It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You implied that incoming energy from the sun is not constant. Unless you was arguing pointless semantics, it clearly was to imply that it could be the cause of observed warming, otherwise it would not affect my point at all (if the incoming energy was indeed variable, but not in the way that could explain the observed warming, there is no reason to bring up the point).
The ACRIMSAT spacecraft carrying the ACRIM III instrument will measure the sun's total energy output, continuing the database started in 1980 by ACRIM I on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM). ACRIM I was the first instrument to clearly show that the energy from the sun is not a constant value but instead varies over time. These energy changes are small but significant and they cycle approximately every 11 years. ACRIMSAT is the third ACRIM mission to measure Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and this vital data set will help climate scientists build more accurate climate models.
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit, so CO2 indeed lags temperature at the beginning. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise (positive feedback). But overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase (is caused by it).
This is of course completely unrelated to our situation, because we know current CO2 increase cannot be similarly caused by increase in temperature, but by burning fossil fuels, due to above mentioned isotopic distribution. This fact singlehandedly invalidates all such discussions about the cause of the CO2 increase, since no non-fossil fuel source (such as the oceans during the end of the ige age) could cause such increase in carbon-12/carbon-13 ratio. Unless you want to deny nuclear science, its end of discussion about the origin of the CO2 increase.
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit, so CO2 indeed lags temperature at the beginning.
We know that orbital changes during the Milankovitch cycles will be simply insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age.
Only 10% of the temperature increase comes directly from the orbital change, the rest comes from the increase in greenhouse effect when CO2 is released from the oceans.
icebubbles.ucsd.edu...
Combining this uncertainty with the uncertainty introduced by ice accumulation (800 x 0.2, i.e., 160 years), we obtain an overall uncertainty of 200 years, indicating that the increase in CO2 lags Antarctic warming by 800 +-200 years, which we must consider a mean phase lag because of the method we used to make the correlation. We cannot think of a mechanism that would make 40 Ar lead the temperature change, although a lag is possible if the temperature or accumulation change affects the nondiffusive zone (27). This result is in accordance with recent studies (9, 30) but, owing to our new method, more precise. This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2.
If CO2 cannot cause increase in temperature, where does this 90% of energy come from?
the total emissivity of carbon dioxide is inversely proportional to its effective pressure and, consequently, to its density in the atmosphere. The same effect has been verified on the tables of total emissivity of carbon dioxide obtained by Hottel, Leckner and other contemporary scientists (1)(2)(3)(4). This fact confirms that carbon dioxide operates as a coolant of the atmosphere and the surface,
not as a warmer of the mentioned systems.
...
...
Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature. Any assertion—involving the physics of radiative heat transfer—that carbon dioxide is a causative agent of climate change, is a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation.
This is a logical fallacy. Just because something happened in the past naturally does not mean humans cannot cause it now artificially.
Nuclear reactors are not manmade, since they also were happening naturally 1,7 billion years ago?
If we want to use argumentum ad populum fallacy, then I still win, since 95% of climate scientists agree that greenhouse effect is real.
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993-2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.
The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates.
There is a peer-reviewed response:
www.worldscinet.com...
Here is a peer-reviewed response to your source:
COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"
See above. Debunked by isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 and by the fact that even during the end of the ice age, 90% of the global warming still occurs after the CO2 increase (because of it). Unrelated to current GW.
Carbon Dioxide Source: Annual Million Metric Tons / % of Total
- Natural: 770,000 / 97.1%
- Human Made: 23,100 / 2.9%
- Total: 793,100 / 100%
- Absorption: 781,400 / 98.5%
In the experiment, glass confines gas to the surface, in real world gravity confines atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. Exacly analogous. If you dont think so, point out why they are not similar, and why it should be relevant for the validity of the experiment.
In the first graph, the bit taken out of the spectrum between about 600 and 750 cm-1 is a band where CO2 absorbs radiation.
In the second graph, the peak in the spectrum between about 600 and 750 cm-1 is a band of IR radiation from CO2 coming to the surface. The backradiation you claim does not exist, or is small.
The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does direclty from the Sun.
"Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that."
This is a stunning revelation, because CO2 alarmism is based on massive back radiation as the carrier of the greenhouse effect. If back radiation is a phrase, so is CO2 global warming. A phrase, not science. The difference is huge.
Unless this convection and conduction can shed the heat into space (which it cant), no global cooling occurs. Moving the heat inside atmosphere is not cooling. Please show how this convection and conduction should shed the heat into space, when space is empty.
Carbon dioxide does not contribute appreciably with the greenhouse effect. The contribution of carbon dioxide to the current anomaly of temperature at its current concentration in the atmosphere is really insignificant.
The failure of carbon dioxide for causing a large change of temperature in the atmosphere obeys to its intrinsic physical properties, not to negative feedbacks triggered by other more efficient greenhouse gases in the air than carbon dioxide, i.e. water vapor, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.
The calculations on this investigation show that the total emissivity of carbon dioxide decreases as the density of the gas in the atmosphere increases, so we should expect that at higher concentrations in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide could act as a coolant of the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth as long 14 as the energy emitted by the surface does not increase. If the latter happens, the total emissivity of carbon dioxide would increase, so its contribution to the greenhouse effect would increase.
The inversely proportional correlation between the total emissivity of carbon dioxide and its density in the atmosphere may obey to an increase of more available microstates toward which the energy emitted by the surface and other internal systems in the atmosphere is transferred by radiation.
Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature. Any assertion—involving the physics of radiative heat transfer—that carbon dioxide is a causative agent of climate change, is a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation.
CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. If observed increase of CO2 was not caused by fossil fuel burning, the observed ratio would not go up.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
carbon carbon carbon carbon
what about methane ? what about landfills ? what about deforestation ? what about all the blacktop and black roofs ? what about all the reflective surfaces ?
it's not just carbon
c'mon man
This term has been so completely skewed and abused, that it was probably the starting point for the misunderstanding about climate change. A greenhouse is a closed system. It is an enclosed glass structure that allows the radiation from light, to pass through the glass and allows the resulting heat to be trapped. It's a closed system because there is nowhere for the heat to go. The Earth is an open system. It has no glass ceiling that traps heat, and you can not compare a gas like CO2 to a solid like glass. Greenhouses are usually limited in size. The Earth has an entire solar system to radiate heat out. The Earth is therefore NOT a greenhouse, and so to apply the greenhouse effect, as it's used to describe global warming, is ridiculous and would violate all of the known laws of physics.
Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don't. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem.
This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR). Certain atmospheric gases, known as "greenhouse gases", absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to "warm" the surface.
Originally posted by purplemer
The comparison that is made between CO2 and glass is not categorical it is simply there to help people understand how greenhouse gasses work. and just for you information glass is not a solid..
Glass is an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid material that exhibits a glass transition, which is the reversible transition in amorphous materials (or in amorphous regions within semicrystalline materials) from a hard and relatively brittle state into a molten or rubber-like state. Glasses are typically brittle and can be optically transparent. The most familiar type of glass, used for centuries in windows and drinking vessels, is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus sodium oxide (Na2O) from soda ash, lime (CaO), and several minor additives. Often, the term glass is used in a restricted sense to refer to this specific use.
Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by eriktheawful
Thank you I stand corrected. Could you please now answer the points I raised in my first post...