Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years to the present

[Kosh]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

 

[orogenicman]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

[SSDD]

The atmospheres of the gas giants are irrelevant as models for Earth's atmosphere, particularly Jupiter and Saturn since they emit more energy than they receive from the sun, but also because they have totally different compositions. You may as well be comparing Jupiter with Arcturus for all it matters.

So according to you NASA`s and all the other scientists who are investigating CO2 cooling rates are wasting their time?

CO2 cooling in terrestrial planet thermospheres - Bougher - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991?2012) - Wiley Online Library

The comparative approach to planetary problems is becoming increasingly fruitful as new information from various planet atmospheres is assimilated. In particular, it is clear that the important problem of CO2 cooling in the Earth's lower thermosphere is closely tied to the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus and Mars. CO2 cooling in each of these thermospheres is strongly impacted by collisions of CO2 and O, yielding vibrationally excited CO2 and enhanced 15-μm emissions in regions where non-local thermodynamic equilibrium conditions prevail. Both the relative abundance of atomic O and the CO2-O relaxation rate affect the magnitude of this enhanced cooling process. We examine the recent progress in the debate on the CO2-O relaxation rate, its temperature dependence, and its corresponding impact on the thermospheric heat budgets of Venus, Earth, and Mars. This comparative approach provides the broadest range of conditions under which a common CO2-O relaxation rate should provide consistent results. New global mean calculations are presented for the heat budgets of these three planets using large CO2-O relaxation rates that have been inferred recently from Earth CO2 radiance measurements and laboratory studies. Results indicate that available Venus and Mars data constrain the CO2-O relaxation rate to be 2–4 × 10−12 cm3/s at 300 K. For Venus, this strong cooling serves as an effective thermostat that gives rise to a small variation of thermospheric temperatures over the solar cycle, just as observed. Conversely, CO2 cooling does not appear to be dominant in the dayside heat budget of the Mars thermosphere over most of the solar cycle. For the Earth, this strong cooling implies that the lower thermosphere does not typically require significant eddy diffusion or heat conduction. However, global-scale dynamics or an additional heating mechanism may be needed to restore calculated temperatures to observed values when relaxation rates exceeding 2 × 10−12 cm3/s are employed.

Non-LTE radiative transfer studies show how non-"settled" your so called "settled" science is.
There is a lot more energy transferred from CO2 to O2 than any of the current climate model budgets considered.
Matter of fact that mechanism does not even exist in your religion.
It exaggerates what`s going on at 15 μm and totally ignores what`s going on at 4.3 μm where CO2 enhances the cooling rate by as much as .35 deg K per day.

Damn, are you people really this fucking thick? Again, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as Uranus and Neptune are gas giants that have different compositions and different thermal input and outputs than Earth, and as such are not appropriate models for Earth's atmosphere. Nowhere in your post is this contradicted.

The greenhouse hypothesis is nothing more than an energy budget...energy into the system...energy out of the system...resulting temperature. Tell me, how do you suppose the physics of energy transfer are different on any other planet than they are here on earth? Do you really think it matters where the energy comes from?

 

[SSDD]

So now your everchanging story is that you actually knew what the original 2001 source was, but deliberately chose to attribute it instead to a 2013 source by different authors. I don't see how that makes your story any better. Is it still your final answer, or would you like to try a new revision?

I liked the graphs better from the 2001 source which is why I used them. You get even more pissy when you realize that you haven't actually scored a point...but have just made yourself look even dumber than we thought you were.

your devout religious faith has you believing it must be gospel truth, given that it agrees with your cult's teachings. Therefore, you don't need to know where it came from, nor do you care.

No, blind faith is is for warmist wackos.

understand it, but you don't. Your heroes are plotting NOAA data that doesn't correct for drift, different sampling platforms, differing sampling algorithms, ENSO state, anything. So, the only thing that graph proves is that you're clueless on the topic.

No, I am afraid that they aren't. But you keep telling yourself that if it helps you preserve your blind faith.

mean another example of you being clueless, since the top line _is_ the actual observation, and not a model. The second line is the model. Both the actual observation and the model shows the dips for CO2, ozone and methane. As I directly stated before, but your brain seems to auto-ignore any info that contradicts your sacred scripture.

