Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. This ample evidence proves one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right.

    The key word is experiment.

    Evidence proves and convinces.
    Experiment demonstrates.

    The experiment has demonstrated:

    1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
    2. climate has not changed.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.


    1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
    2. no impact
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.



    1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
    2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.


    Put it on record and move on.


    science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.


    However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.
     
  2. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    You have omitted the most important part from these discussions.

    Also, please provide an accurate reference for your illustrations. The one you have included does not work.

    "Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full
     
  3. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/2012/2011JD016620.shtml
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A)

    Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. all lines of evidence prove one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right. Your source is as good as Disney Channel, both use computer generated animations and can show whatever they want to show. Of course, WJ is more credible than Disney.

    The key word is experiment.

    Evidence
    proves and convinces.
    Experiment demonstrates.

    The experiment has demonstrated:

    1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
    2. climate has not changed.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.


    1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
    2. no impact
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.



    1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
    2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.


    Put it on record and move on.


    science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.


    However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.


    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.
     
  5. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Summary: gibberish.

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

    [​IMG]
     
  6. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    gmb,

    Please provide a source for this CO2-temperature chart.

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

    Thanks!
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    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.
     
  8. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.


    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  9. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

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

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

    [​IMG]

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from: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).
     
  10. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  12. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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?
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  14. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    it is good to be you...
     
  15. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Come now, gmb.

    Like most "warmies" you are not using your God-given common sense.

    Our common sense tells us if the data in these "peer-reviewed” papers are contradicted by the actual measured increases in global temperatures as reported by the NOAA and NASA temperature models, these reports are not worth the paper they are printed on.

    The papers you have cited are not supported by the actual measured increases from the NOAA and NASA GISS global temperature models.


    Therefore these reports, the ones that you are so enamored with, are not worth the paper they are printed on!

    Case closed; problem solved!

    [​IMG]

    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 the measured (actual weather station data) values of annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.
     
  17. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just to clarify one more time and try to add to the statements http://www.skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

    From the begining measuring mean global T is a demonstration of total illeteracy of the majorities of the scientific community.

    Any literate person knows and remembers for life, wake him up after 12 beers, that a condition of any gas including air is (in general) described by the equation PV=mRT
    where R does not matter, it is constant, But P,V and sum of m are variables as well as T.

    Knowing only T does tell nothing about the condition of a gas.

    Heating or warming is not determined by T. Stating that will get you F and put you put of the door. F means Fail.


    heat content is determined by enthalpy, i

    if it is heating it does not always mean T goes up. It means i goes up.

    that's all. it is the matter of basic literacy.

    then the majorities do not understand what they measure and how it should be measured. but it is anorther subject.


    anybody who needs to be a majority Fails.
    .
    Infinite amount of Evidence does always FAILS against one Experiment.

    or as an old MIT professor stated betting his life in an experiment, - "Physics works, I am alive."
     
  18. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    you see it and everyone sees it. as well everyone sees that you went to a propaganda blog.

    in order to see that one does not need peer reviewed references.

    as well everyone see my response to sciencemag. in this response I point only to facts everyone sees without any blogs or peer reviewed garbage.

    yet, you have made a few insults.

    which is good. If Obama supporters did not post insults, then they wouldn't be able to make a post and there would be no debate.

    yet, you have not adressed the observed reality, hapennings, none of my points, even if they were bolded and colored red for you..
     
  19. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since the observations clearly support the academic literature on the topic, as clearly covered in my previous post, I'm not sure why you remain so confused.

    More reading. Less ranting.
     
  20. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah yes. You make it up as you go along. You don't need actual data, learning, or academic references, because you "know" better. Classic case of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

    Contrary to popular belief among denialist circles, the physics of CO2's effect on climate is independent of one's political affiliation.
     
  21. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Direct sources are preferred, so fair enough. James asserted (with no academic references supporting the claim of course) that observational data since 1880 is incompatible with CO2's effect on climate. I posted a reference showing the observational record to be compatible. There are many studies supporting that, including this recent one:


    [​IMG]

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/abs/ngeo1327.html
     
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Can you please try this. Add some response to my points or at least a point after, before or inside of insults in your posts.

    I am sure that not only me but at least 50% of other people don't need actual data, learning, or academic references to see that science mag is a peer reviewed source and to see my response and points I made, and to see that you have not attempted counter a single one of them, you cannot even attempt.

    Another 50% support Obama. They do not need to see anything or counter any points or objections.

    Thanks for participation.
     
  23. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    One more time, please pay attention to what I say and address my points. my points are not James points. his points are his points, please quote him and counter them.

    BTW. Thanks for this demonstration of illeteracy of the majority of the scientific community whatever is his name, - he is either illetarate or has demonstrated agenda.


    The scale is deceiving. If that scientific majority takes a full scale on the bottom he must to take the same on the left.

    the span/scale of T on earth is about from -50 to +50, not from 0 to 1.


    Ether explain the manipulation or redraw in a justified scale and repost for James, he likes this stuff.
     
  24. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I had to edit the link. sorry if confused somebody
     
  25. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    Now we know for certain you are blowing smoke, gmb!

    In your strange way of reasoning, a global temperature increase of 3.0 deg-C (from your peer-reviewed paper) is exactly the same thing as a global temperature increase of 0.51 deg-C from the NASA GISS actual temperature plots.

    ... OK! … If you say so!

    Most reasoned people will disagree with you, however!
     

Share This Page