you have zero science showing man made co2 causes temps to rise.
if you did you would have a nobel prize and be al gores best friend.
if you did you would have a nobel prize and be al gores best friend.
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific proof humans dominant cause of warming climate
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
I don't want to get into a too long a discussion with you. I'll try to keep this short, but I'm not good at that. You're likely the only one who bothers to read these long posts of mine..
No one disputes that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gasses. The greenhouse mechanism for all greenhouse gases is undisputed, but that is only one of several mechanisms by which these gases act to moderate climate. CO2 does help trap heat radiated from the Earths surface. Like water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, CO2 also serves to moderate the Earths climate. Both these important greenhouse gases, working together, and by mechanisms other than the greenhouse mechanism, protect the Earth from receiving excessive solar radiation. In that sense, they can also be viewed as causing less heating then they otherwise would if only the greenhouse effect were to be considered. CO2 is more effective in its protective mode in the outer atmosphere, and water via clouds and snow is more effective, in its protective mode, in the inner atmosphere, or Troposphere. So it is not just one or the other effect but both! Then too, let us not ignore water's huge heat of vaporization, which during warming periods will exert still another type of thermal moderating influence as the atmosphere's equilibrium shifts toward higher water vapor content. The same will also moderate cooling cycles, as the equilibrium shifts back and thermal energy is released (kT energy). The net effect of all these sundry mechanisms, including many not mentioned, working in consort, is that the Earth is not nearly so hot during the day as it would be without an atmosphere, and not nearly so cold at night as it otherwise would be. To put this in another context, our climate is buffered by our atmosphere in conjunction with sourcing and sinking of its components by the entire biosphere. Surely, taking the CO2 greenhouse effect out of the context of these myriad mechanisms is fraught with dangers unimagined by the the earlier investigators far too eager to jump this way or that.
I think Jem is wrong to imply that CO2 has a net cooling effect in discussions where everyone else is talking about CO2's Greenhouse effect. Its greenhouse effect is unquestionably one of warming via heat trapping. That is to say, it causes warming both night and day, just less warming during the day than it would without its ir absorption and albedo effect in the outer atmosphere. (Jem take note!) The greenhouse feature of these gases, however, is always warming, never cooling..
Here is what I hope you will do, FC, and that is to take careful note of the dates associated with the charts, data, and conclusions you are posting and referring to. I understand full well that in the late 1990's there was, among scientists, much more acceptance of the Hansen hypothesis than there is today . (You will no doubt strongly disagree, but that's fine.) If anything, however, the popular media and the Hansen-Gore conjectures are more firmly believed today by the public than ten years ago.
The only way I see to keep one's head straight in this matter is to totally ignore the popular media, all politicians on either side, and the business world with its Chamber of Commerce. None of these folks had any business getting involved in the first place. I'd also strongly recommend ignoring, or giving only a passing glance to, the early studies. The most recent ones are far more reliable. It isn't that the early work wasn't sincere, it's that there wasn't the plethora of good data to work with, and far too much was inferred from mere correlations when they agreed with the early hypothesis.
I'll leave you with this one example of how the early work led us astray. The first ice core results suggested that CO2 concentration was higher now than any time in the past, going back thousands of years. Of course in peoples minds "highest ever recorded" became "highest ever". Now we know that today's CO2 concentration is no where near the highest the Earth has experienced!
Today's data is much more extensive, more reliable and our understanding of it is vastly improved. We're still in the beginning phase of what is going to be a long, long journey toward comprehensive understanding of the Earths Climate.
Good. That's what I thought. You understand that man has raised levels of CO2 by 40% and this can do nothing other than raise earth's temperatures which we are now seeing. I hope you don't mind me distilling all your above bullshit down.
I have never said science says CO2 has a net cooling effect. I have speculated that adding more of it could have a net cooling effect.
but, I have stated at least 50 times science does not know.
I have focused on the does not know part... because science does not model clouds well.
other than you being mistaken about what I have been saying... you did a great job of summing up the science we have been linking to. kudos.
but, I have stated at least 50 times science does not know.
I have focused on the does not know part... because science does not model clouds well.
other than you being mistaken about what I have been saying... you did a great job of summing up the science we have been linking to. kudos.
Actually that's not what you should conclude from what I wrote. Rather you should conclude what was in the Lacis review of the IPCC report that came out in 2007, I believe. (Lacis is the scientist who has figured prominently in the models coming out of Goddard (all defective so far of course). Goddard is Hansen's joint. I think you referenced one of Lacises papers.
Hear is what he said after reviewing a draft of the IPCC executive summary: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasnât the I.P.C.C. Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community â instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted."
You can read into this, if you care to, that the facts of climate change have not yet been established and understood. Not as of 2007 in Lacises opinion.
Needless to say my position is similar to Lacises.
Not yours.
He is one of the three percent. Who cares? One would have to be total idiot to think that an increase of CO2 by 40% would not result in warming. Period. He is an idiot.
Attribution is clearly established. That's why 97% of all the climatologists and all the world's science orgs agree.
But go ahead and be an idiot and deny common sense and world science opinion.
All because you don't want to admit that Al Gore is right.
Piezoe. I thought you and jerm would be interested to hear what Lacis actually says ...I take back my calling him an idiot. I should have seen what he actually says before assuming the selective quote you chose was valid.
"The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earthâs greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.
My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as âvery likelyâ at the 90 percent probability level. It would seem that the veracity of the human-induced warming would hinge on establishing the pedigree of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. On this point, the IPCC report is crystal clear. Pages 137-140 of IPCC AR4 describe high-precision in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, documenting the steady increase in CO2 along with its characteristic seasonal fluctuation. These measurements, supplemented by analyses of air bubbles trapped in ice core samples, show unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of 277 ppm in 1750 to present day concentrations that are approaching 390 ppm.
The IPCC report also shows the corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen, thus providing irrefutable verification that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is linked directly to fossil fuel oxidation."
The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earthâs greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...of-co2-in-warming/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
"The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earthâs greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.
My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as âvery likelyâ at the 90 percent probability level. It would seem that the veracity of the human-induced warming would hinge on establishing the pedigree of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. On this point, the IPCC report is crystal clear. Pages 137-140 of IPCC AR4 describe high-precision in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, documenting the steady increase in CO2 along with its characteristic seasonal fluctuation. These measurements, supplemented by analyses of air bubbles trapped in ice core samples, show unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of 277 ppm in 1750 to present day concentrations that are approaching 390 ppm.
The IPCC report also shows the corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen, thus providing irrefutable verification that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is linked directly to fossil fuel oxidation."
The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earthâs greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...of-co2-in-warming/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0