Quote:

---

I'm going to ask yet again. Post one link that we can actually read that establishes that the concentration level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperature across the globe. For all your dancing and bullshit you have still not done that. Not one time. If you think you have, please present that as a stand alone link so I don't have to go through your whole pile of bullshit yet again. It actually is something that could be proven beyond say a 95% level of probability. If it existed.

Understand the capacity of CO2? Show it. There is no reason to believe your story. None. It is a fiction. Produce the link. Or just give it up already, Bojangles.

All you offer is speculation and specious, twisted data from someone who lies. Hansen lied about more than you admit.

---

Quote:

---

It appears evidnet from the foregoing that the pressure dependence of radiative heat transfer is a first order effect, and its neglect has probably resulted in gross errors in previous attempts to solve the heat-ballance problem. The narrowing of spectral lines with decreasing pressure increases the transparency of atmospheric layers to such an extent that appreciable radiative-flux divergence is found for even the strongest lines. In particular, the strong carbon-dioxide band at 15 micrometers can NOT be assumed to be opague.

---

Quote:

---

I've sourced my stuff much more than you've sourced your stuff.

---

That is putting it mildly. I have never seen the case for global warming laid out so convincingly and comprehensively as you have done here in our forum. I want to thank you for taking the time to prove the skeptics wrong, cleaning their clock, and doing so in a civil manner.

And you did so in spite of powerful forces attempting to shut off the debate on the science side when it became clear they were losing. To the opposition's credit they did not make good on that threat.

Classic thread and one which will long be remembered.

Quote:

---

That is putting it mildly. I have never seen the case for global warming laid out so convincingly and comprehensively as you have done here in our forum. I want to thank you for taking the time to prove the skeptics wrong, cleaning their clock, and doing so in a civil manner.

And you did so in spite of powerful forces attempting to shut off the debate on the science side when it became clear they were losing. To the opposition's credit they did not make good on that threat.

Classic thread and one which will long be remembered.

---

Dont thank me, I am just doing what I feel needs to be done.
The responsibility now lies with you, and with every reader of this thread.
Use it, because it contains responses to some VERY common global warming myths.
Dont just stop here and read what I said, and walk away comforted that science has won...
Because it has not. There are very powerful forces at work right now against the science, and it is your job as a human being to stand up for good science and show others exactly what you learned here.
Take away these responses to other forums, other people. Don't let people say erroneous statements and just walk away. Read the data, educate yourself on the issue, you owe it to the world and mankind to educate yourself on this issue and take a stance, take a stand.

Update:

As a funny anecdote, this thread is about to be more read than the forum rules

Quote:

---

That is putting it mildly. I have never seen the case for global warming laid out so convincingly and comprehensively as you have done here in our forum.

---

Quote:

---

The Warmenist hypothesis is that the main driver for climate change is CO2
concentration in the atmosphere, and that human activity is responsible for the recent
increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Neither of these hypotheses have been shown to be accurate. CO2 concentrations rose and
fell repeatedly long before the Industrial Age began.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, long before humans ever appeared on the planet. Global surface
temperatures also rose and fell repeatedly long before the Industrial Age began and long
before humans appeared on the planet. And there is scientific evidence as strong and as
peer-reviewed and as credible as anything supernovasky has presented here that increases
in global temperature have preceded increases in CO2.

---

The reasons behind the precession of temperature to CO2 in the vostok temperature record
are clear as day. Initial temperature spikes could not have been caused by CO2, because
there was no mechanism that increases CO2 at the rate that we are seeing today, not even
volcanic eruptions. There are other events that can also change temperature, and I have
never argued that such events do not exist. Other forcings for temperature are
well-explored in climatology. Take a look at the actual Vostok Ice Core Data:




What you are looking at when you look at the Vostok Ice
Core is the presence of cycles called Milankovitch cycles. This is a natural increase in
temperature caused by orbital eccentricity and procession that occurs every tens of
thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch predicted these cycles in these papers:

Milankovitch, Milutin (1930). "Mathematische Klimalehre und Astronomische Theorie der Kilimaschwankungen." In Handbuch der Klimatologie, edited by W. Köppen and R. Geiger, Vol. 1, Pt. A, pp. 1-176. Berlin: Borntraeger.

Milankovitch, Milutin (1941). Canon of Insolation and the Ice Age Problem. Belgrade: Koniglich Serbische Akademie.

And they were validated by the Volstok ice core data.

Some scientists doubted that the time lag could be measured so precisely, but most of the evidence pointed to a lag. It seemed that rises or falls in carbon dioxide levels had not initiated the glacial cycles.

In fact most scientists had long since abandoned that hypothesis. In the 1960s, painstaking studies had shown that subtle shifts in our planet's orbit around the Sun (called Milankovitch cycles) set the timing of ice ages. The amount of sunlight that fell in a given latitude and season varied predictably over millenia, altering how long snow lingered in the spring, which crucially affected how much sunlight was absorbed. The fact that carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the orbital effect should have been no surprise. But now this could be seen as the first step in a powerful feedback cycle. For even a small change in the gas level would bring further changes in the global heat balance, which would in turn alter the gas level, which... and so forth. This suggested how tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit could be amplified into the enormous swings of glacial cycles. Or, more ominously, how a change in the gas level initiated by humanity might be amplified through a temperature feedback loop.

This is further discussed in the following paper:

Imbrie, John Z., et al. (1984). "The Orbital Theory of Pleistocene Climate: Support from a Revised Chronology of the Marine Delta-18O Record." In Milankovitch and Climate. Understanding the Response to Astronomical Forcing, edited by A. Berger et al., pp. 269-305. Dordrecht: Reidel.

I also discussed feedback loops in earlier posts.

Quote:

---

Anyone with an objective eye can look at the graph of increasing CO2 concentration and note it is a pretty smooth increase. That same person can look at the NASA GISS graph and notice it is far from smooth. What the fuck happened between roughly 1940 and 1980? In a four decade span when the world was becoming increasingly industrialized (the post WWII boom), at a time when the CO2 concentration was rising steadily, the temperature was not increasing. How can that be?

---

It is because the world was becoming increasingly industrialized, that the world cooled. Woooah! Stop the presses, but I thought industrialization led to global warming! Not so fast. There were other, stronger factors at play in 1940 to the late 1970s. Before I talk about those effects, I want to bring up this graph that I'm sure anyone whose been watching this debate has seen so many times before:



Take a look at the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Why did the temperature drop so far then, when CO2 was increasing so fast? Nobody in their right mind, especially any self-respecting climatologist, will claim that there are no other forcers for climate. There was something else at play...

The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud -- about 22 million tons -- combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years.

source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html

So, we just discovered that some pollutants have a cooling effect. Namely, aerosols and sulfates. I wonder how, then, we can explain the cooling from 1940, to 1980... Well, with what I just said, sulfates would be a great place to look. After all, from 1940 to 1980, Sulfate emissions were skyrocketing and, in the late 1970s, because of international treaties and the baning of certain aerosols, the aerosol concentration in the atmosphere started dropping. Anyone can look at earlier graphs to see, also, that during the time period after 1970, CO2's slope increased plenty from what it was up until around 1950 and 1960. Therefore, the planet's temperature had to catch up with the CO2, that it had halted through the use of very harmful aerosols and sulfates that were leading to utter destruction of ecosystems, increased incidence of diseases and cancers, and horrible polution. Here is the graph of sulfate emissions...



source: http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/

I want you to notice something, from looking at that chart. Check out 1946 on the sulfate chart. What happens? Sulfates drop a lot, and what happens to the temperature? It goes up a bit. I want you to also notice that from 1940-1980, humanity saw the largest increase of sulfates and aerosols in recorded history. As such, its powerful coolant effects stabilized the warming effects of CO2. This ended in 1980, which is when treaties were beginning to be signed that limited aerosol emissions. Likewise, what happened as soon as sulfate levels evened out, and even dropped a little? CO2 gained a higher slope, and temperatures started soaring again.

Sulfates are temporary in the atmosphere. They are short lived, but powerful when they are emitted. They balance out faster than CO2 whenever there is no constant addition, as there was in 1940-1980.

You can read much more about this from this source:

Schneider, Stephen H., and Clifford Mass (1975). "Volcanic Dust, Sunspots and Long-Term Climate Trends: Theories in Search of Verification." In Proceedings of the WMO/IAMAP Symposium on Long-Term Climatic Fluctuations, Norwich, Aug. 1975 (WMO Doc. 421), edited by World Meteorological Organization (WMO), pp. 365-72. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.

Quote:

---

The Warmenists say, well, there were other factors involved during those four decades. Factors so powerful they completely overwhelmed the CO2 effect. Okay... fair enough. But why is that excuse only valid for CO2-induced warmening? Why is it not valid for TSI-induced warming and PDO-induced warming?