Of course they do you idiot...what they don't show is a difference in OLR over time...which was the whole point of the paper.

means, of course, that you'll need a new tactic to handwave away this troublesome data that disagrees with your cult. I'd suggest you switch to your standard fallback position that it's all just a big fraud.

No tactic is needed to show how stupid you are...you keep doing it yourself.

, no, sorry, not even close, but we have some lovely parting gifts for you. You had the source right, but seemingly refused to read it. You think that graph is showing a difference between two time periods, which is totally wrong. It's just comparing measurements to model predictions at a single instant in time. It's not showing any OLR differences in the real world, it's showing where the model is good and bad.

Sorry hairball, it is not showing any difference in OLR over time because there wasn't any.

 

[SSDD]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith and that there is no actual scientific evidence that CO2 drives the climate and if it is good enough for creationists, that it is good enough for you. I have been saying for years that you warmest wackos were operating from a position of faith...it is nice to see that at least one of you will admit it.

 

[orogenicman]

So according to you NASA`s and all the other scientists who are investigating CO2 cooling rates are wasting their time?

CO2 cooling in terrestrial planet thermospheres - Bougher - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (1991?2012) - Wiley Online Library
Non-LTE radiative transfer studies show how non-"settled" your so called "settled" science is.
There is a lot more energy transferred from CO2 to O2 than any of the current climate model budgets considered.
Matter of fact that mechanism does not even exist in your religion.
It exaggerates what`s going on at 15 μm and totally ignores what`s going on at 4.3 μm where CO2 enhances the cooling rate by as much as .35 deg K per day.

Damn, are you people really this fucking thick? Again, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as Uranus and Neptune are gas giants that have different compositions and different thermal input and outputs than Earth, and as such are not appropriate models for Earth's atmosphere. Nowhere in your post is this contradicted.

The greenhouse hypothesis is nothing more than an energy budget...energy into the system...energy out of the system...resulting temperature. Tell me, how do you suppose the physics of energy transfer are different on any other planet than they are here on earth? Do you really think it matters where the energy comes from?

Name a planet that has an energy budget remotely like Earth's. As far as I can tell, there is only one data point on that graph. Good luck with that. And yes it does matter not only where the energy comes from but how fast and for how long it builds up. Bubba, you need to sit down and let the scientists do their work. Obviously, you are not qualified.

 

[orogenicman]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith...

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

 

[Crick]

Hear, hear.

 

[SSDD]

Damn, are you people really this fucking thick? Again, Jupiter and Saturn, as well as Uranus and Neptune are gas giants that have different compositions and different thermal input and outputs than Earth, and as such are not appropriate models for Earth's atmosphere. Nowhere in your post is this contradicted.

The greenhouse hypothesis is nothing more than an energy budget...energy into the system...energy out of the system...resulting temperature. Tell me, how do you suppose the physics of energy transfer are different on any other planet than they are here on earth? Do you really think it matters where the energy comes from?

Name a planet that has an energy budget remotely like Earth's. As far as I can tell, there is only one data point on that graph. Good luck with that. And yes it does matter not only where the energy comes from but how fast and for how long it builds up. Bubba, you need to sit down and let the scientists do their work. Obviously, you are not qualified.

So you admit that the greenhouse hypothesis is, as I have claimed for decades, an ad hoc construct custom tailored for earth and it has nothing to do with the actual physics of energy transfer. If it did, then, like the atmospheric thermal effect posed by N&Z, you could plug the parameters of any planet with an atmosphere into it and get an accurate prediction of the temperature on that planet. The atmospheric thermal effect is based on actual physics and therefore works anywhere it is tried as the physics operate the same everywhere. The problem the atmospheric thermal effect has is that it is not useful as a political tool. It doesn't care what the composition of an atmosphere is beyond the atomic weight of the gasses found in it, therefore, no particular gas can be demonized for political purposes....never mind that it is very accurate and based on actual physical laws.

Nice of one of you to finally admit that the greenhouse hypothesis isn't actually science but a tool used to fool the great unwashed.

 

[SSDD]

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith...

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

And not answering the question is an implied admission of guilt.

 

[SSDD]

Hear, hear.

Hey look pro....you have a cheer leader. sis boom bah

 

[Crick]

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith...

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

And not answering the question is an implied admission of guilt.

Pray tell, what question?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

But your "theory" is that a 100PPM additional CO2 will increase temperature.

Easy enough to show in a lab setting

 

[Crick]

That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times. Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from? You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations. You can find them in any high school physics class. That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.

 

[bripat9643]

And yet no real scientific proof that CO2 drives climate.

Not one link or post that shows datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate.

Based on what is posted I can prove that the more stupid the far left gets the higher the temperature gets. I guess to these same people that should be enough to prove that the far left is the cause of "Climate Change" or as it known to the cult, AGW.

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Wrong. It's nothing like that.

 

[SSDD]

Centuries long process? Isn't that what coming out of an ice age is like? Prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is now exiting there was little, if any, ice at either of the poles. Is there any reason to expect that the earth won't return to the temperature before the beginning of the ice age which will be so warm that little if any ice will remain at the poles just as it has done over and over and over again?

Hilariously ignorant babbling gobbledygook with almost no connection to reality. As usual from SSooooDDuuumb.

The last period of heavy glaciation (popularly, the last ice age) ended about eleven to twelve thousand years ago. Since then the Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. For the last two and a half million years, the Earth has been in a long major Ice Age, called the Quaternary Glaciation, with approximately 100,000 year long periods of heavy glaciation broken by 12 to 30 thousand year long interglacial periods. Over that time there has always been large amounts of ice at the poles. That is the definition of an 'Ice Age'.

We are not "coming out of an ice age", as the denier retard claims. The Earth came out of the last period of glaciation over ten millennia ago. The Earth warmed a little bit more after that large warming that ended the 'ice age', through a period called the Holocene Thermal Maximum, and then it started to cool slowly for the last 5000 years.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 10,500 BCE, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last glacial period ends with the cold Younger Dryas substage (11,500 - 12,800 BP).

The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (at 11,700 calendar years BP) [2] and continues to the present. The Holocene is part of the Quaternary period. Its name comes from the Greek words ὅλος (holos, whole or entire) and καινός (kainos, new), meaning "entirely recent".[3] It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.

The Holocene also encompasses within it the growth and impacts of the human species world-wide, including all its written history and overall significant transition toward urban living in the present. Human impacts of the modern era on the Earth and its ecosystems may be considered of global significance for future evolution of living species, including approximately synchronous lithospheric evidence, or more recently atmospheric evidence of human impacts.

It is accepted by the International Commission on Stratigraphy that the Holocene started approximately 11,700 years BP (before present).[2] The period follows the last glacial period (regionally known as the Wisconsinan Glacial Period, the Baltic-Scandinavian Ice Age, or the Weichsel glacial).

Climate has been fairly stable over the Holocene.

Till now

Never been shown even once. Lots of side show trickery demonstrating various physical principles but never demonstrating that CO2 can cause a temperature increase in the open atmosphere

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your argument is remarkably similar to the creationist argument that there is no real evidence that macroevolution occurs. And just like creationism, it is remarkably devoid of evidence. Gee, I wonder why that is?

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith...

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

Translation: yes, I'm running on faith. Fear the power of CO2

 

[jc456]

​

That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times. Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from? You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations. You can find them in any high school physics class. That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.

oh, oh, oh, please provide a link for me. I've searched and searched and asked and asked and still no video to show going from 300PPM to 400PPM will cause an inscrease in temperatures. Hooray, someone will finally give us all one.

Thanks,

 

[jc456]

That's why it has been shown in a lab setting - thousands of times. Where do you think data on the absorption spectra of the various GHGs comes from? You've been given links to articles and videos about precisely such demonstrations. You can find them in any high school physics class. That you choose to ignore that and continue to try to lie to us all tells us infinitely more about you than it does about mainstream science.

So here is a Link someone presented in another message board thread. Watch the way the experiment fails:

http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/...-fair-project/

What is the temperature in the control jar? 79
What is the temperature in the Jar with CO2? 79 oops, so the man has to say, it was at 81.

LOL. I love these links.

 

[orogenicman]

So, you are admitting that you are operating on faith...

Silly boy. Don't project. It makes you look more foolish than you already are.

And not answering the question is an implied admission of guilt.

What question, where? Oh, you mean my question? The one YOU didn't answer?