• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

oglommi

Scholar
O
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
98
Have anyone actually prooved that co2 actually causes the green house effect in laboratories or otherwise?
 
Hmmmm... assuming you're serious, you are apparently not aware that the greenhouse effect was proposed in the nineteenth century. By Fourier. As in Fourier transform, which you might have heard of here and there. And investigated by Arrhenius. As in first winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry Arrhenius. They were ultimately proved correct, according to our current knowledge. The theory explains the average surface temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars fairly nicely, so there's some observational evidence.

As far as proving it in a laboratory, what precisely do you have in mind? Proving that CO2 is largely transparent to visible light, but has strong spectral lines in the IR? Yep. As far as showing that the radiation from a body at the temperature of Earth has a peak very close to those lines? Yep. As far as showing that those lines occur in a "window" in the absorption spectrum of water vapor, thus increasing the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere? Yep.

So I guess my question is, given evidence that CO2 behaves a certain way in the lab, and given evidence that it works in the atmosphere the way they say it does, evidence from three planets, my question would be, do you believe that CO2 will act differently in the atmosphere from the way it acts in the lab, if so why, and how do you account for the surface temperatures of those three planets if it does?
 
'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!
 

this chart is gratis of www.globalwarmingart.com

The special case of the greenhouse effect as it applies to man made CO2 emissions was developed by G.S. Callendar, 1939 maybe into the 1958.
He is considered the father of modern global warmers. The actual warming concept in textbooks is called the Callendar Effect in his honour.

Some aspects of this theory have not been subjected to replicatable experiments. Exactly how much does doubling or tripling atmospheric CO2 increase temperature, and why? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Here is a fairly interesting and unbiased history.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

From Callendar -

'Climatology is a difficult subject. By long tradition the happy hunting ground for robust speculation, it suffers because so few can separate fact from fiction'
 
You can find plenty of details on the history of how scientists came to the conclusion in Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" site.

I can't place links either but if you google it, you'll find it.
 
Chocolate Devourer said:
You can find plenty of details on the history of how scientists came to the conclusion in Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" site.

I can't place links either but if you google it, you'll find it.
Click to expand...

Yes, the website is at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
and you'll find the Hockey Stick, a scientific fraud, at the bottom of http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

So no change there.

The website (and I assume the book) is chock full of historical revisionism of the kind the IPCC would appreciate.
 
Diamond said:
Yes, the website is at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
and you'll find the Hockey Stick, a scientific fraud, at the bottom of http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

So no change there.

The website (and I assume the book) is chock full of historical revisionism of the kind the IPCC would appreciate.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, having just read the section on Callendar and finding it passed the smell test.

Credit is given to the debunkers of the hockey stick in the bibiography, but the continued use of the graph in the final text section is inappropriate. You don't fix a lie with a footnote.

So yeah, this is bogus. This is ridiculous, really.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' answers all the questions one could possibly have. I can't post links yet, so you'll have to Google it. Have a good read!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be best addressed by a mental health professional, one trained in dealing with persecution complexes and conspiracy theory delusions?

Seriously.
 
www.climateaudit.org

Here is the "climateaudit.org pledge".

If they dont turn over data and methods, question the science.

Looks totally reasonable to me. Like, something everybody should be able to agree on. A place where real scientists and amateurs can discuss topics with no flame baiting and no trolls. Wonder why that isn't possible here? Guess some people don't want it.
 
Again, somebody asks an honest question and is flamed to cinders immediately.

Schneibster, if a woo believer said that the great Fourier and Arrhenius believed in God, I'm pretty sure you'd snap back that they were committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. Neither Fourier nor Arrhenius is famous for climatology.

Why is it so hard either to keep a civil tongue and answer coolly and clearly, or just not to answer?

Please don't say it's because you've been just forced to answer the same questions over and over: I've seen streams of Young Earth creationists, Geller hagiologists, rampant theists and self-deluded Remote Viewers treated with far more courtesy after a hundred inane posts. I've lost count of the number of Occam's Razors, Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Weak Anthropic Principles and explanations of logical fallacies that have whipped across the screen.

