrong..

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.

Yet another pointless point...Since your whole case is based on flawed information...there is not and never was a crime....

"The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

The investigation is an abject failure proven wrong by simple observation...do you suppose there might be a reason why your "detective" didn't provide you with the actual observations to support his case...they were all available...of course he didn't because his whole case would have failed as he tried to make his first point as the observations show clearly that energy is not being trapped in the atmosphere...the amount of energy exiting the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts...yet another predictive failure..

Fake analysis from a denier.

Yet another mewling denial of facts...no rebuttal at all and more name calling...

Still completely unsurprising..

Sorry, I chose NASA. Not interested in your lies & phony analysis.

Yep...you chose nasa...I chose published peer reviewed literature and data from nasa to demonstrate that your opinion piece was wrong...

 

[georgephillip]

georgie thinks this is funny. so tell us, georgie, where has socialism ever worked in the history of the world.

Russia between 1917 and 1989.

Gulags are cool, eh comrade?

Gulags are cool, eh comrade?

Cool as Crow, Kulak.

 

[SSDD]

I say flat out that you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

Now you are just mewling and peeling. Why not just admit that, as I predicted, you can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

"Stephen Po-Chedley, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
This claim is not accurate. Global temperature datasets, developed by a number of independent research groups, show robust warming in the troposphere and at the Earth’s surface. The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1.

"Considering multiple lines of evidence, the IPCC concluded that it is 'extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.'

Great...lets see some of this evidence...what you have shown is a bit of actual science which doesn't demonstrate anything in particular with a great big assumption that it does tacked on for good measure.

"More recent analysis of satellite data shows that tropospheric warming from the satellite record is pronounced and cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone2."

Geez guy...we are just beginning to scratch the surface of the natural factors that effect the climate...that statement claims that we know them all...every natural factor, and how each and every one of those natural factors interact and affect all the others...we aren't even close to having that sort of knowledge of the way energy moves through the atmosphere...the statement is pure pseudoscience..and very very dishonest.. But if you think we know all the factors, and how they interact with each other, by all means, start listing..

 

[SSDD]

So let's see the empirical evidence proving the greenhouse effect to be real...once again, you will find that no such evidence exists...

Place a sheet of 15µm IR photographic paper face up on the ground some moonless night ... process the paper and you see it is fogged ... only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause the paper to fog like that ... nothing else ...

Empirical evidence of the greenhouse effect ...

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

O2 and N2 radiate in the 15µm range? Link?

Water vapour radiates in this range (just a bit less, than CO_2).

Don't know where you got your graph but if you believe it tells you that H20 radiates in a smaller range than CO2, it is patently false...here is a graph showing the individual spectra of the major atmospheric gasses...as you can see, H2O completely dominates them all...

 

[SSDD]

that's how the only successful economic system in the history of humanity works.

Russia was one of the least developed, poorest countries on the planet in 1917. 72 years later it was one of two global superpowers in spite of participating in two world wars fought in its homeland and a revolution. Which economic system gets the credit, socialism or capitalism?

Russia and China are successful today because they allowed capitalism to operate within their economic systems. But I wonder why we don't see any americans moving to Russia or China. Can you explain that since you think they are such wonderful places to live?

There are roghly 50 thousand Americans living in Moscow, 25 thousand in Sanct-Peterburg and a small number in other cities. There are roughly 100 thousands of american citisens living in China. But, yes, we don't know how many of them are ethnic Russians and Chines.

My bet is that in both cases, the residents are professionals living far above the average standard of living, or on religious, medical, or humanitarian missions. I doubt that you would find many americans living at the average standard of living...

 

[SSDD]

OOPs..

Galactic radiation, O2, N2, water vapor and other matter in our atmosphere emit in this band.... Try again to prove CO2 is the cause...

Wrong ... widely available references all show just CO2 and H2O radiating at 15µm ... try again ...

And O3...don't forget O3..

 

[RealDave]

Why do you believe a profit motive is necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels?

See my previous post

There's no shortage of empirical evidence proving human-generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up:

Great...lets see some empirical evidence proving that human generated CO2 is causing the earth to heat up. This may surprise you, but to date, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our so called greenhouse gasses...since no such paper exists, exactly where does all this evidence "proving" that we are causing the earth to warm up reside...don't you think there would be at least one published paper on the topic if such evidence existed?

"Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

Sorry guy...your graph is nothing more than an exercise in curve fitting..it doesn't show anything like our year to year emissions...it has all been smoothed in order to create an impression....if you want to see our actual CO2 emissions vs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere year to year, look at the graphs I provided above which are all from peer reviewed, published literature

"The Smoking Gun

"The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature.

"CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

"Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

Sorry guy, but that is not evidence that CO2 is causing anything...that is nothing more than an absorption spectrum which shows pretty clearly that CO2 only absorbs in a very small portion of the infrared spectrum emitted by earth..and it only shows half the picture...that shows the absorption spectrum...there is an emission spectrum which goes with that which shows that all that radiation absorbed by all the so called greenhouse gasses is immediately emitted...nothing is held back, nothing is blocked, nothing is trapped..it is absorbed and emitted...

Now there is one gas that can absorb and retain energy, but your graph doesn't show it...wonder why? That gas would be H2O...or water vapor...and your pseudoscientific graph leaves it out because it completely dominates the infrared spectrum rendering CO2 impotent...and unlike the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses, H2O can actually retain the energy it absorbs.

"The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20).

"But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2."

As you can see, H2O completely dominates CO2...and again, your graph is an absorption spectrum...it isn't an emission spectrum...an emission spectrum would show that all the energy being absorbed by CO2 is then immediately emitted on to space...although, CO2 generally doesn't actually get to emit any radiation at all.

But that isn't really the entire story either...the fact is that it is estimated that about 8% of the energy emitted from the surface of the earth actually radiates through the troposphere...the rest is moved via convection and conduction...which means that a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible...which explains why you are unable to provide any empirical evidence of it. Here is an email exchange between Dr William Happer...you may have heard of him...he is a physicist who resides on the very top shelf of scientists in his field, which is atomic physics, optics, and spectrometry...

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]

Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

You provide a link to skeptical science and call it evidence...are you kidding? Do tell..which part of that do you believe to be empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming...feel free to cut and paste.

"Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

That isn't what the observation shows...observation shows that more energy is escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere as the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..Your hypothesis fails right out of the gate...you have been lied to and tricked. Why is that so hard to admit when the observed, measured evidence proves it beyond question?

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Since the observations show us that energy is not being trapped, and in fact the amount of energy leaving the earth is increasing, your point is meaningless...your mechanism is non existent...the argument is based on a lie...

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

Again..the observations show precisely the opposite of what you are claiming...outgoing radiation is not decreasing...it is increasing..and has been for a good long time.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

Brilliant deduction...except it is completely wrong...again...the observations show that the amount of energy exiting the earth that the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and there is no upper tropospheric hot spot which would be inevitable if energy were being trapped by so called greenhouse gasses...your case is built on assumptions which observation proves to be wrong..

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime.

Yet another pointless point...Since your whole case is based on flawed information...there is not and never was a crime....

"The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

The investigation is an abject failure proven wrong by simple observation...do you suppose there might be a reason why your "detective" didn't provide you with the actual observations to support his case...they were all available...of course he didn't because his whole case would have failed as he tried to make his first point as the observations show clearly that energy is not being trapped in the atmosphere...the amount of energy exiting the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what your hypothesis predicts...yet another predictive failure..

Fake analysis from a denier.

Yet another mewling denial of facts...no rebuttal at all and more name calling...

Still completely unsurprising..

Sorry, I chose NASA. Not interested in your lies & phony analysis.

Yep...you chose nasa...I chose published peer reviewed literature and data from nasa to demonstrate that your opinion piece was wrong...

You take data & apply your own incorrect analysis.

YOUR opinion pieces are bullshit. You & your band of deniers are all wrong & if you assfucks get your way, future generations will suffer.

I ain't going to let uneducated, stupid people ruin by children's future.

My side is winning this argument.

 

[SSDD]

Provide proof of this claim..

Your Wiki cut and paste has no link to any scientific paper..

What Wiki "cut and paste" are you referring to?

Rush Limbaugh falsely claims there is no evidence of human-caused global warming

"The radiative effect of carbon dioxide has also been observed1..."

"1-Feldman et al (2015) Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature"

So go to that link and bring back some observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...the paper provides some data which doesn't prove anything and then hangs a great big assumption on it and then pretends that it does...that is typical of climate pseudoscience...it is like most of what you have provided thus far...a bit of data that proves nothing and a great big assumption that proves even less.