Is there any correlation between temperature & CO2

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and it does not "absorb some of the energy coming from the earth, as you fallaciously claim. Nor do "all things have some form of absorption rates". Most of the gases in our atmosphere, like oxygen and nitrogen, are transparent to the infrared radiation that the Earth emits after being heated by the sun. This is because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and SO2 have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and are therefore almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

absolutely no clue...and you never addressed my initial comment tto floggers ridiculous bucket analogy why? because you can't and neither can flogger ...because neither of you understand the relative strength of GHG or other gas is unrelated to it's volume ,you flogger assume all gases are equal, sorry no, some are very powerful but have short lifespans, other's less powerful but have very long atmospheric lifespans... back to school for you...

 

I'm not the one who was making the argument that all gasses were equal. That was you when you tried to make a false equivalence between SO2 and CO2. My argument was that they are not equal. There are many greenhouse gasses but they don't all trap heat the same by volume. It's apparent that you are not the guy who is going to send me "back to school."

 

hence my gibberish comment..."absorption rate of SO2"? what the 'ell is yammering about...

 

...flogger directly stated volume matters, it doesn't and I said as much, no other gases other than co2 and so2 were mentioned ...but then you jumped in to the debate and inferred so2 is a ghg and now you're trying save face and backtrack...you're as science challenged as the rest of the denier crowd...

I know it must hurt but ya I am the guy telling you to go back to school...so2 a ghg

 

I’m going to copy in full the comment of yours that I first responded to:

Now, you seem to be arguing that since 17 million tons of SO2 has an effect on temperature then 32 billion tons of CO2 must also have, what, an equivalent effect ton per ton of temperature change? That’s why I mentioned the different absorption rates of CO2 and SO2. And yes, SO2 does have an absorption rate. Even the IPCC acknowledges that. You don’t want to challenge them do you?

But no, I didn’t say or imply that SO2 is a green house gas. I don’t know where you got that from. Merely that it has an effect on atmospheric temperature, just not the one you are rooting for.

So from you, I don’t need to “save face.” Particularly when you make up positions for me.

 

doing a google after the fact doesn't save your ***, you just dig a deeper hole for yourself...you jumped into a debate without knowing who said what to whom and then made an idiotic post...live with it....

you have no position, you need to know something about the topic first in order to do that...

 

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is that you are insisting that SO2 supposedly "absorbs"? Can you cite the IPCC statement that "acknowledges" that supposed absorption or are you just blowing smoke again?

 

LOL, I suppose I should thank the mod for keeping your rage in check this time...

Sorry, but if you believe that SO2 is a perfect reflector, I would certainly like to see your evidence of this otherwise impossible feat.. There is no such thing as a perfect reflector. Sorry but it doesn't exist. So that being the case, SO2 most certainly does absorb some of the short wave EM from the sun. Unless you are contending that the wavelength of EM from the sun passes through the SO2 molecules unhindered, similar to the way shortwave EM passes through much of the atmosphere, Which I don't see how that would be possible if it is reflected by them....You're being blinded by your desire to appear correct at all costs and now you are spouting nonsense and claiming science again...

Don't believe me? LOL, fine... Here's a nice graphic in that pdf about on page 8 showing absorption spectra of SO2 and O3..

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/absorption_lecture_slides.pdf

and another PDF on SO2 absorption in the UV bandwidth.. UV, you know part of the EM spectrum that comes in from the sun...

http://spectrolab.aeronomie.be/pdf/so2_vandaele_94jd02187.pdf

and another one...which I must quote.LOL

http://cetemps.aquila.infn.it/istp/proceedings/Session_P_Posters/P55_Masieri.pdf

So many scientists disagree with you dude.. In the part I quoted, you may notice they use UV spectroscopy to figure out how much SO2 and NO2 is in the upper atmosphere.. Yet according to you they reflect all the EM... Sorry but you are incorrect, as I said before..

ROFL..

 

As these coefficients are prima facie absurd and impossible, I'll have to ask how they were "calculated."

Using the same methodology, what's the correlation coefficient between temperature and world production of thermometers?

One dubious study does not a "well known fact" make.

A fine example of how invalidly manipulating scales and data sets can produce deceitful abominations like the infamous hockey stick graph.

Which in turn looks like remarkable scientific naivete to me.

 

He gets those strong correlations using linear correlation which is totally invalid given the data sets. Two trended series will always correlate. If we use the correct correlation model which is cointegration temperature and CO2 do not correlate. Warmmongers know this and they deal with it by ignoring it. They discount cointegration despite the fact that it won the Nobel Prize. Yet the IPCC members all like to call themselves Nobel Laureates.

 

Maybe you could actually be specific about what was idiotic about my post? All you did is attack me personally in this one without mentioning a single point I've mentioned previously.

 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch2ref1.pdf

 

Just more of your usual straw-man arguments that have nothing to do with what I was talking about or anything I actually said, and even less to do with CO2 driven global warming.

More straw-man nonsense. You're the one who claimed that...

...so I pointed out that SO2 is not a greenhouse gas and does not absorb any of the longwave infrared "energy coming from the Earth", so now you want to turn it around and claim we were somehow really talking about "the shortwave EM from the sun". LOLOL. That's just so pathetic and deceitful.

 

If you actually looked at what he posted you would see that SO2 has absorption bands at 480-510cm^-1 and 510-540cm^-1. That is long wave.

Whats the matter cant convert wave number to wavelength?

 

LOLOL. Actually I asked you to tell me exactly what you think it is that SO2 absorbs. And when I ask you to "cite the IPCC statement that "acknowledges" that supposed absorption", that doesn't mean you can just point at a 20 page long section of the IPCC report on industrial emissions, as if that answered the question. I read through that document and all they say about SO2 is to list it as an "aerosol precursor", not a greenhouse gas. There is no claim in that document from the IPCC about SO2 absorbing any of the infrared radiation that the Earth emits, which is what is relevant and comparable to CO2 driven global warming. There is no mention that I could find in that IPCC report you cited about SO2 absorbing anything else either. If you found something else, quote it and cite the page number it is on. Now, it is true that SO2 in the stratosphere absorbs some shortwave ultraviolet radiation from the sun and redirects some of that energy back into space, causing a bit of a cooling effect, in addition to the much greater cooling effect produced when it combines with water to form reflective droplets of sulfuric acid, but that is not what you were originally claiming in the comparison to CO2.

 

You could just go look at what spectrometry that gslack posted SO2 has multiple absorption bands in the long wave range.

 

ROFL, no ... Once again we see you talking in a circle and saying nothing of substance. You deny what you said already?Just one post ago you denied SO2 can absorb anything at all... You made a point that it reflects all the energy from the sun. Which of course is incorrect...

Then you decided to ignore that and focus on short wave IR from the earth.. LOL, it's one thing to say SO2 is not a greenhouse gas, but it's another to proclaim it completely immune to the effects of heat. See the problem yet? LOL, you took a googled term and lacked the knowledge to understand it's meaning fully and just posted another absolute and incorrect statement..A gas not reacting in the same manner as a Greenhouse gas, does not make it completely impervious to heat.. Shortwave Infrared radiation is for all intents and purposes it is the physical manifestation of heat. Nothing we know of yet is completely immune to, or completely impervious to heat. Everything radiates, some amount of heat dude. SO, nothing is impervious to heat..

You make up an absolute statement like this one; "This is because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and SO2 have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and are therefore almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation."

And create such nonsense by googling up something that in the context the paper was referring to, may have been correct, but in terms of absolutes are not. You keep taking bits of truth and science, and use it improperly because you lack the real knowledge and discipline to learn it..

Nothing is immune to heat silly, and since we already know this, and your previous claim about it reflecting all the incoming solar are equally false, we can pretty much see you are trying to circle talk and dance around it. Good luck trying to play scientist..ROFL

 

1) I never said SO2 was a greenhouse gas.

2) I see, based on the bolded area, that you finally agree with me.

You're welcome!

 

Dude no matter how hard you try many scientists both alarmists & sceptics do agree that CO2 lags temperature.

Here are a couple of papers that show it.......

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=324304&p=1063131951#post1063131951