Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

[jem]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/...n-physical-society-over-global-warming-issue/

Disgusted with these developments, some APS members quietly resigned or let their memberships lapse. The most publicly visible of these resignations were Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-laurea...hysics-group-over-stand-global-warming-313636 and distinguished APS Fellow Hal Lewishttp://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ter-a-Martin-Luther-moment-in-science-history .

Preferring to work within the Society to try to effect positive change, our group of petitioners and APS leaders of good will came to an agreement in 2010 to try to focus the discussion back where it belonged – on the science itself. Thus I joined an officially sanctioned committee to organize a new “topical group” within the APS. Bylaws were written and approved whose main characteristic was a declaration of focus on the science, and an avoidance of matters of policy, public opinion, or political views. Here is the key objective statement from the Bylaws:

“The objective of the GPC shall be to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge concerning the physics, measurement, and modeling of climate processes, within the domain of natural science and outside the domains of societal impact and policy, legislation and broader societal issues. The objective includes the integration of scientific knowledge and analysis methods across disciplines to address the dynamical complexities and uncertainties of climate physics.”

It was thus hoped that the disagreement among APS membership would be diverted from attack and defense of the Statement to a discussion and scientific debate of the science itself.

All well and good. But to achieve the objective, one cannot move to exclude scientists and their findings that do not support the contentions of the APS Statement. As the letter relates, that is exactly what has happened. One should not conclude from the letter that all the APS people I worked with were of the same mind and wanted to exclude scientists who do not conform to the doctrine. A few tried hard to make the process scientifically inclusive, but they were far outweighed by the dominant influence which saw no reason to be inclusive.

 

[futurecurrents]

here you go jerm, for the tenth time

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
Link to this page
What the science says...
Select a level... Basic

Intermediate Advanced
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

Climate Myth...
Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
"While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature ... " (Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide)



The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities ofcarbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

The greenhouse effect occurs because greenhouse gases let sunlight (shortwave radiation) pass through the atmosphere. The earth absorbs sunlight, warms then reradiates heat(infrared or longwave radiation). The outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed bygreenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. So with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we expect to see less longwave radiation escaping to space at the wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorb. We also expect to see more infrared radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths.

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]

Yes, there are moron righties that deny it. They are the three percent of climatologists that do.

 

[Lucrum]

Lets talk science....

But you're primary adversary only has a degree in waste management. He only understands junk science and installing heat and air units.

 

[Lucrum]

...How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?...

We don't

 

[stu]

We do and

 

[Lucrum]

We do and

You only think you do

 

[stu]

I agree, I think, where you don't

 

[jem]

NASA says co2 also cools... see below.
Should your chart not say some solar radiation passes through to the earth?

So if something warms and cools... what is the net effect of man made co2?
Do you have any science showing that?

Especially in light of the fact co2 matches but lags ocean warming.




“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.


http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/03/22/both_spikes.jpg

 

[Ricter]

NASA says co2 also cools... see below.

No, NASA does not. High altitude CO2 blocks high energy PARTICLE emissions from the sun, not visible light. This was explained by Anthony Watts on his website.