Thread: Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Originally Posted by gmb92

Summary: gibberish.


#1 is correct. #2 is not. Really no point in carrying on.

gmb,

Please provide a source for this CO2-temperature chart.

I would like to read the narrative that goes along with it.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by gmb92

#1 is correct. #2 is not. Really no point in carrying on.

You have not provide any basic or law or observation which demonstrates that #2 in incorrect. But even if to accept it the following points have absolutly nothing to do to #2 been correct or incorrect.


B) None of the sources of yours disprove science mag article.

C) None of them demonstrates CO2 does warm the climate. Your opening sentence has nothing behind it.

D)
1. Have you ever heard that heat flows only from a colder body to a warmer body in nature?
2.Do you know that it is a fundamental law of Nature?
3. Do you that it does not need or uses or refers to any evidence, it has no evidence.
4. In order to warm climate, according to this law, CO2 has to be warmer than climate, and it has to be cooling while warming climate. Obviously such happening neither has been observed nor makes any sense by composition. Your opening claim is not English. It is a big FAIL from the begining.




One may be incorrect in doing math, but it does not mean he is icorrect pointing that it is raining.

To state that if one did not do math correctly, then everything he does besides math cannot be correct is bullying.

I do not prove That Hemigway's description of the essence of fascism "a lie told by bullies" is fully and exactly applicably to AWG. I do demonstrate that, like in an experiment. Thanks for participating.

Originally Posted by gmb92

So CO2 does warm the climate. Was that really so hard to admit, after all the previous gibberish?

Then the next question is how much, an answer that can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not kook blogs or opinion pieces in the WSJ, British tabloids, or {insert opinion site of choice here}. Using a variety of analysis methods, including study of the instrumental record, volcanic activity, Nino events, proxy records over the millenium, and long-term paleoclimate data, the evidence all converges with a best estimate of close to 3 C with high confidence extending to a 1.5-4.5 C range, with the highest likelilhood in the middle of that range (reinforced by the fact that all lines of evidence converge around the middle).

www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

A very recent study ups the range slightly to 1.8 to 4.9 C, assigning a 95% confidence interval, with again, the best estimate close to 3 C.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD016620.shtml

gmb,

Thanks for these reports.

However, their conclusions conflict greatly with the latest NOAA and NASA GISS temperature plots of changes in global surface temperatures from 1880 until the present. How do you explain these significant discrepancies?

By the way, you cannot assume just because a paper has appeared in the "peer-reviewed scientific literature", the information it contains is actually correct. Many peer-reviewed papers in many scientific journals actually disagree with each other, and their conclusions are not supported by the global temperature models that are presently used by NOAA and NASA.

The people in this group who support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming never provide any hard scientific data that conclusively supports this theory. All they can do is provide a chart from NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

This slight increase over a span of 50 years is not credible evidence of global warming.

NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

gmb,

Thanks for these reports.

However, their conclusions conflict greatly with the latest NOAA and NASA GISS temperature plots of changes in global surface temperatures from 1880 until the present.

On the contrary, Knutti and Hegerl (a summary of the peer-reviewed literature on the topic) also summarize the estimates of climate sensitivity from the instrumental record, which also points towards a value close to 3 C. Naturally, projections based on this estimate have been largely accurate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/comp...edictions.html

We have yet to see any robust estimate of low climate sensitivity put forth by deniers.

Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.

This is an easily testable assertion. Plot the data, pick a linear trend.



http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gis...rom:1997/trend

Conclusion: your claim (or the opinion piece you extract that claim from) is false.

But this does bring up an important point that deniers deliberately neglect. Individual model runs that include CO2 and other greenhouse gas forcings often show periods of more than a decade of flat or declining temperatures, so such an outcome would not be surprising. Ironically, to claim CO2's effect on climate is falsified would be to deny natural variation (ENSO, solar, other) and other forcings (such as aerosols).

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

Thanks, for posting a graph confirming 1.1. Like nobody knows that.(sarcasm)

Address 1.2

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1.2 is your claim that "climate hasn't changed". The graph I posted shows both atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature, a key measure of climate change.

The answer to this question is simply. Yes. Of course it does. It's a green house gas. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere obviously increases the heat of the planet. That's what all green house gases do.

This is like asking if water is wet.

Originally Posted by gmb92

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1.2 is your claim that "climate hasn't changed". The graph I posted shows both atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature, a key measure of climate change.

I understand you posted the graph. for some reason I don't see a post I posted before... It disappeared.

the point is 1.

You have not provide any basic or law or observation which demonstrates that #2 in incorrect (for your graph)

2. But even if to accept it is the following points have absolutly nothing to do to #2 been correct or incorrect.

Interesting... where is my post?


To make it more clear. I can take a thermometer, ask my little son to record Tempretures, put his records in a computer programm which cuts all high extremes and post a generated print out showing cooling.

can you try to address my points?

Originally Posted by gmb92

http://www.skepticalscience.com/comp...edictions.html

.

you started from attacking sources as not peer reviewed, when sciencemag was peer reviewed.

you posted peer reviewed, wich as I pointed were not countering sciencemag - a peer reviewed source.

now you are posting the best you can, - blogs and propaganda blogs.

just to make sure everyone sees.

Originally Posted by TheTaoOfBill

The answer to this question is simply. Yes. Of course it does. It's a green house gas. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere obviously increases the heat of the planet. That's what all green house gases do.

This is like asking if water is wet.

it is good to be you...

Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_

you started from attacking sources as not peer reviewed, when sciencemag was peer reviewed.

The only reference I see to sciencemag is this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short

which confirms CO2's effect on climate, in line with the other academic references I posted. I don't see any peer-reviewed references for your gibberish.