It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stinkelbaum
brian cox crushed some aussie climate change denying politician, he asked for proof, the professor provided it, guffaws followed the politicians strange reply.
The warmer we get, the less carbon dioxide spectra lines overlap theoretical black body emissions, and the colder we get, the more they overlap.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in those observations show temperature lags behind atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
It's actually the opposite, historically CO2 lags behind temperatures by an average of 800 years.
BTW, it has been pointed out to you several times that in 2015-2016 there has been a Super El Niño which caused the temperature anomaly we have seen similar to the 1997-1998 Super El Niño anomaly... Those temperature anomalies are not related to CO2...
“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide." Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet). "That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."
Calculations of the effects of both natural and anthropogenic tropospheric sulfate aerosols indicate that the aerosol climate forcing is sufficiently large in a number of regions of the Northern Hemisphere to reduce significantly the positive forcing from increased greenhouse gases. Summer sulfate aerosol forcing in the Northern Hemisphere completely offsets the greenhouse forcing over the eastern United States and central Europe. Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols contribute a globally averaged annual forcing of -0.3 watt per square meter as compared with +2.1 watts per square meter for greenhouse gases. Sources of the difference in magnitude with the previous estimate of Charlson et al. (1992) are discussed.
The assumption that no convective zone existed at EDC during TI...this might be tested in the future using krypton and xenon isotopes
Note that we have evidence for a large convective zone at present at some sites (Bender et al., 2006; Severinghaus et al., 2010)
So, we have only two logical choices: either our present assumptions about the overall climate and forcings are incomplete, or there was never a temperature increase before the first recorded records.
I mentioned that sulfuric acid decreases freezing points for water
They will never deliver accurate predictions until the scientists working on them are left alone to do their job without being influenced by greedy politicians and confused activists.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
there were no other changes happening to Earth, or the Sun then it would be another story, but in fact dramatic changes are occurring to the Earth, and our Sun which do affect the climate, and weather.
You will see that entire period the co2 increase follows warming, and then the decrease follows cooling. If we were to focus only on that we would think that co2 caused cooling during that period, but if you only focus on the very peak, co2 continues to rise when warming levels off. There is even a small spike there that could say was caused by the co2. But then, even with co2 well above temperature, a massive dropoff happens leading into an ice age. We know it wasn't the co2 that caused the warming then, and we know it wasn't the co2 that caused the cooling. The co2 certainly facilitated additional warming beyond whatever else was going on just as we see today.
I will leave you to take away from that what you will. Both papers agree the lag is somewhere between 0 years and 130 or 200 years respectively. They both pull away from the 800 +- 200 and with pretty good reasoning to back up their claims.
I agree with you on the pollution issue but with regards to global warming sulfates are considered to be a negative forcing, and a rather marginal one to be perfectly frank.
Or the third choice: we can measure...
We didn't see any global warming happening in Earth's history due to water vapor only, did we?
Given the fact that sea water is already full of salt I have issues to see the point you're making.
For every biased study you can find a better one to ponder about, try me.
And yes, that last statement might be a little emotional. I care about the planet.
How is that a third choice? Either the system is inherently stable, or there have been zero destabilizing influences in history.
You can post links to studies from now until doomsday; until one agrees with raw observational data and develops a record of accurate predictions, they are not proof of anything other than the fact scientists came to work.
That frequency, as it turns out, is less than the average frequency emitted by the planet. So as the earth warms, the mean emitted frequency increases and becomes farther from the carbon dioxide spectra and the carbon dioxide becomes less effective as a greenhouse gas. In addition, even if temperature increase caused the magnitude of radiation at the carbon dioxide spectra to increase, the percentage of emitted energy reflected would still decrease substantially. That means a higher percentage of the emitted energy would still escape and the planet would experience less of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide.