toldailytopic: Do you believe mankind is causing global warming?

[Alate_One]

In case anyone was wondering, this past June was the 7th warmest Globally.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If it's all so corrupt and evil and insidious, why don't we have a coherent climate policy?

We don't have a coherent climate policy because some Americans haven't been dumbed down enough to miss the implications of any proposed method of dealing with anthropogenic global warming.

All the proposed solutions aim at returning Americans back to pre-industrial living standards and technology, with some notable exceptions, like Al Gore, who are exempt.

So, are you willing to give up heating fuel, electricity, and running water yet? If so, how are you still posting on TOL?

Carbon dioxide has unique long-term effects on climate change that are largely "irreversible" for one thousand years after emissions stop (zero further emissions). The greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide do not persist over time in the same way as carbon dioxide. Even if carbon emissions were to completely cease, atmospheric temperatures are not expected to decrease significantly.​

If all our efforts to change any possible anthropogenic global warming, using the proposed methods of restricting emissions, will not have any effect for one thousand years, then it is ridiculous to spend any effort today in restricting emissions.

 

[Alate_One]

We don't have a coherent climate policy because some Americans haven't been dumbed down enough to miss the implications of any proposed method of dealing with anthropogenic global warming.

All the proposed solutions aim at returning Americans back to pre-industrial living standards and technology, with some notable exceptions, like Al Gore, who are exempt.

So, are you willing to give up heating fuel, electricity, and running water yet? If so, how are you still posting on TOL?

This is totally untrue, ridiculous and moronic for you to even post. Nobody is suggesting any serious policy that would do anything remotely like that. It's pretty obvious who has been duped, and it isn't those that accept the science.

Carbon dioxide has unique long-term effects on climate change that are largely "irreversible" for one thousand years after emissions stop (zero further emissions). The greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide do not persist over time in the same way as carbon dioxide. Even if carbon emissions were to completely cease, atmospheric temperatures are not expected to decrease significantly.​

If all our efforts to change any possible anthropogenic global warming, using the proposed methods of restricting emissions, will not have any effect for one thousand years, then it is ridiculous to spend any effort today in restricting emissions.

Gee, you're apparently unable to read and understand scientific information. Yes we've gone beyond the point of no return for SOME amount of warming for thousands of years. That doesn't mean that reducing emissions will not reduce the amount of warming in the future. In fact what you just posted should ENCOURAGE you to reduce emissions because all emissions have a long lasting effect. So the less we produce the less long lasting impacts we will have.

However, I'm pretty sure that people like you will confuse and control enough politicians that no emissions reductions will occur. I hope you and your grandchildren enjoy the experiment you're running on the globe I know I'm not.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is totally untrue, ridiculous and moronic for you to even post. Nobody is suggesting any serious policy that would do anything remotely like that. It's pretty obvious who has been duped, and it isn't those that accept the science.

Looks like you are not able to apply critical thinking to global warming policies.:wave2:
You are so concerned with the possible cause of global warming you are willing to make foolish decisions in order to stop it.

Here are the facts:
Man may be responsible for a change from in atmospheric carbon dioxide from .00028 to .00038 of the total atmosphere. This is determined by correlation from measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial age compared to the amount now.
Carbon dioxide may be a contributing cause to global temperatures. This is determined by measurements that show the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises and falls near the same time that the global temperatures rise and fall. However, the measurements show that the rise and fall in carbon dioxide trail the global temperature rise and fall by years or decades, making carbon dioxide the only gas that has been reported to cause changes in the global temperature retroactively. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of .00045 by the year 2040 may cause a rise in temperature to reach a total change of 2.1°C (3.78°F) higher than pre-industrial temperatures in 1550 (during the Little Ice Age).
Political proposals for dealing with the threat of global warming mainly use limiting carbon dioxide emissions as the solution, to be undertaken by the United States of America but not by China, even though China is the major contributer of carbon dioxide emissions.

Sounds pretty foolish to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Man may be responsible for a change from in atmospheric carbon dioxide from .00028 to .00038 of the total atmosphere.

Hurricane Katrina was responsible for only about 0.0004 of the depth of the Gulf of Mexico. So, the conclusion is that it wasn't anything to worry about? lain: Can you see the fallacy here?

