Originally posted by Diamond
As I remarked, you leave ZERO discussion about matters related to climate science.
There is a HUGE amount of discussion and debate going on in the earth sciences regarding global warming. You are unaware, however, what it is.
Oh really?
There are some earth scientists that are skeptical that mankind is responsible for the increase of CO2 present in the the atmosphere, but they are by far in the minority.
A classic straw man. I have not stated that I believe that rising CO2 does not have a anthropogenic component, nor do I know of any reputable climatologist who doesn't.
They don't debate that global warming is real or that an increase in CO2 levels is causing it. The main debate is over what the climatic chages are going to be.
Only in an academic ivory tower could someone come up with such a ridiculous statement. There is considerable doubt that carbon dioxide enrichment causes temperature rise. There are many studies from ice cores which show that carbon dioxide rise FOLLOWS temperature rise by centuries. There are NONE that I know of that show the reverse.
In any case, no mention has been made of solar variability even though we know the sun has increased in brightness since the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century. Its probably just a fluke.
Please show me any reputable scientific study which would show that without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would be 60 degrees cooler. Show your working.
You have just displayed a stupendous level of ignorance regarding how science works. You can't release a "study" unless you have another planet earth with a CO2 free atmosphere to study!
Yes. It's probably a different science that I study. In YetiScience, dogmatic statements are made with exact figures, then when questioned the YetiScientist claims that it can't be studied without studyng an atmosphere without its most frightening constituent. So where does this figure come from? Tibet?
What you can do, and is perfectly valid from a scientific standpoint, is figure out how much infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 rather than just radiating out into space
Most of the light energy by the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4k nanometers, which pass thru CO2 in the atmosphere and warm the earth. The energy from the earth, however, is released at wavelengths greater than 4k nanometers. This radiation encounters CO2 molecules which, due to weaker atomic bonds than O2 or N2, are then pushed into an excited unstable state. The energy is dissipated to the local environment as the CO2 cools and returns to a stable state
Do you doubt that? Is there something wrong with that science? What? Be specific.
It makes a series of assumptions without proof:
1. That carbon dioxide is available in significant quantities to cause this measureable effect.
2. It ignores the effects of clouds, ice crystals and the water balance.
3. It assumes that the effect of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere is the same as at the surface.
Big assumptions. No citations. No proof.
To determine how cool the earth would be without CO2 all you need to do is figure out how much energy is radiated from the earth, how much a molecule of CO2 absorbs and how much CO2 is present in the atmosphere. Once you get a figure subtract that from the average temp of the earth, around 60C.
I said show your working. That means equations. I did not ask you to restate your claim. I asked for emprical evidence.
I'm still waiting.
You claim to have understand chemistry and physics, why don't you give us all a lesson and figure it out for us? You obviouslly don't consider myself or the geophysics community a valid reference.
Because I am not the one claiming that without carbon dioxide, the earth would be 60C cooler.
Since the earth science community (whatever that means) does not have unanimity of view on climate science, I would suggest that your appeal to popularity is simply false. I can name at least five climatologists who do not subscribe to the human-induced global warmng hypothesis. (They all drive cars and are therefore in the pay of evil petroleum companies, natch)
You are simply wrong. I work with many earth scientists of all disciplines and their opinion on the validity of global warming as a real and human induced phenomenon is almost unanimous. The skeptics are such a small percentage I haven't even encountered any, I've only read about them. And NO ONE is skeptical that CO2 is greenhouse gas, the earth is getting hotter or that increased levels of CO2 are the prime offender.
Please list your five climatologists, I'm willing to bet they are either:
1. Not really climatologists.
2. Not saying what you think they are saying.
As I stated before, no-one has claimed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor that the Earth is currently in a warming phase (since the bottom of the Little Ice Age), so please stop with the stupid straw man argument.
My five climatologists are:
1. Dr Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT
2. Dr John Christy, Professor of Atmospheic Science, University of Alabama at Huntsville
3. Dr. Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London (England)
4. Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg
5. Dr. Fred Singer, President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.
Of course you haven't met them. Therefore what they have to say doesn't count. They might even be taking bribes from the fossil fuel industry to lie about the climate.
Unfortunately I do have more than a highschool level chemistry education, which means that I know when you're talking bollocks.
And you are talking bollocks. Let me give you a quote from another climatologist you've never met:
Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences (Paleoclimatology) at Carleton University:
"With our star's variability accounting for about half of all the recorded warming in the last hundred years, only 0.3°C is left over for everything else, including urbanization and land use. The amount is even less if an additional 0.1-0.2°C of natural temperature fluctuation is factored in. If increased C02 levels have contributed to global warming at all in the past century, its contribution must have been very minor indeed."
But since neither you nor your colleagues have ever met this person, he might not even exist.
