Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

[futurecurrents]

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[futurecurrents]

This chart is self explanatory for all but the stupidest of righties like jem and lucru and fhl and GWB, oh heck ALL the stupid righties on this board. The extra CO2 in the air is from man.

 

[jem]

this post is science... and I will give you part credit for that.
it shows there is potential for science behind the idea greenhouse gases may warm the earth.

However, it does not show that adding man made co2 currently warms the earth for multiple reasons...

1. adding co2 may increase water vapor (clouds) and clouds may increase cooling.
let me know if you need the science on that.

2. as we just saw... NASA also now more recently says CO2 is also a coolant.
So when you add man made co2 does it do more cooling by being a shade or a blanket. The science is out on this.

3. There is also a question of whether warming simple causes the air to hold more co2... just like warmer air holds more moisture.

so in short you are supporting the idea of the greenhouse in concept... but you are not showing that adding man made co2 is currently causing warming.

Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[jem]

interesting chart... but lets drill down to see if the annual carbon increase actually matches up with man made co2.
you can see man made co2 the green line... goes up in a steady manner.
the annual carbon increase curve far more close resembles change in ocean temps.

I will post the next chart that shows... that shows the paper which explains that the carbon curves follows change in ocean temps very close...and lags by 12 months.

The shape of the annual carbon increase resembles the shape of the global sea surface temperature (HADSST3), especially after reliable CO2 measurements began by Keeling after March 1958. Several known events are visible. Counting backwards: the 1998 El Niño, the 1994-5 El Niño, Mt Pinatubo in 1991, the 1986-7 El Niño, Mt Ruiz in 1985, El Chichon eruption in 1982, the 1972-3 El Niño, etc. Every positive peak is an El Niño and every negative peak is associated with a major volcanic eruption.

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henry’s Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.gBOX3Ftl.dpuf


----

"The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes."

See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.08.008

[/QUOTE]

This chart is self explanatory for all but the stupidest of righties like jem and lucru and fhl and GWB, oh heck ALL the stupid righties on this board. The extra CO2 in the air is from man.

 

[futurecurrents]

So to summarize what we have shown so far, and ignore jem's lunatical ravings:

We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

In addition we can see the temps increased exactly when the CO2 levels increased.

 

[futurecurrents]

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

 

[jem]

you seem to ignore this science from nasa.
and the fact that co2 trails temps.

NASA recently stated CO2 is one of the most efficient coolants in the atmosphere.
It is a thermostat. It does not just warm... it cools and balances.


http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
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.

here is some of the data in a graph... this is what we will need from the agw nutters... real data supporting opinion.

[/QUOTE]

 

[dbphoenix]

So to summarize what we have shown so far, and ignore jem's lunatical ravings:

We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40%.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

In addition we can see the temps increased exactly when the CO2 levels increased.

Who could argue with that?

 

[jem]

Receding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new
Posted on August 8, 2014 by Anthony Watts
By Larry Bell

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”


Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

More here: http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/warming-global-climate/2014/06/17/id/577481/#ixzz355f6L5y2

 

[Lucrum]

The Jamaican Society of Voodoo could announce their latest scientific theory that the moon is made of cheese. And fagcunts would be on here relentlessly arguing that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot.