I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

See, in the 1990's you all were squalling about how CO2 was going to roast us all alive. Now the physics behind that I can understand, the greenhouse thing. All other things held absolutely constant, more CO2 has to have some upward effect on temperature. However, between the fact that man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the obvious effect of all the other factors that affect the temperature (that is all other things are not absolutely constant), the upward trend in temperature came to a screeching halt many years ago, and it seems to be getting colder.

In response, the global warming gang did a quick pivot (they are a nimble bunch) and changed the name of their god from Global Warming to Climate Change. (I am getting to my conundrum now). So now it seems CO2, whose only acknowledged superpower was heat vision, has been granted the godlike power to cause droughts, cold spells, excessive rain, and so forth.....any variation from the mean of any measure of the climate in excess of 1/2 standard deviation seems to be caused by CO2 - specifically man made CO2, even though the temperature is unaffected.

So now that its one acknowledged effect, the greenhouse thingy, has been completely overwhelmed by other variations, it has been granted the ability to affect....well...everything......WITHOUT the temperature rising.

When and how did this otherwise meek and mild mannered gas obtain these superpowers?
(simply put, since the temperature is not skyrocketing, as predicted, HOW is CO2 still causing all the stuff you claim it is?)

 

It is quite the conundrum of how a nonexistent temperature rise is causing "extreme weather".

 

Those are the mysterious superpowers I wish to understand.......

 

My guess is that carbon tax sounded better than helium tax

 

67 views already and not a single fish comes after my crank-bait......hummmm

 

Patience grasshopper.......

Someone will be here soon enough to berate you about your denierness...........

THE SCIENCE IS .....................UMM.............................SETTLED ................or something to the like

 

Why? Are you working on a term paper for 7th grade science class?

Try Wikipedia.

 

so this is just a bait-thread?

 

Manmade CO2 is about 30% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere currently, and the proportion is rising.

The upward trend in global temperatures has not changed significantly since the 1970s. The change that we have seen recently is scientifically interesting, but not statistically significant.

You had lunch today, therefore there is no world hunger. Typical denier logic.

Such as in the title of this paper?

Plass, Gilbert N. "The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change." Tellus 8.2 (1956): 140-154.

Yeah, 1956. Clearly another Al Gore conspiracy at work.

CO2 doesn't necessarily cause all variation from the mean, but it increases the likelihood of extreme events, and the more extreme the event the greater the likelihood increases. Thus very extreme events will be many times more likely in a high-greenhouse world than in a low-greenhouse world.

Wrong when you said it the first time, and still wrong.

Sorry, but the global temperature is rising, no matter how many times you deny it. I guess that's why you're a denier, eh?

Because it's warmer now than it used to be. Which is mostly attributable to carbon dioxide.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exactly what the climate modelers want to base their temperature estimates on.

And the spurious relationship…IS REVEALED!!!

A is related to B.
B is related to C
Therefore, A must cause C.

Little Ice age ends. Temperature rebounds.
Industrial revolution begins.
CO2 emissions rise with progress of Industrial revolution

Therefore CO2 emissions cause the temperature rise coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Just that fast and easy. And also why the modelers can ONLY mimic this relationship, and their models cannot be backcast to verify their predictive ability…because…wait for it…they aren't predictive.

For those with any interest in how this works, and why climate "scientists" avoid the standard quality control measures other scientists are subjected to regularly, including peer review by the professional organizations to make sure that people don't make basic statistical errors like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you denier logic in action. Since correlation does not prove causation (in a statistical sense), denier logic insists that correlation is completely unrelated to causation (in any sense whatsoever).

Brilliant work, there, cupcake. But can you get it past peer-review?

 

I certainly did not say that. Of course, assigning a straw man, cherry picking time frames, and hoping folks don't notice the hand picked spurious relationship, or worse yet, THINK about it, is the time tested technique of the natural variability denier.

I loved the R squared on the graph itself, I mean, absolutely CLASSIC confusion of what is precise, versus what is just utter tripe by design.

Spurious relationships folks, don't forget them, because they certainly do cover this particular base.

 

Well, let's start with this. Consider it a test to see just how far out of touch with reality you are.

If more CO2 does cause warming, then should there be a correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels?

Simple question. Yes or no?

 

I've gotten many of my works of science through peer review, it isn't hard. I've got 3 of them sitting on my desk right now. But the peer review isn't the issue, it is the lack of standard scientific quality control on the models, statistics, aggregation and correlations.

We were discussing some of this in another thread, why scientists that are required to baseline their work to reality, a reality where people might die if they get it wrong, appear to have a much higher sense of why backcasting and ground truthing is necessary…yet…climate scientists…they don't seem to worry about any of these standard scientific oversight methods. Makes folks wonder….particularly those of us who do science and wonder why they get off scott free in terms of quality control.

 

Why?

Are you waving your magic wand and suspending Conservation of Energy? Or might there actually be a physical cause for that?

 

Well, this is the best explanation I have:

[video=youtube;96kwILL35ig]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96kwILL35ig[/video]

 

Maybe I'm mad, but I always thought that specific humidity and could percentages caused most of the climate change, and there becomes a natural oscillation between the percentage of the sun striking the oceans and cloud cover.







Seems pretty obvious that water vapor feedback has more cooling than warming.

 

You are indeed mad.

Cloudiness is caused by an increase in relative humidity, not specific humidity. As the air warms, it is capable of holding more water before condensation begins.

As global warming proceeds, specific humidity has increased (as expected) but relative humidity has not (as expected). The question of whether cloudiness is increasing or not is still open, and may depend on altitude and latitude. The most recent satellite measurements indicate cloudiness is decreasing (i.e., the air is warming faster than evaporation is increasing), but ground based observations seem to contradict that.

 

Because it's warmer now than it used to be. Which is mostly attributable to carbon dioxide.

Correlation does not prove causality PD, ever first year grad student knows that in any research.

If it did, I could prove that pilots turning on the seat belt lights cause air turbulence.......


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you denier logic in action. Since correlation does not prove causation (in a statistical sense), denier logic insists that correlation is completely unrelated to causation (in any sense whatsoever).

You keep ignoring the fundamental fact that it is YOU that must PROVE man made climate change, not WE who must DISPROVE it......
So a simple correlation it worthless.

 

You are missing some very important facts on this.

Care to think about other factors that affect the velocity of evaporation, and how higher altitudes, where clouds form, that the temperature doesn't uniformly increase with surface temperatures?

 

Been there, done that.

Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2013.

Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.

Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.

Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.

Smirnov, D. A., & Mokhov, I. I. (2009). From Granger causality to long-term causality: Application to climatic data. Physical Review E, 80(1), 016208.

Moon, Y. (2008, May). Correlation Analysis between Global Temperature Anomaly and two main factors (CO2 and aa index). In AGU Spring Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 1, p. 06).

Stern, D. I., & Kaufmann, R. K. (1999). Econometric analysis of global climate change. Environmental modelling & software, 14(6), 597-605.

Tol, R. S., & De Vos, A. F. (1998 ). A Bayesian statistical analysis of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Climatic Change, 38(1), 87-112.

Thomson, D. J. (1997). Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(16), 8370-8377.

 

Oh, I'm always open to new ideas. No need to be coy, tell us all what you know.

 

And ive asked you a number of times to explain how your claim of a warming climate somehow doesn't require rising temps, come on elmer stop runnning away and explain that extrodinary scientific phenomenon that only your aware of....and then explain your claim melting glaciers dont raise sea levels...come on elmer dazzle us with your incredible claimed knowledge of physics and chemistry...

 

I'm curious myself if he knows the answer.

Elmer...

Care to shoot the waskly wabbit?

 

The difference is when speaking of heat or temperature, and not mixing the two. Different materials have different heat capacities. Chemical changes and phase changes can change the temperature of materials but the heat can remain the same.

One example is sublimation of ice. This process makes the temperature of the remaining ice colder as it robs the required heat from the existing ice, to change the ice to gas that evaporates.

The heat of the earth can increase without the temperatures increasing, in fact, the temperatures can decrease.