Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

Learn the science instead of parroting a denier blog. Then come back and discuss this with relevant facts instead of with misleading facts.

 

regardless of how much data you present it's disputed...all sources are that confirm agw
even Spencer is incorrect...even the most basic chemistry and physics facts established more than a century ago are correct...they do nothing but repeatedly deny deny deny and when that doesn't work move the goalposts and finally toss in the great world wide socialist conspiracy controlled by Al Gore...

I'm surprised none of them as asked to confirm the world is round...

 

Of course but only if you read the AGW alarmist blogs.

 

How about an experiment from 1859 by John Tyndall

and here's an experiment you can do to prove it to yourself

OK Now where are you going to move the goalposts to?

 

The world cannot be round; no experiment has been performed to prove the world is round. The pictures from space have been photoshopped by the gub'mint

 

I already showed you a lab experiment that showed cause of auction. Maybe you should go back and watch it.

In addition, there are databases with carefully done measurements on the absorption properties of CO2 and other gasses that are used by a lot of applications (like the air force):
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

 

To settle this once and for all, the properties of CO2 and it's interaction have been known since the 1880s. That is not the real question though. The real question, one which has yet to be answered, is how much impact does man actually have on the very complex system called the climate. The current climate models have gotten it wrong to date.

 

How exactly is CO2 and temperature related?

There is no use talking about anything else until everyone agrees on the physics of CO2. What would be the point of going any deeper into the topic?

In addition, a great deal of climate science is rooted in physics. So there are a lot of conversations we could have on the physics of everything involved.

 

Scientists agree on the physics of CO2. That is indisputable. What scientists do not agree on is how much man affects the climate. That is disputable. One of the problems of climate models are their limitations. Until the warmists begin to publish the limitations, sans politics, nothing they do can be trustworthy. You will see some of the changes between the IPCC AR4 and AR5, mostly in subtle language like using "likely" instead of more resolute language because it is becoming apparent that the models, the same models used to advise politicians (and the reason they are funded by government) have not predicted the hiatus which points out that the models, which are limited as it is, have obvious flaws. The climate is not a simple system and simple physics do not explain what is going on. Bowerbird claims that the IPCC mentions the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and they do but for the modelers it is not considered to be a significant input. There are many other theories that are not incorporated in the modeling like the Stadium Wave. There are decadal and century long oscillations that are not incorporated in the models. This variability is not even completely understood or known. New things come to light monthly.

Science is not science unless all things are considered and tested and science, once politicized is no longer science but advocacy. Advocacy is where we stand today with the IPCC, a body created by government to advise government and subject to all political ambitions.

 

You still didn't answer my question. How and why is CO2 related to temperature?

 

Abso-freaking-lutely!! I remember one conversation on this board where there was an attempt to show how "high" scientists salaries were - until I compared them to a nurses salary

They are reasonably well paid - in that they get more than say a Burger King attendant but they do not earn more than a consultant medical officer

 

Yeah! I know! Al Gore or as denialists would have it ALgore has all the climate scientists chained to a hot lab bench in his basement cranking up the lightning to suit Igor

 

So, the blog you posted is more correct than others? Water vapor, most of which is naturally occuring, has more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Perhaps you can learn a little: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (Pay attention to Table 3).

 

Water vapor is a constant it cycles in and out of the atmosphere in approximately 2 weeks, this keeps temps constant and makes it possible for life to exist, only a very few degrees colder or warmer and we have a very different planet....co2 like water should also be a constant, cycling in and out of the atmosphere but it is accumulating because of anthropogenic emissions, once in the atmosphere it doesn't really leave it merely swaps out with ocean co2...that accumulating co2 results in warmer temps, which causes more evaporation, more water vapor, more ghgs, and even higher temps...

 

Ok, so I looked at the two links. Watched what they had to say. My reaction is this, Video #1 The infrared experiment, well all in good and neat, it doesn't say how much heat it would take to penetrate the CO2 blowing into the tube. It was only a candle, how warm can that actually be? Second, to the flip side to the experiment, if what he claimed was true then the CO2 would not let in sun light, instead it would reflect the heat. Hmm... not sure how the globe heats then. So there has to be more to the experiment which isn't there to prove anything. busted.

The myghtbuster video, all well and good but it doesn't tell us enough either. You see the claim was that the boxes with CO2 and Methane were one degree warmer than the two controlled boxes. Hmm.. one degree, never changed up to 300ppm. But, what they missed was what if they incremently increased the CO2 above 300PPM and see if that caused an increase in temperature. Again, the argument isn't that the CO2 isn't increasing, the argument is whether it causes an increase in temperature. Neither video tests that theory. busted, or, myth incomplete. The one note in the mythbuster video I don't know, is at what point did the temperature reach a one degree difference, they made it seem that the one degree was the difference through the process of incrementing the CO2 gas. Which then would tell me that an increase in CO2 did not have a causal affect on temperature. The temperature remained at a one degree difference to the control boxes up to 300PPM as did the methane up to it's BPM.

Which now brings me to another question, what would you rather have, a warmer climate, or a cooler one? I think a cooler one is more dangerous. It already wiped out the dinasours. Why do we want that? Hmmm.......

 

The blog I linked is correct because, as anyone with any knowledge of the science and math would know, the author uses accepted science and math to explain the influence of CO2 on the temperature.
The blog you linked to makes false claims such as "Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect [SIZE=-1](5)[/SIZE]." without explaining them or any attempt to back them up.

 

As Mannie pointed out - this blog is lying. Sorry but I am over being nice about the misinformation - particularly when it is deliberate attempts to skew data and misrepresent facts. I will add to Mannie's analysis by pointing out how important it is to look at references on sites like this

 

He was just trying to demonstrate why CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

As you can see in the above picture, light has a very long spectrum. When light comes in from the sun, it has more energy and thus a high frequency (short wavelength). When the light hits the surface of the earth, some of it is reflected and the rest is absorbed. The absorbed energy causes things to heat up and emit infrared (long wave radiation). CO2 doesn't absorb short wavelengths; instead, it absorbs the long wavelength of infrared.

Global warming isn't a problem because it implies a warmer climate in the future; instead, it is a problem because of how fast the warming is occurring.

 

Water vapor cannot force climate change, because its residence time in the atmosphere is too short. Only long-lived greenhouse gases can force climate change. Of those, CO2 is the most significant.

So perhaps the one here who should learn a few things is you.

 

No, because most of the Sun's energy arrives at Earth in the visible part of the spectrum, where CO2 is transparent. But most of the energy that leaves Earth is in the IR spectrum, where CO2 absorbs. That is the definition of a greenhouse gas: transparent in visible, absorbing in IR.

 

I find it amazing that someone that does not know something as basic as what you explained can have a credible opinion on climate change. The sad part is that even after you explained it, I'll bet he still won't believe you.

 

Not only that he'll have a vote in future elections!...is it any wonder our governments are so dysfunctional, there are political parties that actually pander to this mindset for support...

 

OK, your blog is correct because it was YOUR link. I see. Accepted science and math? Is that the science and math that is skewed to align with your beliefs on the subject?

Water vapor is a major player in climate change: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

 

Many sources of information may not have all the citations they should. That does not mean that they are wrong. You point out that several sources are many years old. It doesn't matter for my point. The Earth's atmospheric composition has been the same for some time now. Water vapor is a major player in climate change: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

- - - Updated - - -

Water vapor and climate change.

 

If you take the trouble to read the pages you cite, you will discover that water vapor is a feedback agent, but not a forcing agent. This is climate science 101. Yes, it plays a role, but the role it plays is to amplify what CO2 does. Which means CO2 is the controlling (forcing) agent.