I know the weather's been getting warmer on the average for some time, but I'm not convinced about the androgenic aspects of it. OK, I understand a study has exonerated the sun, but I don't see a convincing tracking of historical temperature with CO2. I've heard the argument that the several-century lag of CO2 increase behind temperature rise is because a change of CO2 increases temperature immediately, which later causes a much greater increase in CO2 from oceans etc.

That strikes me as nonsensical: surely, that would be a runaway positive feedback mechanism. Why does the later, greater emission of CO2 not cause an absolutely huge temperature excursion? I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable answer to that, but I couldn't find it on Google, and I'm not a climate scientist. So why not help, instead of haranguing?

What's wrong with just a tiny bit of civility in replies to climate questions? Either that, or restraining the need to answer at all?
 
Big Al said:
Again, somebody asks an honest question and is flamed to cinders immediately.

Schneibster, if a woo believer said that the great Fourier and Arrhenius believed in God, I'm pretty sure you'd snap back that they were committing an Argument from Authority fallacy. Neither Fourier nor Arrhenius is famous for climatology.

Why is it so hard either to keep a civil tongue and answer coolly and clearly, or just not to answer?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're talking about, Al. I'm not even entirely certain I care, considering you have at best taken the worst possible interpretation of what I've said in order to criticize, but I'll at least entertain the criticism to the extent of asking you. I note that instead of addressing the points, you're addressing the poster; I'd say it's a relatively civil act on my part to even respond, considering.

Big Al said:
I know the weather's been getting warmer on the average for some time, but I'm not convinced about the androgenic aspects of it. OK, I understand a study has exonerated the sun, but I don't see a convincing tracking of historical temperature with CO2. I've heard the argument that the several-century lag of CO2 increase behind temperature rise is because a change of CO2 increases temperature immediately, which later causes a much greater increase in CO2 from oceans etc.
Click to expand...
Actually, the main argument has nothing to do with that. The main argument is precisely what I have stated above: CO2 has this spectrum here, water vapor has that spectrum there, the Sun has a blackbody spectrum centered here, and the Earth has a blackbody spectrum over here. Given these physical facts, and given conservation of energy, what do you expect to happen? Simple: it's gonna get warmer. And it is. The rest is details. Basically, you're ignoring the obvious gross physical facts and concentrating on the details. Which is something I've told you before, Al.
 
Schneibster said:
Actually, the main argument has nothing to do with that. The main argument is precisely what I have stated above: CO2 has this spectrum here, water vapor has that spectrum there, the Sun has a blackbody spectrum centered here, and the Earth has a blackbody spectrum over here. Given these physical facts, and given conservation of energy, what do you expect to happen? Simple: it's gonna get warmer. And it is. The rest is details. Basically, you're ignoring the obvious gross physical facts and concentrating on the details. Which is something I've told you before, Al.
Click to expand...

Please cite your evidence it is and will get warmer.
 
David Rodale said:
Please cite your evidence it is and will get warmer.
Click to expand...
Ummmm... that would be nearly everything that nearly every single climate scientist, who isn't working for the oil or coal companies, has produced over the last few decades.

Where's your evidence against reality?:cool:
 
You can argue with that one forever, Joe- it ain't interested in facts. Doesn't think thermometers work.
 
I never questioned the coming Global Warming, you know, the one that is a fact, no doubt about it, it has been proven beyond all doubt, everybody agrees with, that Global Warming.

I never even thought about questioning it, looking into it, until I saw the religious like attacks on anyone who did question it. That got my attention. Why would anyone with a brain be so emotional, so irrational, so petty as to personally attack somebody for asking questions, or having a different view about Global Warming?

I'm funny that way, but when I see dumb behavior, stuff that makes no sense, I start wondering why. Why is questioning something viewed as heresy? How did a scientific Theory become the same as Church Doctrine? What the hell is going on when skeptics, logical, scientific people, start sounding like the faithful?
 
mhaze said:
I stand corrected, having just read the section on Callendar and finding it passed the smell test.

Credit is given to the debunkers of the hockey stick in the bibiography, but the continued use of the graph in the final text section is inappropriate. You don't fix a lie with a footnote.

So yeah, this is bogus. This is ridiculous, really.
Click to expand...

It's not a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom