You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
fuck man... where the hell did i say that?
you are trying to stick me with your binary argumentation... I reject your bullshit strawman crap.
I am saying if you are making the claim man made co2 causes warming... the burden is on your side to subject your theory to the scientific method and prove it.
Then I am saying... it won't be easy to do that because co2 is the laggard, co2 also cools and our atmosphere is complex. But, I am not saying you can't do it... I am saying it is up to your side to prove if you wish to claim its scientifically true.
Personally I believe co2 probably did help warm us coming out of ice ages... and it probably helps trigger the end of the cycles and return us back to ice ages after we reached the end of the warming cycle. I suspect it is a negative feedback. Warming on the way up... and slowing down the warming and staring the cooling back down. but note I said believe. its my theory... after putting together everything I have read.
you are trying to stick me with your binary argumentation... I reject your bullshit strawman crap.
I am saying if you are making the claim man made co2 causes warming... the burden is on your side to subject your theory to the scientific method and prove it.
Then I am saying... it won't be easy to do that because co2 is the laggard, co2 also cools and our atmosphere is complex. But, I am not saying you can't do it... I am saying it is up to your side to prove if you wish to claim its scientifically true.
Personally I believe co2 probably did help warm us coming out of ice ages... and it probably helps trigger the end of the cycles and return us back to ice ages after we reached the end of the warming cycle. I suspect it is a negative feedback. Warming on the way up... and slowing down the warming and staring the cooling back down. but note I said believe. its my theory... after putting together everything I have read.
So you are saying man made CO2 cannot have a warming effect because it lags temperature.
If it didn't lag it can have an effect , if it does lag it can't.
That's what you are saying, right?
uck man... where the hell did i say that?
you are trying to stick me with your binary argumentation... I reject your bullshit strawman crap.
Calm down, I only asked you a question.
I am saying if you are making the claim man made co2 causes warming... the burden is on your side to subject your theory to the scientific method and prove it.
See, thing is, that has already happened. Started in the 19th century and has survived the scientific method to date, due mainly to the laws of physics, and because everything else to the contrary hasn't.
Then I am saying... it won't be easy to do that because co2 is the laggard, co2 also cools and our atmosphere is complex. But, I am not saying you can't do it... I am saying it is up to your side to prove if you wish to claim its scientifically true.
And this is why I asked you to explain plainly what you think rather than scurrying off to anti-global warming web sites to confuse what it is you are actually saying.
Yes you are right it is complex, like all natural things are, but it should also be understandable in basic terms as most things are.
Personally I believe co2 probably did help warm us coming out of ice ages... and it probably helps trigger the end of the cycles and return us back to ice ages after we reached the end of the warming cycle. I suspect it is a negative feedback. Warming on the way up... and slowing down the warming and staring the cooling back down. but note I said believe. its my theory... after putting together everything I have read.
Right, but why stop there with your theory of CO2 being an overall negative feedback, when obvious questions are begging it.
I'll use your words and descriptions so you don't need to say... "fuck man... where the hell did i say that?"... again.
Why only one belief in negative feedback?
You say it is your theory that CO2 is "Warming on the way up..." .
This suggests you believe there are cycles of warm and cool. Is that right?
So fair to say you don't believe CO2 simultaneously warms and cools, maintaining a fixed temperature. Right?
Otherwise there couldn't have been an ice age for one thing.
So why when that CO2 is "Warming on the way up..." as you say , and with man made Warming CO2 added , would it not get Warmer on the way up.... than otherwise?
And as those cycles take thousands of years for CO2 to play out the role of amplifying warm to move out of an ice age, or cool out of a warm age, why would you not also believe continuously adding more and more CO2 to amplify that "Warming on the way up..." could not become hazardous to humans?
Why is your belief so attracted to negative feedback especially if by your argument CO2 lags temperature?
How could CO2 respond fast enough to balance out positive or negative feedback, either up or down temperature, when you consider man made CO2 a laggard that cannot affect or account for warmer temperature change?
Within the natural environment you are able to exist, where these complex balances are maintained naturally. Who in their right mind would even think it is going to be in any way sensible to repeatedly and continuously poke mother nature in the eye with the pointy stick of man made CO2 ?
Last edited:
while science has shown co2 has warming properties.
it has also cooling properties.
Whether adding man made co2 to the environment warms or cools has not been shown.
first of all atmospheric co2 levels may be tied to temperature change and excess co2 may be off gassed or sinked. therefore man adding co2 may have not impact on temperature at all. This would be similar to way warm air holds more moisture. warm air may hold more co2.
Some bloggers and scientists assume we live in a closed system and co2 is not lost to space or sinked. I have read studies which say co2 is off gassed from the earth into space.
We also know that as we add co2 some of it goes to the top of the atmospshere where it cools. so we don't know that adding man made co2 warms.
co2 could be warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper.
co2 becomes logarithmically less warming as you add more to the lower atmosphere ... so at some point adding co2 could be net cooling.
in addition to its direct impacts are probably relatively minor compared to water vapor and clouds.
if CO2 does impact cloud cover as many studies now suggest. co2 itself might be warming but it could be net cooling because of clouds.
so in short... we do not have science showing man made co2 is causing warming regardless of what Arrehenuis discovered about co2 in the 19th century.
it has also cooling properties.
Whether adding man made co2 to the environment warms or cools has not been shown.
first of all atmospheric co2 levels may be tied to temperature change and excess co2 may be off gassed or sinked. therefore man adding co2 may have not impact on temperature at all. This would be similar to way warm air holds more moisture. warm air may hold more co2.
Some bloggers and scientists assume we live in a closed system and co2 is not lost to space or sinked. I have read studies which say co2 is off gassed from the earth into space.
We also know that as we add co2 some of it goes to the top of the atmospshere where it cools. so we don't know that adding man made co2 warms.
co2 could be warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper.
co2 becomes logarithmically less warming as you add more to the lower atmosphere ... so at some point adding co2 could be net cooling.
in addition to its direct impacts are probably relatively minor compared to water vapor and clouds.
if CO2 does impact cloud cover as many studies now suggest. co2 itself might be warming but it could be net cooling because of clouds.
so in short... we do not have science showing man made co2 is causing warming regardless of what Arrehenuis discovered about co2 in the 19th century.
Last edited:
so in short... we do not have science showing man made co2 is causing warming regardless of what Arrehenuis discovered about co2 in the 19th century.
in short... we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century.
CO2 is CO2. Man made or not.
while science has shown co2 has warming properties.
it has also cooling properties.
in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your "Theory" to kick in before it gets warm enough to pretty much f'k everything up.
I'll stick with the basic principles of physical chemistry and how science does of course show anthropogenic CO2 will increase Earth's surface temperature.
Despite all the speculations, excuses, denials and conspiracy theories to the contrary that don't conform with those basic principles of physical chemistry.
Last edited:
4 professors who didn't convince that Senate Committee because basically the Committee saw how the profs needed there to be a worldwide conspiracy throughout the scientific community for their interpretations and incorrect assumptions to have reason to be feasible.
The Committee saw through it but still, there are the book sales.
that is amusing...
basic principles... instead of comprehensive understanding and how things work in complex systems.
but, I will play along...
basic principle...
the lagging variable is unlikely to cause the leading variable.
Since co2 levels trail changes in temperature both on the upside and the downside basic principles of cause and effect tell us you are going to have to come up with a better scientific explanation than telling us one of the principles of co2 is that it warms.
Especially since a basic principle of co2 is that it also cools.
Here is a basic experiment from NASA... telling us basically co2 causes cooling in our thermosphere. and its very efficient.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
basic principles... instead of comprehensive understanding and how things work in complex systems.
but, I will play along...
basic principle...
the lagging variable is unlikely to cause the leading variable.
Since co2 levels trail changes in temperature both on the upside and the downside basic principles of cause and effect tell us you are going to have to come up with a better scientific explanation than telling us one of the principles of co2 is that it warms.
Especially since a basic principle of co2 is that it also cools.
Here is a basic experiment from NASA... telling us basically co2 causes cooling in our thermosphere. and its very efficient.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
in short... we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century.
CO2 is CO2. Man made or not.
in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your "Theory" to kick in before it gets warm enough to pretty much f'k everything up.
I'll stick with the basic principles of physical chemistry and how science does of course show anthropogenic CO2 will increase Earth's surface temperature.
Despite all the speculations, excuses, denials and conspiracy theories to the contrary that don't conform with those basic principles of physical chemistry.
Last edited:
Below is Stu's responding to jem's post, but I would like to take the liberty of responding to Stu's post because it illustrates some common misconceptions.
Stu, this is accepted as true, no one questions it. Consider a bumble bee. It moves the air with its wings. Now consider a small electric fan of the type you might use in your home. It also moves the air as it rotates. CO2 is to Water vapor as the bumble bee is to the fan. Both CO2 and water vapor are doing the same thing, but one is doing far more of that thing than the other. The difference is due to two factors. One is absorptivity as a function of wavelength, and the other is the partial pressure, i.e. concentration, of each gas in the atmosphere. To determine the relative contribution of these two gases via their greenhouse effects, both factors must be taken into account. When this is done properly, we find that relative to water vapor's greenhouse effect, the effect of CO2 is nearly negligible. And of course the relative effect of these two gases varies demonstrably with both location and time. It is not enough to say, " CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore, it warms the Earth." Nor is it enough to say the same of water vapor. I see that mistake repeated many times here on ET.
Because of the very good correlation of CO2 concentration with rising temperature, and knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, early investigators jumped to the conclusion that rising CO2 must be a chief cause of warming . (Unfortunately early CO2 vs. Temperature graphs were poorly time resolved) Noting that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was too low when coupled with its poor IR absorption to explain the nice CO2-temperature correlation they saw, they leaped, without sufficient consideration of all factors, to the conclusion that the effect of a trace amount of CO2 must be amplified by some secondary mechanism. The logical, at the time, secondary mechanism (assuming CO2 is the primary cause of warming) was water evaporation to produce water vapor. One assumes they would have included water's heat of vaporization. They neglected cloud formation, however, as too difficult to model. They assumed forced water vapor formation constituted a net positive feedback mechanism. They then developed models for a temperature vs. CO2 function of varying complexity and varying numbers of parameters, which were themselves sometimes functions of CO2 concentration. Every model, without exception, included a contribution from water vapor driven ("forced") by rising CO2. That contribution was always incorporated with sign positive. Cloud formation continued to be neglected. By fitting their models to past temperature data they determined values for their models' various parameters. Having done that, using different scenarios they extrapolated the observed CO2 concentration forward in time, and then used the models developed from fitting past data to predict future temperature. When their models showed that within a decade we would experience damaging high temperature, exactly as GISS Director James Hansen, within earshot of science hobbyist Al Gore, had predicted could happen, they alerted the media, and the rest as we say, "is history".
Where did they go wrong? Horribly wrong as it turns out. Because of the beautiful correlation of temperature with CO2 concentration, when they correctly determined that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was far too low to cause much of a temperature rise by its own greenhouse effect, they assumed that there must be some positive feedback mechanism that would allow a tiny amount of CO2 to produce a large increase in temperature. They gave far too little consideration to the possibility of being wrong ! This was their fatal error. They failed utterly to allow for human fallibility in what has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of modern science.
I have often wondered if Hansen, who was GISS director at the time of the fatal error and would have had only peripheral involvement in modeling and laboratory work may have put too much faith in younger, less experienced subordinates, and got himself rather unwittingly caught up in their enthusiasm. In any case he is responsible for not insisting on keeping the GISS work within the atmospheric physics community until it could be thoroughly vetted. By the time other scientists began asking the right questions, the matter was already a media topic and he himself was emotionally invested in the conclusions his laboratory had already reached. One can imagine his immense pleasure at finding the GISS models showed his dire predictions to be "correct"! His objectivity went out the window.
You are referring here to jem's remark that CO2 is cooling in the outer atmosphere. I'll leave that discussion up to you and jem. I can say that any radiation protective effect of CO2 in the outer atmosphere, though it might not be insignificant compared to the warming effect of CO2 in the troposphere, is likely negligible compared to several very significant cooling mechanisms, such as vertical convection, cloud formation, albedo effect, evaporation, solar phytoabsorbtion-conversion etc. The interesting observation here is that while there is general agreement that these mechanisms are important, no one yet knows how to accurately model all of them. We may never know how in our lifetimes.
in short... we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century.
CO2 is CO2. Man made or not.
in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your "Theory" to kick in before it gets warm enough to pretty much f'k everything up.
I'll stick with the basic principles of physical chemistry and how science does of course show anthropogenic CO2 will increase Earth's surface temperature.
Despite all the speculations, excuses, denials and conspiracy theories to the contrary that don't conform with those basic principles of physical chemistry.
"...we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century..."
Stu, this is accepted as true, no one questions it. Consider a bumble bee. It moves the air with its wings. Now consider a small electric fan of the type you might use in your home. It also moves the air as it rotates. CO2 is to Water vapor as the bumble bee is to the fan. Both CO2 and water vapor are doing the same thing, but one is doing far more of that thing than the other. The difference is due to two factors. One is absorptivity as a function of wavelength, and the other is the partial pressure, i.e. concentration, of each gas in the atmosphere. To determine the relative contribution of these two gases via their greenhouse effects, both factors must be taken into account. When this is done properly, we find that relative to water vapor's greenhouse effect, the effect of CO2 is nearly negligible. And of course the relative effect of these two gases varies demonstrably with both location and time. It is not enough to say, " CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore, it warms the Earth." Nor is it enough to say the same of water vapor. I see that mistake repeated many times here on ET.
Because of the very good correlation of CO2 concentration with rising temperature, and knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, early investigators jumped to the conclusion that rising CO2 must be a chief cause of warming . (Unfortunately early CO2 vs. Temperature graphs were poorly time resolved) Noting that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was too low when coupled with its poor IR absorption to explain the nice CO2-temperature correlation they saw, they leaped, without sufficient consideration of all factors, to the conclusion that the effect of a trace amount of CO2 must be amplified by some secondary mechanism. The logical, at the time, secondary mechanism (assuming CO2 is the primary cause of warming) was water evaporation to produce water vapor. One assumes they would have included water's heat of vaporization. They neglected cloud formation, however, as too difficult to model. They assumed forced water vapor formation constituted a net positive feedback mechanism. They then developed models for a temperature vs. CO2 function of varying complexity and varying numbers of parameters, which were themselves sometimes functions of CO2 concentration. Every model, without exception, included a contribution from water vapor driven ("forced") by rising CO2. That contribution was always incorporated with sign positive. Cloud formation continued to be neglected. By fitting their models to past temperature data they determined values for their models' various parameters. Having done that, using different scenarios they extrapolated the observed CO2 concentration forward in time, and then used the models developed from fitting past data to predict future temperature. When their models showed that within a decade we would experience damaging high temperature, exactly as GISS Director James Hansen, within earshot of science hobbyist Al Gore, had predicted could happen, they alerted the media, and the rest as we say, "is history".
Where did they go wrong? Horribly wrong as it turns out. Because of the beautiful correlation of temperature with CO2 concentration, when they correctly determined that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was far too low to cause much of a temperature rise by its own greenhouse effect, they assumed that there must be some positive feedback mechanism that would allow a tiny amount of CO2 to produce a large increase in temperature. They gave far too little consideration to the possibility of being wrong ! This was their fatal error. They failed utterly to allow for human fallibility in what has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of modern science.
I have often wondered if Hansen, who was GISS director at the time of the fatal error and would have had only peripheral involvement in modeling and laboratory work may have put too much faith in younger, less experienced subordinates, and got himself rather unwittingly caught up in their enthusiasm. In any case he is responsible for not insisting on keeping the GISS work within the atmospheric physics community until it could be thoroughly vetted. By the time other scientists began asking the right questions, the matter was already a media topic and he himself was emotionally invested in the conclusions his laboratory had already reached. One can imagine his immense pleasure at finding the GISS models showed his dire predictions to be "correct"! His objectivity went out the window.
"...in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your "Theory" to kick in before it gets warm enough to pretty much f'k everything up..."
You are referring here to jem's remark that CO2 is cooling in the outer atmosphere. I'll leave that discussion up to you and jem. I can say that any radiation protective effect of CO2 in the outer atmosphere, though it might not be insignificant compared to the warming effect of CO2 in the troposphere, is likely negligible compared to several very significant cooling mechanisms, such as vertical convection, cloud formation, albedo effect, evaporation, solar phytoabsorbtion-conversion etc. The interesting observation here is that while there is general agreement that these mechanisms are important, no one yet knows how to accurately model all of them. We may never know how in our lifetimes.
well said.
I would only add that while I agree that the protective effect is likely to be far smaller than the warming effect overall... my theory (an it is only a theory) was about examining the net impact of adding the next increment of co2 to an already complex system. As I said... if co2 does have a measurable impact and it warms and cools.... it could warm coming out of an ice age and then start putting on the breaks and even start cooling as we move towards the end of the warming cycle. Athough as I pointed out its indirect impacts could be more powerful than it direct impacts.
I would only add that while I agree that the protective effect is likely to be far smaller than the warming effect overall... my theory (an it is only a theory) was about examining the net impact of adding the next increment of co2 to an already complex system. As I said... if co2 does have a measurable impact and it warms and cools.... it could warm coming out of an ice age and then start putting on the breaks and even start cooling as we move towards the end of the warming cycle. Athough as I pointed out its indirect impacts could be more powerful than it direct impacts.
Below is Stu's responding to jem's post, but I would like to take the liberty of responding to Stu's post because it illustrates some common misconceptions.
"...we do actually have science to show CO2 is causing warming due what Arrehenuis discovered aboutCO2 in the 19th century..."
Stu, this is accepted as true, no one questions it. Consider a bumble bee. It moves the air with its wings. Now consider a small electric fan of the type you might use in your home. It also moves the air as it rotates. CO2 is to Water vapor as the bumble bee is to the fan. Both CO2 and water vapor are doing the same thing, but one is doing far more of that thing than the other. The difference is due to two factors. One is absorptivity as a function of wavelength, and the other is the partial pressure, i.e. concentration, of each gas in the atmosphere. To determine the relative contribution of these two gases via their greenhouse effects, both factors must be taken into account. When this is done properly, we find that relative to water vapor's greenhouse effect, the effect of CO2 is nearly negligible. And of course the relative effect of these two gases varies demonstrably with both location and time. It is not enough to say, " CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore, it warms the Earth." Nor is it enough to say the same of water vapor. I see that mistake repeated many times here on ET.
Because of the very good correlation of CO2 concentration with rising temperature, and knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, early investigators jumped to the conclusion that rising CO2 must be a chief cause of warming . (Unfortunately early CO2 vs. Temperature graphs were poorly time resolved) Noting that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was too low when coupled with its poor IR absorption to explain the nice CO2-temperature correlation they saw, they leaped, without sufficient consideration of all factors, to the conclusion that the effect of a trace amount of CO2 must be amplified by some secondary mechanism. The logical, at the time, secondary mechanism (assuming CO2 is the primary cause of warming) was water evaporation to produce water vapor. One assumes they would have included water's heat of vaporization. They neglected cloud formation, however, as too difficult to model. They assumed forced water vapor formation constituted a net positive feedback mechanism. They then developed models for a temperature vs. CO2 function of varying complexity and varying numbers of parameters, which were themselves sometimes functions of CO2 concentration. Every model, without exception, included a contribution from water vapor driven ("forced") by rising CO2. That contribution was always incorporated with sign positive. Cloud formation continued to be neglected. By fitting their models to past temperature data they determined values for their models' various parameters. Having done that, using different scenarios they extrapolated the observed CO2 concentration forward in time, and then used the models developed from fitting past data to predict future temperature. When their models showed that within a decade we would experience damaging high temperature, exactly as GISS Director James Hansen, within earshot of science hobbyist Al Gore, had predicted could happen, they alerted the media, and the rest as we say, "is history".
Where did they go wrong? Horribly wrong as it turns out. Because of the beautiful correlation of temperature with CO2 concentration, when they correctly determined that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was far too low to cause much of a temperature rise by its own greenhouse effect, they assumed that there must be some positive feedback mechanism that would allow a tiny amount of CO2 to produce a large increase in temperature. They gave far too little consideration to the possibility of being wrong ! This was their fatal error. They failed utterly to allow for human fallibility in what has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of modern science.
I have often wondered if Hansen, who was GISS director at the time of the fatal error and would have had only peripheral involvement in modeling and laboratory work may have put too much faith in younger, less experienced subordinates, and got himself rather unwittingly caught up in their enthusiasm. In any case he is responsible for not insisting on keeping the GISS work within the atmospheric physics community until it could be thoroughly vetted. By the time other scientists began asking the right questions, the matter was already a media topic and he himself was emotionally invested in the conclusions his laboratory had already reached. One can imagine his immense pleasure at finding the GISS models showed his dire predictions to be "correct"! His objectivity went out the window.
"...in short...what we do not have is science showing man made CO2 will cause enough cooling for your negative feedback beliefs and your "Theory" to kick in before it gets warm enough to pretty much f'k everything up..."
You are referring here to jem's remark that CO2 is cooling in the outer atmosphere. I'll leave that discussion up to you and jem. I can say that any radiation protective effect of CO2 in the outer atmosphere, though it might not be insignificant compared to the warming effect of CO2 in the troposphere, is likely negligible compared to several very significant cooling mechanisms, such as vertical convection, cloud formation, albedo effect, evaporation, solar phytoabsorbtion-conversion etc. The interesting observation here is that while there is general agreement that these mechanisms are important, no one yet knows how to accurately model all of them. We may never know how in our lifetimes.