Carbon dioxide may be a contributing cause to global temperatures. This is determined by measurements that show the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rises and falls near the same time that the global temperatures rise and fall. However, the measurements show that the rise and fall in carbon dioxide trail the global temperature rise and fall by years or decades,

Well, let's take a look...

Surprise.

Political proposals for dealing with the threat of global warming...

Have nothing to do with the fact of warming itself. Let's not get sidetracked.

BTW, if you don't know why a small increase in CO2 makes a relatively big increase in temperature, I'll explain it to you. Hint: check the absorbance spectrum of CO2.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Hurricane Katrina was responsible for only about 0.0004 of the depth of the Gulf of Mexico. So, the conclusion is that it wasn't anything to worry about? Can you see the fallacy here?

Sure can. Your fallacy is applying a Eustatic based sea level measurement as if it was a local mean sea level (LMSL). That has nothing to do with atmospheric ppm.

Well, let's take a look...

Surprise.

Surprise back:

Have nothing to do with the fact of warming itself. Let's not get sidetracked.

You are an idiot if you think that political proposals have nothing to do with global warming policies. Here, read what my post was about again:

Looks like you are not able to apply critical thinking to global warming policies.:wave2:

Of course, you were probably just trying to sidetrack everyone.

BTW, if you don't know why a small increase in CO2 makes a relatively big increase in temperature, I'll explain it to you. Hint: check the absorbance spectrum of CO2.

"The CO2 molecules in particular, with their absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm, which are as characteristic and as unchangeable as a human fingerprint, have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the "open radiation window" between 7 and 13 µm. This would be valid even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide".
W. Thüne, "Wettersatelliten widerlegen Treibhaus-These", (weather satellites refute greenhouse theory) VDI-Nachrichten, Nov.11, 1998​

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hurricane Katrina was responsible for only about 0.0004 of the depth of the Gulf of Mexico. So, the conclusion is that it wasn't anything to worry about? Can you see the fallacy here?

Sure can. Your fallacy is applying a Eustatic based sea level measurement as if it was a local mean sea level (LMSL).

Nope. What it says is that incremental changes in non-linear systems can have huge effects. A change in four-ten thousands in the sea devastated New Orleans. But there's another surprise you don't get yet.

Barbarian on the notion that the rise in temp is not preceded by a rise in CO2:
Well, let's take a look...

(Graph shows that it is)

Surprise.

Surprise back:

(proxy data inferred from 400,000 years ago)

Unfortunately, it's not 400,000 years ago. It's now. And over the last 300 years, temps have followed CO2, possibly because anthropogenic forcing is more important over just a few centuries. You pretty much proved my point for me.

Political proposals for dealing with the threat of global warming...

Have nothing to do with the fact of warming itself. Let's not get sidetracked.

You are an idiot if you think that political proposals have nothing to do with global warming policies.

Read it again. They have nothing to do with the fact of warming itself. What the policies or political considerations might be have nothing to do with the way CO2 affects the climate. Peddle you political stuff elsewhere. This thread is about the question of warming, not what to do about it.

Here, read what my post was about again:

(aborted thread hijack attempt)

Looks like you are not able to apply critical thinking to global warming policies.

Nice try. Of course, you were probably just trying to sidetrack everyone. Next time, read the OP.

Barbarian chuckles:
BTW, if you don't know why a small increase in CO2 makes a relatively big increase in temperature, I'll explain it to you. Hint: check the absorbance spectrum of CO2.

The CO2 molecules in particular, with their absorption bands at 2.8 µm, 4.5 µm, and 15 µm, which are as characteristic and as unchangeable as a human fingerprint, have no effect on the daily course of temperature, because they cannot close the "open radiation window" between 7 and 13 µm. This would be valid even if the earth were surrounded by an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide".

W. Thüne, "Wettersatelliten widerlegen Treibhaus-These", (weather satellites refute greenhouse theory) VDI-Nachrichten, Nov.11, 1998

Willy is a bit behind the curve on his science for that one:

Here's a graph showing the aborbtion spectra for various greenhouse gases:

The three big ones are water vapor, methane, and CO2. Notice that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared rays at wavelengths where the other two major greenhouse gases don't absorb at all. So any addition in CO2 causes a direct rise in temperature by capturing thermal energy not trapped at all by the other two. The fact is, infrared radiation is spread over that spectrum. And the reason the atmosphere is heated by CO2, is that it blocks infrared at wavelengths the other main greenhouse gases do not.