---

Quote:

---

It wobbles my mind that the best you can do is some tangentially relevant studies from 50 years ago that do not even address what I am asking for. Are you trying to tell us all that there have been no studies that establish that CO2 causes global warming in the last 50 years? Because that's what you're telling me. Of course, I knew that already. But surely there must be some recent studies somewhere by somebody that can show some causal connection. Or maybe there just isn't.

---

It addresses exactly what you are asking for.
Causation.
They are papers that explain exactly how CO2 causes increased absorption.
They are papers repudiating what Phred said about the earth's atmosphere being opague to infrared.
They are papers whose validity still stand to this day, based on GREAT science, cited by many people since their time, and never unproven.

What you are doing is called duck and run. You get what you are asking for, an explanation, a source. This has happened so many times in this debate. As soon as you got an answer, a credible answer, a source, a counterpoint, you move to a new topic of debate, and try to expand upon your original request.

Plass and Kaplan were some of the brightest scientists of the 20th century.
The matter was completely settled by them, and their radiation math still stands.

Also remember that the second article I linked, this one:

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/26/2/pdf/i1520-0469-26-2-189.pdf

Was in 1968. There really have been no new findings on this subject since then. It was proven, without a doubt, that CO2 has a much stronger effect in the upper atmosphere.

Feel free to engage in counterpoint, if you want to talk more science, I'm a bit while I wrote this, so I will have to come back later when I am clear-headed to discuss the matter further. Apologies for those that have been following the debate if I cannot respond until tonight.

Quote:

---

It sure wasn't proven in that study. Not even close. Or even addressed directly. Title of the study:

Infrared Radiative Cooling in the Middle Atmosphere

Come on man, who's zooming who?

---

Quote:

---

Thus, the distribution above 70 km given by figure 10 corresponds to the rate of temperature change by CO2 alone [instead of CO2, water vapor, and ozone]. The general pattern of radiative cooling in the upper stratosphere andmesosphere follows the rate of temperature change for CO2.

---

Quote:

---

I grouped these two because they are very similar claims. The first one assumes that the CO2 in the atmosphere is already so high that we have reached a logarathmic stasis, a .99, .999, .9999, as you have showen. The second part is that there are few absorbtion bands in the CO2 spectrum not already duplicated. Pat yourself on the back, because you are observing something that Plass observed, before he set out to study the atmosphere. Your model, like many models back then, were very simplistic, and almost assumed a static atmosphere. Here is the truth of the matter, from peer reviewed sources, as to the answer to those questions..

Most experts stuck by the old objection to the greenhouse theory of climate change — in the parts of the spectrum where infrared absorption took place, the CO2 plus the water vapor that were already in the atmosphere sufficed to block all the radiation that could be blocked. In this "saturated" condition, raising the level of the gas could not change anything. But this argument was falling into doubt. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920s had opened the way to an accurate theory for the details of how absorption took place, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War. Precise laboratory measurements studies during the war and after confirmed a new outlook. In the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements.

Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened considerably. With the primitive infrared instruments available earlier in the 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything else.

A modern spectrograph shows a set of peaks and valleys superimposed on each band, even at sea-level pressure. In cold air at low pressure, each band resolves into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. That showed up clearly in data compiled for the U.S. Air Force, drawing the attention of researchers to the details of the absorption, especially at high altitudes. Moreover, researchers working for the Air Force had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes—indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is fairly well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant.

---

Quote:

---

You keep giving me links to minutia that don't answer my question.

---

Quote:

---

The conclusion of the first hot and isotopic CO2 bands near 4.3 micrometers has been shown to be important to the radiative energy budget of the mesosphere because they augment CO2 net heating rates at altitudes near the 80 km level.

---

Quote:

---

"In summary, we conclude that net heating rates by carbon dioxide are important for the radiative ballance of the mesosphere since they maximize at the place where the most important radiative sources and sinks are minimum. We provide here updated solar heating and thermal cooling rates by CO2 near infrared bands which may be useful for inclusion in dynamical models of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere."

---

Quote:

---

zappa:

Infrared Radiative Cooling in the Middle Atmosphere

Come on man, who's zooming who?

---

Quote:

---

I dont think your sources are any less biased.

---

Quote:

---

The_Red_Crayon said:
I dont think your sources are any less biased.

---

Have you lost it, man?

Let's do a quick comparison.

Basically all of Phred's arguments and "data" stem from this one website.
http://icecap.us

Here is one of the many sites supernova is drawing his sources from.
http://ams.allenpress.com


If you can't see the inherent bias in Phred's source then you really have lost it.

Quote:

---

However, my sources span 20 academic journals, many scientific institutions, decades of climatological resource, and more.

---