Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[Chuz Life]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Interesting but the CRES satellite shows that surface warming lead to the exact same LWIR output increase. Your themal "trap" doesnt exist and the the paper has been

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

LOL..

Your paper has been shown Incorrect by empirical evidence. The CRES sattelite shows that surface warming and LWIR escape are liner and trend with 100% correlation. Thus the energy striking the surface is released to space at the same rate. This is why there is no Tropospheric 'hot spot' and no warming.

Epic fail..

As the climate change alarmist theories continue to unravel, I am more and more thankful that I never got sucked more into the debate in the first place.

 

[Crick]

What theory do you believe to be unraveling?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What theory do you believe to be unraveling?

Anthroprogenic Global Warming... Man Made Global Warming... Or whatever name you all want to call it today..

 

[Chuz Life]

What theory do you believe to be unraveling?

Primarily, the cause for alarm.

 

[otto105]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

You can go to town here... Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You may need to wipe the oil off yer hands first.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

You can go to town here... Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You may need to wipe the oil off yer hands first.

I've read that circle jerk of alarmist clap trap... Real light on empirical evidence and facts but heavy on conjecture and assumptions not based in science..

How about you pony up some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE an leave the hyperbole and failed modeling out of it..

 

[otto105]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

You can go to town here... Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You may need to wipe the oil off yer hands first.

I've read that circle jerk of alarmist clap trap... Real light on empirical evidence and facts but heavy on conjecture and assumptions not based in science..

How about you pony up some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE an leave the hyperbole and failed modeling out of it..

And here I thought that you could comprehend a graph and the footnotes which show empirical evidence.

Science was not your strong point.

 

[SSDD]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

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).

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.

You show me a spectrum of the gasses in the atmosphere made with a cooled instrument and think it means what?

The fact is that outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a long time...the fact is undeniable. The reduction of outgoing long wave is just another failed prediction of the greenhouse hypothesis and the failing models that support it...

Observation trumps model predictions every time.

 

[SSDD]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

And what does Stefan-Boltzman tell you that indicates?

That the planet is getting hotter.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

 

[SSDD]

What theory do you believe to be unraveling?

Anthroprogenic Global Warming... Man Made Global Warming... Or whatever name you all want to call it today..

I heard climate cancer is going to be the next incarnation...what a laugh.

 

[SSDD]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

You can go to town here... Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You may need to wipe the oil off yer hands first.

I've read that circle jerk of alarmist clap trap... Real light on empirical evidence and facts but heavy on conjecture and assumptions not based in science..

How about you pony up some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE an leave the hyperbole and failed modeling out of it..

And here I thought that you could comprehend a graph and the footnotes which show empirical evidence.

Science was not your strong point.

Care to enlighten us? Tell us what you think it proves and show us some observed, measured evidence to support it? Didn't think so. It appears that science really isn't on your radar at all.

 

[Crick]

There is no point in having this discussion with you. You make claims that have ZERO evidentiary support and reject out of hand thousands of published scientific studies and the conclusions held by over 98% of the experts in the field. You claim those scientists are all lying or incompetent yet have presented not one shred of evidence to support that insane charge. You have steadily ignored the FACT that your contentions violate numerous fundamental laws of nature. Speaking with you on this topic is like the battle with the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 

[otto105]

Paul raises a very serious question, where is the empirical evidence that AGW is happening and where is the proof that man is causing it...

"The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations. And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

As I said just days ago, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."

Saved by pseudo-renewable energy?


It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

You can go to town here... Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

You may need to wipe the oil off yer hands first.

I've read that circle jerk of alarmist clap trap... Real light on empirical evidence and facts but heavy on conjecture and assumptions not based in science..

How about you pony up some EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE an leave the hyperbole and failed modeling out of it..

And here I thought that you could comprehend a graph and the footnotes which show empirical evidence.

Science was not your strong point.

Care to enlighten us? Tell us what you think it proves and show us some observed, measured evidence to support it? Didn't think so. It appears that science really isn't on your radar at all.

I have posted all the information that you need to activite your critical thinking skills. You have then shown no evidence that you have the ability.

So, can you provide one peer reviewed scientific study which supports your belief the AGW is not happening.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

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).

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.

Fooled by graphing.. You an crick must be from the same mold..

Your graph is of BANDPASS it make no assertion to heat being held. Your assuming things that are not so. Again your "trapped in the atmopshere " BS has been proven wrong..

The CO2 very small three bandwidths only covers around 6-8% of the outgoing IR, the rest of the IR window is left uncovered because CO2 doesn't cover it at all.

Here is a simple chart and explanation from an Atmosphere Physicist:

"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."

CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas with a very small outgoing IR absorption coverage, which makes it at best a trivial GH gas.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

And you still have not produced ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove your wild ass assertions... Common Cricky... Post up the evidence... we've been asking for over 3 decades for it.. time to pony up!