"Earth radiation", the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns.
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

If you don't read the literature, you're easy prey for anyone with a story to tell.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nope. What it says is that incremental changes in non-linear systems can have huge effects. A change in four-ten thousands in the sea devastated New Orleans. But there's another surprise you don't get yet.

You are showing yourself to be a con man.
The average elevation of the city is currently 1 to 2 feet below sea level. The lowest areas are 6 feet below sea level. None of the damage to New Orleans was caused by the water that remained under 6 feet below sea level.

(Graph shows that it is)

(proxy data inferred from 400,000 years ago)

Unfortunately, it's not 400,000 years ago. It's now. And over the last 300 years, temps have followed CO2, possibly because anthropogenic forcing is more important over just a few centuries. You pretty much proved my point for me.

Your graph does not show whether CO2 follows or precedes temperature. It looks like the graph was designed to avoid showing that, so you pretty much proved my point.
Here is another graph of the data you are using, but it shows whether temperature or CO2 precedes the other:

Willy is a bit behind the curve on his science for that one:

Here's a graph showing the aborbtion spectra for various greenhouse gases:

The three big ones are water vapor, methane, and CO2. Notice that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared rays at wavelengths where the other two major greenhouse gases don't absorb at all. So any addition in CO2 causes a direct rise in temperature by capturing thermal energy not trapped at all by the other two. The fact is, infrared radiation is spread over that spectrum. And the reason the atmosphere is heated by CO2, is that it blocks infrared at wavelengths the other main greenhouse gases do not.

"Earth radiation", the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns.
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html

If you don't read the literature, you're easy prey for anyone with a story to tell.

It is not as straightforward as you are trying to make it appear.
From your site:
The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Nope. What it says is that incremental changes in non-linear systems can have huge effects. A change in four-ten thousands in the sea devastated New Orleans. But there's another surprise you don't get yet.

You are showing yourself to be a con man.

Well, let's see what you have to show that...

Gennie tries a new approach.

The average elevation of the city is currently 1 to 2 feet below sea level.

But the levees were above sea level. A tiny change in the depth of the Gulf, caused by Katrina swamped the levees and devastated the city. As you learned, tiny changes in non-linear systems can have profound effects. Do a little research and learn about it.

Barbarian on the proxy data:
Unfortunately, it's not 400,000 years ago. It's now. And over the last 300 years, temps have followed CO2, possibly because anthropogenic forcing is more important over just a few centuries. You pretty much proved my point for me.

Your graph does not show whether CO2 follows or precedes temperature.

Actually, as anyone can see, the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temps. C'mon.

Here is another graph of the data you are using, but it shows whether temperature or CO2 precedes the other:

But here they did a little bait-and-switch on you. That's not a temp/CO2 graph. It's a rate-of-change. So it's sensitive to seasonal and even monthly variations, Picture a race in which we're trying to find which car has the highest top speed. So both start at a line and accelerate at a signal. The first car to cross the finish line is the fastest, right? That's what your rate of change graph is saying. But it's not necessarily true. Think about why.

Barbarian observes:
Willy is a bit behind the curve on his science for that one:
Here's a graph showing the aborbtion spectra for various greenhouse gases:

The three big ones are water vapor, methane, and CO2. Notice that carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared rays at wavelengths where the other two major greenhouse gases don't absorb at all. So any addition in CO2 causes a direct rise in temperature by capturing thermal energy not trapped at all by the other two. The fact is, infrared radiation is spread over that spectrum. And the reason the atmosphere is heated by CO2, is that it blocks infrared at wavelengths the other main greenhouse gases do not.

"Earth radiation", the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns.
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccours.../spectrum.html

If you don't read the literature, you're easy prey for anyone with a story to tell.

It is not as straightforward as you are trying to make it appear.

It's very complicated. The reason this happens is that chemical bonds

Infrared radiation is absorbed by organic molecules and converted into energy of molecular vibration. In IR spectroscopy, an organic molecule is exposed to infrared radiation. When the radiant energy matches the energy of a specific molecular vibration, absorption occurs. A typical IR spectrum is shown below. The wavenumber, plotted on the X-axis, is proportional to energy; therefore, the highest energy vibrations
are on the left. The percent transmittance (%T) is plotted on the Y-axis. An absorption of radiant energy is therefore represented by a “trough” in the curve: zero transmittance corresponds to 100% absorption of light at that wavelength...
http://orgchem.colorado.edu/hndbksupport/irtutor/IRtheory.pdf

Take a look at the pictures, to learn why the absorbance is at those wavelengths.

The inescapable fact is that CO2 blocks infrared radiation at wavelengths other major greenhouse gases do not. And that is why a rise in CO2 (as you see in the graph) causes a rise in temperature.

The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

Look at the graph. Note where 10 microns is on the x axis. Move your finger straight up. Notice that no gas listed absorbs at that wavelength. It means that the atmosphere is basically transparent to infrared at that wavelength. Keep the part in red in mind for a moment.

Now, look at the x axis at about 3.75 to 4.0 microns. Move your finger up the graph. Notice that, of the major greenhouse gases, only CO2 absorbs strongly at that wavelength. Essentially all the absorbance at that wavelength is CO2. So CO2 makes a larger than expected effect (there isn't much nitrous oxide in the atmosphere, although it is increasing, and is a significant factor).

The spectrum of infrared is from about 0.75 to 1000 microns, BTW.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But the levees were above sea level. A tiny change in the depth of the Gulf, caused by Katrina swamped the levees and devastated the city. As you learned, tiny changes in non-linear systems can have profound effects. Do a little research and learn about it.

The depth of the Gulf did not change, nor was it "tiny changes in non-linear systems" that swamped the levees.
You are being disingenuous.

The 120 mph winds of Katrina created a storm surge.

Storm surges are caused primarily by high winds pushing on the ocean's surface. The wind causes the water to pile up higher than the ordinary sea level.
...
When referencing storm surge height, it is important to clarify the usage, as well as the reference point.
(source)​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Actually, as anyone can see, the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temps. C'mon.

Can't tell in the misleading graph you used.

But here they did a little bait-and-switch on you. That's not a temp/CO2 graph. It's a rate-of-change. So it's sensitive to seasonal and even monthly variations, Picture a race in which we're trying to find which car has the highest top speed. So both start at a line and accelerate at a signal. The first car to cross the finish line is the fastest, right? That's what your rate of change graph is saying. But it's not necessarily true. Think about why.

Does the change in CO2 come before or after the change in temperature?

 

[The Barbarian]

The depth of the Gulf did not change

That's what a storm surge is. It's a change in the depth of the water. That's why it rises over low-lying land. In this case, a few meters out of thousands made all the difference.

You are being disingenuous.

I don't think denial will do you much good.

The wind causes the water to pile up higher than the ordinary sea level.

Just a few meters deeper. But that was enough.

The point, which you seem to have lost again, is that very small changes can make a big difference. Hence, an essentially complete blocking of the 3.75-4.0 micron band of infrared does indeed warm things up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Actually, as anyone can see, the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temps. C'mon.
Can't tell in the misleading graph you used.
Barbarian observes:

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
But here they did a little bait-and-switch on you. That's not a temp/CO2 graph. It's a rate-of-change. So it's sensitive to seasonal and even monthly variations.

Picture a race in which we're trying to find which car has the highest top speed. So both start at a line and accelerate at a signal. The first car to cross the finish line is the fastest, right? That's what your rate of change graph is saying. But it's not necessarily true. Think about why.

Does the change in CO2 come before or after the change in temperature?

Pretty close to the same, isn't it? But it comes before. It's why those guys switched the actual temp graph with a rate-of-change graph.

They didn't like what the data show.

It's also why your German denier neglected to tell you what the meaning of that "window" was, or why CO2 blocks infrared at wavelengths not blocked by water vapor or methane. Lying by not telling the whole truth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's what a storm surge is. It's a change in the depth of the water. That's why it rises over low-lying land. In this case, a few meters out of thousands made all the difference.



I don't think denial will do you much good.



Just a few meters deeper. But that was enough.

The point, which you seem to have lost again, is that very small changes can make a big difference. Hence, an essentially complete blocking of the 3.75-4.0 micron band of infrared does indeed warm things up.

