I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

And I have told you I never made such claims, and challenged you to post where I have. You are some left wing loser in a fantasy world whose life revolves around posting on forums to make yourself feel like a big man. I have other fish to fry rather than respond to your baseless claims every night. I actually have a job and pay taxes.......

As my friend Foghorn Leghorn would say, "Go away, ...I say Go Away Boy, .....ya Bother Me"

 

Hello Elmer Fudd

CO2 below -40*C becomes Dry-Ice it also becomes Dry-Ice at temperatures above +33*C. This can cause the upper atmosphere to heat while the lower atmosphere (ground level) freezes. At the time of Planet Earth being an ice ball the temperature was +9*C hotter than now.

 

temperature unaffected for 18 years. F A C T

- - - Updated - - -

That is exactly right! Holy c r ap, he got something right for a change.

 

your question can be answered quickly by presenting the experiment that shows what the incremental temperature increases are when CO2 is added. Got that one yet?

 

provide the quote from one of them that proves your claim. Just one out of all of those. Otherwise you wasted your time with all that, all you proved was that you can copy and paste.

 

No, that's a lie. But thanks for spreading it.

Please explain how the ocean rises, if the temperature is NOT warming.



(Answer: the boys at Denier Central Command were looking for a gullible rube who would swallow their lies, and they found you.)

 

Actually, it can be answered even more quickly by applying basic logic to the question. Of course that precludes any answers from Denierstan.

But in answer to your question, I do have the data you asked for. Experiment: take 1 planet, add 1.36 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Results:

 

From Attanasio et al. 2013:

"The results obtained by this out-of-sample Granger analysis are very clear. If we take TSI, CRI or SAOT as x variable, in every case (any natural forcing, scheme and test set considered) the null hypothesis of non-Granger causality on y = T is never rejected (with only two exceptions), even just at 10% significance level. Vice versa, there is a clear general evidence of Granger causality from anthropogenic forcings to global temperature."

From Korda et al 2010:
"The results from this modified test show evidence for Granger causality from a proxy of total radiative forcing (RC), which in this case is a transformation of atmospheric CO2, to GT. Prior literature failed to extract these results via the standard Granger causality test. A forecasting test shows that a holdout set of GT can be better predicted with the addition of lagged RC as a predictor, lending further credibility to the Granger test results."

From Smirnov & Mokhov 2009:

"However, the long-term causality shows that the rise in GST during the last decades can be explained only if the anthropogenic factor (CO2) is taken into account"

From Moon 2008:
"These results imply that the CO2 effect became very important since at least 1990."

From Tol & Devoss 1998:
"This paper demonstrates that there is a robust statistical relationship between the records of the global mean surface air temperature and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide over the period 1870–1991. As such, the enhanced greenhouse effect is a plausible explanation for the observed global warming. Long term natural variability is another prime candidate for explaining the temperature rise of the last century. Analysis of natural variability from paleo-reconstructions, however, shows that human activity is so much more likely an explanation that the earlier conclusion is not refuted."

From Thomson 1997:
"Changes in global average temperatures and of the seasonal cycle are strongly coupled to the concentration of atmospheric CO2. I estimate transfer functions from changes in atmospheric CO2 and from changes in solar irradiance to hemispheric temperatures that have been corrected for the effects of precession. They show that changes from CO2 over the last century are about three times larger than those from changes in solar irradiance."

 

With the correlation of temperature and sea rise on that graph fitting so well, it could all be thermal expansion.

 

Easy, plug it into a model.

 

Well it could ... but only if the planet is getting warmer. And if ice were not melting.

 

Or if global sea ice was expanding.

Oh shi.

 

Freezing sea ice does not sea level to change, any more than melting sea ice causes sea level to change.

Someday, we hope they might teach that at Denierstan U. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

Sea level was higher than today during the 700 AD Byzantine period

 

And your evidence for this is ... ?

 

Science. Sea levels were higher during the 700 AD Byzantine period

 

I recall seeing ancient high water indicators that get never get covered up by water today, and failed to find them when looking. Was that the time and place?

A link or few would be helpful please.

 

http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Posters/1_1_Sivan.pdf

 

ahem, nope.....http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/13/article-0-16E61D9F000005DC-402_634x644.jpg


As for ocean rise, why don't you provide some place on this planet that actually happens at?

 

So, to counter actual honest-to-god evidence, you provide a newspaper headline. If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

I already have. The posted graph above is global. It happens on planet Earth.

 

that's all you got eh? o no actual observed ocean rise, just someones pipe dream of high water? let's see some photography that shows beaches gone and islands barely afloat. But alas, all you have is dead air.

 

I never really thought much about the debate of how much man made CO2 remains in the atmosphere, but I just had an epiphany... Something I never heard mentioned before.

I don't think anyone disagree that carbon 13 level percentages have decreased in atmospheric CO2 If we use Böhm et. al 2002, the levels have changed from about 0.495% to 0.38% (extrapolated) during the assessment timeframe of the AR4. However, 278 ppm in 1750 means 1,376 ppb was CO2 with 13C and it rose to 1,440 in 2005. Since we have a net increase in CO2, we do with 13C as well. Since forcing is on a log curve, and if we assess the RE (radiative efficiency) separately, we get 0.00303 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000151 for CO2 with 12C for the 1750 levels and 0.0029 for CO2 with 13C and 0.0000111 for CO2 with 12C for the 2005 levels. What this amounts to, if we take the stated 1.66 W/m^2 warming is that 0.21 W/m^2 of it was from CO2 with 13C and 1.45 W/m^2 from CO2 with 12C, or if the 1.66 W/m^2 is calculated for just the CO2 with 12C, then we can add another 0.24 W/m^2 for 13C increases.

Now what this means, can be important. I haven't looked at other studies, only this one for the values. However, if the values are wrong, and 13C is diminishing to less less than previously thought, and if the 1.66 W/m^2 is based only on CO2 with 12C, the individual forcing of CO2 made with 13C could possible cool the atmosphere more than the increasing 12C warms it. For example, since the RE of 13C is 200 times greater than the RE of 12C, if the atmospherics percentages of 13C actually dropped from about 0.5%, in half, to about 0.25%, then all the increased CO2 would provide a net cooling of about 0.2 W/m^2. This is because 13C would actually drop to 948 ppb, and it's radiative efficiency is so much higher.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 13C percentages have halved, or close, but this is food for thought.

What do you guys think, or do you have different 13C values in mind?

Link reference:

http://www.boehmf.de/Boehm_et_al_g_cubed_preprint.pdf

 

Interesting that the creator of that image says the following, "You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average.", which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release

 

In your mind, does "less" mean the same thing as "zero"? Because what you've really been trying to tell me all along is that it's not getting warmer. When the rising sea level proves that it has indeed been getting warmer.

 

It is always warm enough to melt glaciers during an interglacial (the reason it is called an interglacial). It melts them to various degrees. Seas have been higher in the past.