It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Carbon Dioxide Levels this High Pre-Date Humanity

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:10 AM

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by mc_squared

I have to admit i made a mistake and i'm a bit annoyed with myself. So, apologies to me and to you for having wasted both of our time by turning this into a chartjunk debate over a distorted graph.

The only proper reply should have been, your graph is bunk and be done with it.

On the grounds that i've admitted my mistake, i'll ignore, for the most part, what you wrote in response to my post.

You spend way too much time ranting on about intellectually challenged, bible-waiving nutjobs who have all helplessly swallowed Big Oil propaganda and will cause the ultimate demise of the human race.
If you can, take a step back and try to realize how strikingly similar your rethoric is to that of those you accuse of being unable to grasp the "cold hard facts". You know, the denier types.

If you're so convinced you are only dealing with folks who are immune to the truth, then why bother at all. Take a walk in the park. Hyperbole and vitriol are not really helping your cause and i have a hard time to believe you honestly think this is an effective way to make people see the light.

Your "hard science"

You really had me laughing about your "tested & repeated" links to those preschool experiment youtube clips to support your argument for the well understood cause and effect mechanisms. (But i guess i had it coming...) It is good to see you do have a sense of humor. This is scientific evolution right there, - Tyndall > BBC2 > global warming in a jar. That's it, the debate is over, the science is settled. No wonder people keep on 'one-upping' you with spurious evidence and refer you to sites like "climate depot". You set the tone.

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Given that you have this strange habit of linking to paywalled studies, i pretty much doubt that you have actually read the paper.
If you have, then you would know that your bold claim of "less and less infrared radiation escaping" is directly contradicted by the study's findings. The only (statistically) significant difference in the spectra was observed for meathane and to lesser degree for two CFC's (11-12), the changes for CO2 were described as weak and within the margin of error.

Our interpretation of Fig. 1 is as follows. We consider ®rst the sharp spectral features. A negative-going brightness temperature difference is observed on the edge of the CO2 n 2 band, between 710 and 740 cm-1 , in accord with the known increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1970 and 19971 . The O3 band centred at about 1,060 cm-1 also shows a negative-going difference from the background window signal, which can be attributed to the known changes in ozone17 and in temperature18.

A strong, negative Q-branch is observed at 1,304 cm-1 in the CH4 band, due mainly to increases in tropospheric CH4 concentrations in the period between the observations, which causes emission from higher, colder layers of the troposphere. Negative-going lines due to n 2 -band H2 O absorption are seen between 1,200 and 1,400 cm-1 . There is also evidence of weak features due to CO2 , CFC-11 and CFC-12 in the 700±1,000 cm-1 range.

Harries et al 2001

The conclusion "the results provide direct experimental evidence for a signicant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect" is hardly supported by the research itself. You can always blame the authors for overstating the results and for not being precise enough to point out what exactly the observations imply (although they have in two subsequent studies), or you could blame yourself for not reading the papers you link to.

edit on 15-5-2013 by talklikeapirat because: why not

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by mc_squared


The results suggest that while the sampling pattern of the IRIS instrument is sufficiently well distributed and dense to generate monthly regional mean brightness temperatures that are within 1.5 K of the true all-sky values, the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin.

Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes. However, further analysis using the sampling characteristics of the Advanced Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument suggests that as climate change progresses, spectral measurements may be able to pick out significant changes due to processes such as cloud feedback.

Harries et al 2003

But the contrarians love to conveniently ignore all that empirical evidence and make this issue all about some ambiguous correlation, so they can attack their own fluffy weak science, and smother everything in uncertainty and political propaganda instead.

Now read again what you wrote. Here you have a good example of a "ambiguous correlation" turned into political propaganda in the name of Climate science. Dealing with uncertainties has apparently been an important aspect of their research and the authors themselves have conceded it was at best premature to label it empirical evidence. But that doesn't seem to keep you and astroturfing "Skeptikal Science" from claiming it is.

As for the rest of your post. I got increasingly turned off by your attitude. Keep it down a notch, you are just a guy on the internet. I don't believe for a second, you are genuinely concerned and you are only expressing your frustration with your fellow human beings.

edit on 15-5-2013 by talklikeapirat because: i can

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:14 AM
And the climate scientists that lie about EVERYTHING to do with the climate are expected to be taken at they're word because? I'm glad they kept records al the way back to a time before humans existed. Guess there must have been some really smart angry monkeys back then. Maybe they would have been better served inventing 'thumbs' instead of thumb drives!
Now that the same lying 'scientists' have assured us they know EXACTLY what was in the air 3 Zillion years ago, we know that the US is responsible for ALL global warming. It's only US emissions that cause problems. Only US cars make bad smokey-hurty stuff!

If they didn't lie about global warming, they wouldn't get funding. How hard is it to figure out why they lie so much.
Besides, all they have to do is fool people like Barrack Carter and Al Gore. How hard is that? !

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in