"When referencing storm surge height, it is important to clarify the usage, as well as the reference point."​

Looks like you are unable to use the common reference points used to determine sea level, which are all on land.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
Actually, as anyone can see, the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temps. C'mon.
Can't tell in the misleading graph you used.
Barbarian observes:




Pretty close to the same, isn't it? But it comes before. It's why those guys switched the actual temp graph with a rate-of-change graph.

They didn't like what the data show.

It's also why your German denier neglected to tell you what the meaning of that "window" was, or why CO2 blocks infrared at wavelengths not blocked by water vapor or methane. Lying by not telling the whole truth.

:rotfl:
You must think everyone is stupid.

You cannot have a rate-of-change without a change to measure.
You also cannot admit that the red line (temperature) comes before the black line (CO2).

Look carefully at the graph around 1973. The rate the temperature changed in the summer of 1973 matches the rate the CO2 changed in the winter of 1973/4. The rest of the graph I posted also matches a lot better than your "wiggly line and straight line" graph which lies by omission.

:chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

You must think everyone is stupid.

Actually, you seem to be the only one who hasn't figured it out. lain:

The fact is, an increase in CO2 causes warming, because CO2 absorbs infrared at wavelengths other greenhouse gases do not.

You cannot have a rate-of-change without a change to measure.

But of course, your guys didn't just graph the temperature and CO2 concentration, because, as you saw, that shows temps following CO2.

You also cannot admit that the red line (temperature) comes before the black line (CO2).

Actually, as the graph shows, it's not temperature and CO2, The graph of temp and CO2 has the temps rising after CO2 rises. That's why they finagled it into "rate of change."

 

[eameece]

I hope you climate skeptic tea drinkers continue to enjoy the extreme weather you voted for. You voted for it, you scream for it, you GOT IT. I think you need more and more and more of it, until you boil like the frog in the pot. You are condemning us all to this, you Republican guys in the American heartland. It's good that you are getting the worst of it. Again, you voted for it! And most of you are proud of how you voted!

 

[genuineoriginal]

But of course, your guys didn't just graph the temperature and CO2 concentration, because, as you saw, that shows temps following CO2.

Actually, as the graph shows, it's not temperature and CO2, The graph of temp and CO2 has the temps rising after CO2 rises. That's why they finagled it into "rate of change."

Okay, I take it back. You don't think others are stupid, it is you who are stupid.

My complaint about the graph you used is that it is not informative about whether CO2 changes come before or after temperature changes. I suppose that if you stand on your head and squint really really hard you might imagine that you can see that information.

Your complaint about the graph I used is that it does not show the quantities of the CO2 and the temperature against a baseline value. What you seem too stupid to understand is that rate of change describes the change in quantity over the change in time. The graph displays the percent change in quantity from one time period until the next.
As the graph states, the rate of change is based on the average quantity difference from the average quantity recorded 12 months prior. So, if the graph shows a red line going up, it means that the average temperature went up by that amount in a 12 year period. The graph is smoothed to remove fluctuations from day/night cycles and the averaging also smooths out the variations from the summer/winter seasons, leaving a graph that displays only the relevant information: whether the average temperature rose or fell in a 12 month period and whether the quantity of CO2 measured rose or fell in the same period.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I hope you climate skeptic tea drinkers continue to enjoy the extreme weather you voted for. You voted for it, you scream for it, you GOT IT. I think you need more and more and more of it, until you boil like the frog in the pot. You are condemning us all to this, you Republican guys in the American heartland. It's good that you are getting the worst of it. Again, you voted for it! And most of you are proud of how you voted!

:doh:
So, you wish we had shut down all the power plants in the United States because it might have an effect on the weather 100 years from now? It certainly would not have had any effect on this year's weather.

 

[eameece]

:doh:
So, you wish we had shut down all the power plants in the United States because it might have an effect on the weather 100 years from now? It certainly would not have had any effect on this year's weather.

You voted for this weather. You would rather waste all the energy you want, and keep the fossil fuel profits rolling in for the "free enterprise" corporations you protect with your Republican votes against "socialism." We could have done a lot to convert away from fossil fuel burning these last 40 years, and even in the last few years when global warming has hit the ceiling for the first time ever. We could have turned it around fast, and then things would have been better. But no, we are doing nothing, thanks to you right wingers. And you folks in the south and midwest who vote republican are already getting hit the hardest, and it's going to get much much worse. Keep whipping out those slogans, and live with the results! You voted for it, you deserve it!!