Does CO2 really drive global warming?

I think you had better read my post again - it is not about the numbers but what those numbers represent

That is not parts per million

It is not the percentage of the total gas

It should be defined

I would accept "The fraction of Co2 within the atmosphere expressed as a decimal" but that is not how it is being represented

And if it is such a valid number - why is it not more widely used? Instead when you look at virtually any discussion relating to gas fractions they are expressed as PPM or Parts per Million

 

Please try to pay attention.

If you quote a post, please try to read it.


Please, try to understand what the post does say, the thoughts and points expressed it and try to address them. Please , try to avoid inserting, making and addressing words, thoughts and points not expressed in the post you quote.

Understanding that a post is an objection to AWG is not enough. Countering not the statements quoted, but making up your own guesses and conclusions based on the guesses may give an impression that that you believe in AWG no matter what are numbers, facts or observations.

The post you quote does not state that the numbers are submitted by good guys.

The post states the numbers which cannot be good or bad unless you blindly believe in AWG and do not care about numbers. The numbers may be correct or incorrect.

They are very simple.

1. Numbers which can heat up CO2
2. Numbers emitted by the earth.

3. The conclusion - earth radiation does not heat CO2. Even if all earth was covered by CO2, CO2 would not be warming up by the earth radiation.

FYI. The US and the USSR carefully imported Nazi scientists with all their papers after WWII. The fact that the numbers are submitted by Germans does not make them incorrect.

 

Gore and the IPCC sheared Nobel Prize for the same acviement, for informing the public about climate. If you don't listen to Al Gore I'm not surprised you're so woefully misinformed about climate.

 

Please try to pay attention.

If you quote a post, please try to read it.


Please, try to understand what the post does say, the thoughts and points expressed it and try to address them. Please , try to avoid inserting, making and addressing words, thoughts and points not expressed in the post you quote.


When you post an article try to understand what the article does say, the thoughts and points expressed in it .


Understanding that a post is an objection to AWG is not enough. Countering not the statements quoted, but making up your own guesses and conclusions based on the guesses may give an impression that that you believe in AWG no matter what are numbers, facts or observations.

The finding of the article are differences in the spectra that point (in view of the authors) to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12, but not a decrease in LWR due to CO2.FYI CFC-11 and CFC-12 are out of production for decades now.

 

The undeniable proof of global warming ... Albert Gore style. GORE: "In terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot." ... Gosh, Mr. Gore, If the earth were indeed this hot, we would be a star!

 

Come now, cooky.

This is a typical immature ploy often repeated and overused by the liberals.

"When you can’t attack the message, you instead attack the messenger!"

Sorry, but this dog won't hunt!

 

No. If you had bothered to read the whole article, you would not be so easily deceived.

How about this dog:

source
Grok, notice the word "measured" in the caption!

See the "open radiation window" your link mentions. It is indeed "unobstructed by CO2 gas". Every climate researcher knows about this window. No ""greenhouse"-theorists" suggests that CO2 is closing this window. However the 15 µm window is being closed by CO2 and H20.

 

Nobody is decieved. You have not read the article your source posted pics from. You don't know what it is about. Nobody is decieved.

 

Ha-Ha!

Mannie does not know how to read his own charts.

My eighth grade students have a better understanding of science than he does.

This chart is from the source he cited and it clearly show the unobstructed window for CO2 and water vapor lies in the range from 7 to 13 µm.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

 

You are indeed correct, Inquisitor.

The following chart clearly shows the range of wavelengths available for remote observation lies between 7 µm and 13 µm and constitutes a permanently open radiation window.



Carbon dioxide does indeed have a strong absorption band at 15 µm.

What Mannie does not understand is that the amount of energy radiated by the earth at a wavelength of 15 µm is very small. Most of the energy that the earth emits lies in wavelengths shorter than 15 µm, and CO2 does not absorb in these shorter wavelength regions. From the reference cited, the average global temperature of the earth's surface is 288 deg-K.

A plot of Wien's Displacement Law for a blackbody radiator at a temperature of 288 deg-K will confirm most of the thermal energy emitted by the earth's surface is confined to wavelengths shorter than 15 µm. Consequently, the thermal energy from the earth in this shorter wavelength range is not absorbed by CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. Only the small amount of thermal radiation that is present at 15 µm is absorbed by carbon dioxide.

A simple experiment wil show this statement is true. "As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". The fact the earth cools at night proves CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb the radiated heat and keep the air temperature warm. If it did, a strong cooling of the earth's surface would never occur at night after sunset!

Nice try, Mannie, but no cigar!

 

Few here mistake your haughtiness for actual expertise so please spare this forums your patronizing didacticism. You dismiss science magazine outright and without cause yet you defend a self described "revisionist history" website that explicitly rejects the consensus position on the Nazi Genocide describing it as nothing more than a misinterpretation of the wehrmachts good intentions. Scholarly sources are credible, fringe websites that moonlight in climate science are not. If you can find some scholarly sources of information that support your position I would be happy to discuss them with you. Until then don't waste my time with your GARBAGE SCIENCE.

