Is There Experimental Proof of CO2 Warming?

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Bored Wombat,

I would love to see how I can view those experiments.

Davaris, the answer is probably not 'yes' to your question about hard evidence in warming the environment.

I believe the experiments BW is referring to merely show that CO2 absorbs radiation at certain wavelengths by differing amounts. No argument there. However, to then say that it therefore warms the environment is, I think, overstating its importance. It will have a theoretical effect but, as I have said early on in this thread, the environment is a complex place and it is extremely difficult to input all the variables into an experiment. Scientists can't even put all the variables into a model, let alone an actual experiment. I have no doubt that CO2 is a forcing agent, and that it is a 'greenhouse' gas but, in the same way that a greenhouse does not rely on the differential absorption properties of glass to heat the interior (blocking convection is a much greater effect), so too does the atmosphere not rely that much on CO2 for its warming. It is however, a factor, if small.

ps, If you increase CO2, then the absorption happens in a shorter distance (from the Earth's surface). Does this actually warm the whole atmosphere or just the bottom 5-10 meters or so? Open to comments.

Since you seem to be an expert on this, perhaps you can clarify something for me.

After the light has been absorbed by the gas; what happens to the energy if it doesn't warm it up?

[sandy winder]

Originally Posted by flogger

"It was only the warmest in the USA, which is about 2 to 3% of the earths surface.

Only an American could see that as pertaining to the whole world."

Correction the USA is around 6% of the surface land area and the only large area monitored over a long period using the same methodologies hence th significance of the figures. Australia also saw similar kinds of climatic events pre 1940 too.

I'm Scottish BTW

"But last year was the second warmest on record for the whole of the Northern Hemisphere, beaten only by 2005. So the idea that global warming ended in 1998 or 2005 is equally unlikely.
"

Total nonsense.

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe


The Strata-Sphere » 2007 Coolest Year In 3 Decades: After 20 Years Of Global Cooling James Hansen Still Screams “Fire”!

Eco-Economy Indicators: TEMPERATURE - 2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD

2007 SECOND WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD « Ffenyx Rising

2007 was the warmest on record for Earth's land areas - USATODAY.com

2007 Second Warmest on Record, Despite La Nina | celsias°

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 2007 data confirms warming trend

Need I go on?

I'll give you that USA is 6% of the surface land area though. Still not as impressive as 50%.

And I don't believe that Europe and many of other parts of the world were so backward in the 1930s that they didn't have just as accurate methods of measuring temperature as the Americans. We are constantly being told by Whatsupwiththat
that today's temperature recorders are not accurate. Although they appear to be extremely accurate in the 1930s of America or whenever they tell of cooler temperatures in recent years.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by spot1234

Since you seem to be an expert on this, perhaps you can clarify something for me.

After the light has been absorbed by the gas; what happens to the energy if it doesn't warm it up?

spot1234

You know, your motto really says it all about your attitude to this discussion. ‘Evidence, we don’t need no stinking evidence.’

One of the many differences between you and me is that I am on here to discuss and, hopefully, learn. I have no doubt I am learning qute a bit by researching answers to the questions posed here. Unfortunately, you and a few others do not seem capable of answering many of the questions posed to you.

If you care to read what I have written on this thread, you will see that I -
A, never claimed to be an expert – but I am entitled to my opinion and to ask questions.
B, have always stated that I agree CO2 is a forcing agent and a so-called ‘greenhouse gas’.
My problem with the stance taken by you and other AGW alarmists is this:
You seem incapable of rationalizing the actual facts with the predicted targets of your precious models.
You claim to adhere to scientific principles yet ignore or at least deflect any factor or comment which might be (scientifically) against your argument.

To try my pathetic best to answer your question –

You used the term ‘light’ when you asked me the question. Did you really mean ‘light’ or longer-wave infra-red radiation? The sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared. This means that the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM). I would think this means that most of the heat-producing radiation escapes it.

I assume that the infra-red energy is either converted into increased molecular movement or re-radiated. This would suggest that there is potential to heat the immediate surroundings. However, in terms of scale, how much heat is actually gained in the atmosphere by CO2? What happens to the absorption quality of CO2 in the test area when the amount of CO2 is increased? Does the predicted warming of the immediate area (low level) mean there is a corresponding – or relative – cooling in other (higher level) parts? Most importantly – where is the hard evidence that increased CO2 has led to a warming of the environment as a whole? Has there actually been a drastic rise in global temperature? Has there been a drastic rise in global sea level? Why do the AGW brigade constantly sidestep these questions?

I have no doubt that your scientific knowledge is greater than mine, so why don’t you use it to prove me wrong by showing me the answers to the questions above?

Unlike you, I actually would prefer some evidence, stinking or otherwise…

[flogger]

"Need I go on?"

Well frankly ... yes ! Why post multiple links to the same dodgy article Sandy ? There has been a huge drop in temperatures globally in 2007/08 that has been measured by ALL the primary agencies who tabulate such data (the greatest movement of temperature either up or down ever recorded in a single year). Why do you not want to believe them or the anecdotal evidence from around the worlds supporting thier observations ?

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

A global 0.7C drop in ONE year !! Thats more than the claimed 0.6C rise for the entire 20th century by the global warming alarmists

More hard data on recent cooling trends can be found here too...... this time (amazingly) from those much vaunted UN experts !!.

No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off

[prashamk]

As per an expert friend, a period of atleast 30 years should be considered while observing any trend. Though last couple of years have registered drop, overall trend is still towards warming.

[flogger]

"As per an expert friend, a period of atleast 30 years should be considered while observing any trend. Though last couple of years have registered drop, overall trend is still towards warming."

I agree though the trend is flat at the moment. I qualify that though by saying ,could you just imagine the media hysteria had that annual temperature change been upwards 0.7C rather than downwards. It seems to me that the burden of proof that mankind is innocent of influencing climate change is always far higher than the opposite. It reminds you of the tactics used during the Iraqi WMD scare, where again they too were guilty until proven innocent despite lots of evidence to the contrary from UN inspectors beforehand. However a political goal was achieved despite destroying Iraq in the process ! For Iraq substitute mankind and you'll get the climate analogy.

[spot1234]

The motto is a joke, taken from a scene in a film with a kangaroo court.

You have no interest in the truth your playing to the gallery. Its obvious, you raise questions
you say we can't answer and are the linchpin of our case and when in due course they are answered you just raise new questions. I've seen it before, Your ten-a-penny on the internet you want to take over any forum where this subject is discussed and stop all intelligent discussion. I don't know if your all part of some doomsday cult trying to fuck the world up by using half assed arguments from bloggs to convince stupid people that mankind can't possibly have any effect on the world or what.

You do however raise some interesting questions, but I assume that Google is blocked wherever you access the internet from because if you had spent ten minutes searching for those questions that the AGW crowd is apparently dodging you could have found answers.
Since time is pressing I will just attempt to answer one.

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

spot1234

You used the term ‘light’ when you asked me the question. Did you really mean ‘light’ or longer-wave infra-red radiation? The sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared. This means that the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM). I would think this means that most of the heat-producing radiation escapes it.

Without the greenhouse effect the earth would have the same average temperature as the moon. We know its different, we know how different we know its due to the atmosphere and we know from the spectrograph already referred to what percentage to attribute to CO2.

I meant all light including IR The frequency is irrelevant its the amount of IR that it absorbs that is relevant. I am impressed that you know the frequency that CO2 absorbs IR. I however am less impressed by the statement "Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared."

You want some stinking evidence, Look at the sun with a IR camera. I don't know if it would be covered by warranty if you took it back to the shop after the experiment.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by spot1234

The motto is a joke, taken from a scene in a film with a kangaroo court.

You have no interest in the truth your playing to the gallery. Its obvious, you raise questions
you say we can't answer and are the linchpin of our case and when in due course they are answered you just raise new questions. I've seen it before, Your ten-a-penny on the internet you want to take over any forum where this subject is discussed and stop all intelligent discussion. I don't know if your all part of some doomsday cult trying to fuck the world up by using half assed arguments from bloggs to convince stupid people that mankind can't possibly have any effect on the world or what.

You do however raise some interesting questions, but I assume that Google is blocked wherever you access the internet from because if you had spent ten minutes searching for those questions that the AGW crowd is apparently dodging you could have found answers.
Since time is pressing I will just attempt to answer one.




Without the greenhouse effect the earth would have the same average temperature as the moon. We know its different, we know how different we know its due to the atmosphere and we know from the spectrograph already referred to what percentage to attribute to CO2.

I meant all light including IR The frequency is irrelevant its the amount of IR that it absorbs that is relevant. I am impressed that you know the frequency that CO2 absorbs IR. I however am less impressed by the statement "Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared."

You want some stinking evidence, Look at the sun with a IR camera. I don't know if it would be covered by warranty if you took it back to the shop after the experiment.

Although you are right about the infrared from the sun - that was a stupid thing for me to say and it will teach me to post when I am tired - but, in general, I can safely say that you have lived up to my expectations.

None of my questions were answered and you have tried to deflect my main point about your lack of hard evidence. When you grow up you may learn that hurling insults is easy. Having the guts to admit you are wrong and answering a direct question is more difficult - especially when you have nothing to answer with.

You are prepared to be complicit with an organisation which is going to cost the governments (and people) of this planet trillions of dollars on the flimsiest of evidence from computer models - and you accuse me of trying to screw the world? Doomsday cult? Pathetic. What on Earth are you on? Where did you get the idea that I think mankind cannot affect the planet? Have you read any of my previous posts? Affecting the planet in many ways and causing climate change are two different subjects. Stop avoiding the point and start earning some respect.

Oh, and I don't want to be picky, but 'your' is a possessive adjective which you seem to use instead of 'you're', which is a contraction of 'you are'. Your insults tend to lose impact when you can't construct a coherent sentence properly.

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by ThankyouMoneypenny

Although you are right about the infrared from the sun - that was a stupid thing for me to say and it will teach me to post when I am tired - but, in general, I can safely say that you have lived up to my expectations.

None of my questions were answered and you have tried to deflect my main point about your lack of hard evidence. When you grow up you may learn that hurling insults is easy. Having the guts to admit you are wrong and answering a direct question is more difficult - especially when you have nothing to answer with.

You are prepared to be complicit with an organisation which is going to cost the governments (and people) of this planet trillions of dollars on the flimsiest of evidence from computer models - and you accuse me of trying to screw the world? Doomsday cult? Pathetic. What on Earth are you on? Where did you get the idea that I think mankind cannot affect the planet? Have you read any of my previous posts? Affecting the planet in many ways and causing climate change are two different subjects. Stop avoiding the point and start earning some respect.

Oh, and I don't want to be picky, but 'your' is a possessive adjective which you seem to use instead of 'you're', which is a contraction of 'you are'. Your insults tend to lose impact when you can't construct a coherent sentence properly.

I too have raised questions that are still awaiting answers, such as why are arctic and alpine regions warming more then other areas if the change is due to extra evaporation from man made sources?

The point is your denying that there is hard evidence, and there is; the spectrograph. The fact that you don't believe is irrelevant, its true and it has shown to be true.

Your point with the sun was not some random mistake. Reading your post it seems that untill yesterday your whole objection to AGW is based on the fact that the sun does not emit enough IR to effect the climate. It seems to me that you were implying that most of the energy that we think CO2 absorbs just passes straight through the atmosphere and this fact is not accounted for by the AGW crowd. true I make mistakes as well, but you have to admit that you're hardly qualified to say whether or not enough data exists to make a judgment.

[ThankyouMoneypenny]

Originally Posted by spot1234

I too have raised questions that are still awaiting answers, such as why are arctic and alpine regions warming more then other areas if the change is due to extra evaporation from man made sources?

The point is your denying that there is hard evidence, and there is; the spectrograph. The fact that you don't believe is irrelevant, its true and it has shown to be true.

Your point with the sun was not some random mistake. Reading your post it seems that untill yesterday your whole objection to AGW is based on the fact that the sun does not emit enough IR to effect the climate. It seems to me that you were implying that most of the energy that we think CO2 absorbs just passes straight through the atmosphere and this fact is not accounted for by the AGW crowd. true I make mistakes as well, but you have to admit that you're hardly qualified to say whether or not enough data exists to make a judgment.

Fair enough. Lets talk about AGW. I will attempt to answer your questions.

Para 1: You asked BestTimesNow (page 7 of this thread, 15 July) about Arctic and Alpine regions. Climate models suggest that polar regions should warm more quickly than temperate or tropical regions because the cold temperatures cause the air to be very dry. The low amounts of water vapor, (the most important greenhouse gas), causes the relative effects of other gases, such as CO2, to be greater. Thus climate change caused by an increase in CO2 should be most evident in the polar regions. I agree the temperature does appear to have risen slightly more in the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere mountainous regions, but not the Antarctic or, as far as I can make out, Southern Hemisphere mountainous regions. My answer to your question is that this observed temperature increase is more likely to have been caused by increased levels of soot (Black Carbon), causing a change in albedo, which has a larger effect than that of CO2. The reason that the Northern regions are more affected is - in my opinion - due to the fact that there is a larger concentration of industrial areas in that part of the planet.

Para 2: I am really not sure what you are getting at here. A spectrograph shows the chemical constitution of a gas by 'separating out' the different radiation wavelengths. It will therefore show, for example, what gasses make up a distant star. It will show that CO2 is present in the tested unit. Of course I believe that. What point are you making?

Para 3: No. You are wrong in your assessment of my problem with the AGW brigade. My problem has nothing to do with a lack of absorption of CO2. I have always admitted that CO2 is a GHG (see my posts of 11 July and 12 July). I will even reproduce something I wrote to Windguy, who called me a denier:
"By the way, I don't DENY that GW exists; I don't DENY that AGW exists and I don't DENY that CC exists. I just don't feel the need to panic over it and I just don't see the need to spend trillions of dollars on Kyoto policies. I firmly believe that mankind should stop wasting energy, but for reasons of efficiency, not fear."
My problem with AGW brigade is this: I do not agree that CO2 is the DRIVING factor behind GW (or CC) and, therefore, is not the ogre it is made out to be in terms of AGW. The hype surrounding CO2 has been extreme, and has been fuelled by the media and certain politicians.

Now here's a few questions for you:
1) Why can't computer modellers put historical data into the models and come up with the actual data we have today?
2) Why has the global temperature not risen relatively in accordance with the measured CO2 rise?

Cheers for now.