Even with CO2 added into the heat budget in all those models, it is a tiny contributor. Here is an article showing that a

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

Even with CO2 added into the heat budget in all those models, it is a tiny contributor. Here is an article showing that a CO2 based global warming is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Selected excerpt:



"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

 

[Billy_Bob]

"
The IPCC says it’s still possible to limit planetary warming to an additional 0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) “above pre-industrial levels” – but only if global CO2 emissions are halved by 2030 and zeroed out by 2050.

As far as the science goes, that would be a statement of fact.

So climate alarmists intend to carbon-tax, legislate and regulate our energy, factories, livelihoods, living standards, liberties and lives to the max. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would eliminate and replace US fossil fuels by 2030. It’s an unprecedented economic and political power grab.

So, those who accept the conclusion of the IPCC hope to take whatever measures possible achieve that goal.

We went to war with King George over far less serious abuses and usurpations.

No we did not. King George sitting on his throne back in England does not equate to Americans expressing their desires in an open democracy.

And yet today we seem to have few Patrick Henrys or other stalwart, principled leaders willing to defy this insanity.

I would suggest because you have misidentified the party behaving insanely.

Those accusing someone of a crime must prove his guilt; the accused need not prove his innocence. But not only are alarmists bringing what amount to criminal charges against fossil fuels; wiping out the fuels that provide over 80% of our energy would bring widespread chaos, poverty, misery, disease and death.

I guess you've never actually had jury duty or passed a course in American Government. You've left out the key phrase: "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". AGW has been shown valid far beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said just days ago

, those who claim fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are causing dangerous global warming and climate change have the burden of proving their case. Not with allegations, computer models, headlines, mob rule and demands for instant sentencing. With solid, irrefutable evidence."
Saved by pseudo-renewable energy? It is now time for the alarmists to provide SOLID, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICALLY observed and verified evidence.... Where is it?

Done. And your denials convince no one. You are not the poster that first comes to mind when anyone in these parts thinks "honesty?"

And you still have not produced ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove your wild ass assertions... Common Cricky... Post up the evidence... we've been asking for over 3 decades for it.. time to pony up!

Even with CO2 added into the heat budget in all those models, it is a tiny contributor. Here is an article showing that a

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

Even with CO2 added into the heat budget in all those models, it is a tiny contributor. Here is an article showing that a CO2 based global warming is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Selected excerpt:



"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years."

I've been digesting Bob Tisdale's latest article on the failure of modeling and he eviscerates Grant Foster's position. (the same one Crick and his merry band of fools use).

Global Mean Surface Temperature: Early 20th Century Warming Period – Models versus Models & Models versus Data

What I found very interesting is he shows how the actual effect of CO2 is at 0.00 forcing. The essay is over 3500 words but the math and results are solid. Grant even piped up in the comments trying to defend his position but Bob shredded him with Judith Currie's work.. It was priceless..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

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).

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.

Fooled by graphing.. You an crick must be from the same mold..

Your graph is of BANDPASS it make no assertion to heat being held. Your assuming things that are not so. Again your "trapped in the atmopshere " BS has been proven wrong..

The CO2 very small three bandwidths only covers around 6-8% of the outgoing IR, the rest of the IR window is left uncovered because CO2 doesn't cover it at all.

Here is a simple chart and explanation from an Atmosphere Physicist:

"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."

CO2 is a trace atmospheric gas with a very small outgoing IR absorption coverage, which makes it at best a trivial GH gas.

I've tried to reason with Crick and others about this. They simply refuse to grasp just how little is affected by CO2. I like your graph on this..

I wish it went out to 100um to give a much better explanation of how much of the OGLWIR is not affected by their super power CO2 molecule..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

And what does Stefan-Boltzman tell you that indicates?

That the planet is getting hotter.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

LOL..

There are a good many people on this board who can not grasp these simple concepts..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm disappointed in this thread.

I actually do accept the idea that man, mankind and man's activity is warming the planet.

I have my reasons for that belief but it's not something I am alarmist about.

Still, I would like to see the evidence that the alarmists are relying upon to get themselves all so worked up 24/7.

I happen to agree with you. Most of the dire predictions are in the next century.

Most of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be traced to mans burning of fossil fuels.

"One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere."

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Sorry guy...the observed evidence is that more long wave IR is leaving the atmosphere...not less.

And what does Stefan-Boltzman tell you that indicates?

That the planet is getting hotter.

You can't apply the SB law to a gas...it tells me that the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

the atmosphere is shedding heat more efficiently because CO2 increases the emissivity of the atmosphere..increase the emissivity, shed heat more efficiently.

Of course, stopping the heat from leaving at the speed of light and eventually letting it leave, is your idea of shedding heat more efficiently. DURR.