 

Who would you prefer "Lord" Monckton?

 

Do you teach at a Christian school? Do You teach ID as an alternative to evolution? I ask these questions because it seems the only people who are left that deny AGW also refuse to accept evolution. Panzerkraftwagen started a thread on the topic and I am wondering if you further evidence of his hypothesis.

Do you need help reading my posts? I clearly stated "See the "open radiation window" your link mentions. It is indeed "unobstructed by CO2 gas". Every climate researcher knows about this window. No ""greenhouse"-theorists" suggests that CO2 is closing this window. "

How small? Show me the calculations.
Are you going to ignore my questions again once again proving you do not have a clue?

Incorrect


See how strong the SI is at 15 µm? So you are either lying to further your agenda or you do not have a clue on the science involved.

 

You are mistaken, Mannie.

It is you do not have a clue of the science involved.

By the way, the amount of thermal energy contained within the narrow CO2 absorption band at 15 µm is about 1% of the total energy that is shown by these curves. The total energy emitted by a black body at 260 K is indicated by the total area under the curve. I guess they did not teach you this fact in science school!

By the way, please use your common sense. A simple experiment wil show my statement is true. "As everyone knows, a cloudless night sky leads to a strong cooling of the earth's surface, the sun's radiation taken up during the day being returned to the universe during the night as "temperature radiation". The fact the earth cools at night proves CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb much of the radiated surface heat and thus cannot keep the air temperature warm. If it did absorb more heat (thermal energy) from the earth's surface than just a very small amount, a strong cooling of the earth's surface and atmosphere would never occur at night after sunset!

Nice try, Mannie, but again no cigar!

 

You are mistaken, bird.

Why do the liberals in this group have such a difficult time understanding these very simple concepts?

282/1,000,000 = 0.000282

0.000282 X 100% = 0.0282%

If you consult any good Chemistry textbook, you will discover you can express concentrations of trace gases as (1) parts per million, (2) as a decimal fraction, or as a percent. All of these values mean exactly the same thing.

This is not difficult mathematics. by the way.

 

Of course total energy is area under curve. My point was that the 15 µm was not lacking in energy.

Are you telling me that the area cut out by CO2 here is only 1%?
You might want to actually measure it instead of declaring it.

 

My, my! You are being deceptive! Your link does not state what you quoted!
What you quoted came from fireallpoliticians.
I do not think you have any credibility left.

 

Ha-Ha!

Like Albert Gore, the "warmies" in this group rant and rave about our use of fossil fuels, and they are the last among us to agree to give them up.

Pure hypocrisy and total dishonesty on Albert Gore's part and their part and nothing else! ... The "warmies" in this group should be ashamed of themselves!

 

These discussions were very good!

 

You are indeed correct, Subdermal.

Actually, the media often conceals the information on the global carbon dioxide levels during the Jurassic Period! They were much higher back then than they are now and were responsible for the lush vegetation that existed during that period of the earth's geological history!

This a true account of history the "warmies" do not want released to the general public.

 

You are correct, CoolWalker.

They got caught feeding us garbage in 2009, and the entire group of AGW scientists were throughly discredited!

The "warmies" simple cannot bring themselves to truthfully admit their flawed theory of man-made global warming is demonstratively wrong!

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

 

I don’t know who is M. I know that he was mistaken when he interpreted some complex ritual #1234 or #4321 of British aristocracy and there was big uproar, almost a civil war in GB because of that. We. Americans, have no aristocracy here, no rituals; we just laughed.



From your pic it looks like M is a decent man, not a pig.

From the fact that you ask he must be a decent man, not an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. He certainly does not look like a communist.

I was not even aware that he was nominated.

The answer is no.

I’d prefer Assir Arafat or Barak Hussein Obama.

What is your reason to doubt that that the IPCC deserved Nobel?

 

Again it is not about the maths - it is about defining the numerical value you are using.

 

I can't believe the "warmies" do not know how to how calculate simple 6th grade math!

It is an established fact: 382/1,000,000 = 0.000382. If this result is not correct, than all of our electronic calculators are wrong!

If proving carbon dioxide were indeed a dangerous gas that will cause our climate to increase to a very high temperature from which we would not recover, were that easy to do, there would be absolutely no doubt about the scientific evidence, and we would all agree.

But the "warmists" can't prove this theory, and this is why they must result to childish insults, taunts and dishonest data and phony conclusions to try and prove their point.

What childish little children the "warmists" are!

 

nobody is doing it here why James does have to? There is no key on the key board. I have to use words . The numerical value of 0.000282 is 0.000282. The numerical value of 0.000282% is 0.000282 The numerical value of -0.000282 is 0.000282.

I don't know how to find words to tell you that math is about defining the numerical value.


You are a girl of such a sophistication that I drop speachless when I read your posts. I am sure I am not the only one who is deeply impressed.