Ok im confused about "facts" regarding global warming

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that ice core data are the primary reason for believing whether or not CO2 causes warming?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying they're the primary source of actual scientific data. The primary reason people believe in it is the unscientific coincidence between rising temperatures and man-made CO2 over the last 100 years, the statistical equivalent of 100 hands of poker. I have never seen any actual scientific evidence to support this belief, and the ice core samples completely refute it (although I do question the accuracy of the ice core samples as well).

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alex,

CO2 warming is a very well understood and not controversial phenomenon. More CO2 is directly equal to more forcing. The only question is whether other effects (clouds, for example) mitigate this effect. You're making a joke of yourself.



The above table is from the latest IPCC report (I suggest you read the [censored] thing - link here(pdf)) and is non controversial.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary reason people believe in it is the unscientific coincidence between rising temperatures and man-made CO2 over the last 100 years

[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Knowing nothing about the topic, really, what you are describing is a positive feedback cycle, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for the OP. I'm not claiming its correct or anything, but its not confusing at all that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures AND increased temperatures cause CO2.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were the case, the feedback loop would have destroyed the world a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a serious comment? Do I really have to point out why this is a ridiculous statement? I guess so.

CO2 is not the only factor involved in determining the temperature of the Earth and so other factors prevent (or at least hinder) a totally out of control feedback effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entirely possible, but where's the evidence for these other factors and why won't they stop global warming? You can't have it both ways. Anyway, it's all theoretical either way and the complete lack of evidence supporting the CO2 causes global warming theory is the more important thing here.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me as if it would be relatively simple to perform experiments to determine if CO2 does indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect in a laboratory setting, and I assume that these experiments have been done and that the conclusion is affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you would be completely and totally wrong. The ice samples are the primary source of data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alex,

CO2 warming is a very well understood and not controversial phenomenon. More CO2 is directly equal to more forcing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And signed off on by a panel of hundreds of the world's leading climate experts and the representatives of 113 governments. Every line, statement and error bar is analyzed until the error ranges are wide enough that everyone agrees with them. The whole thing is designed to be the consensus of the scientific community and completely non controversial. In fact there have been criticisms that the report understates the most probable outcomes because the errors bars are widened towards the negative so much in order to gain a consensus agreement. What you see in that table is scientific fact.

What specific data are you looking for? We know exactly the mechanism by which CO2 produces warming. It's irrefutable physics and chemistry. There is zero debate here. The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only the degree can be disputed.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only the degree can be disputed.

[/ QUOTE ] The degree may be zero or negligible.

Also, the IPCC report is utter hogwash with no scientific validity. Note - so far they have only released a summary without the supporting information. Thus, what they have released is meaningless. This is nothing more than a political document. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the summary is not signed off my hundreds of scientists. My understanding is that relatively few sign off on the summary version. But, I could be wrong.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only interesting factor is the degree to which the warming is dampened by things like increased cloud cover produced by the greater heat, increased snow, etc. You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming. Only then degree can be disputed.

[/ QUOTE ] The degree may be zero or negligible.

Also, the IPCC report is utter hogwash with no scientific validity. Note - so far they have only released a summary without the supporting information. Thus, what they have released is meaningless. This is nothing more than a political document. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but the summary is not signed off my hundreds of scientists. My understanding is that relatively few sign off on the summary version. But, I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I heard that the summary completely misrepresents the report. The actual report says that GW can't possibly be caused by humans, and hundreds of climate scientists agreed. But then Chirac got involved, and he and Putin orchestrated the production of this subversive summary to make the United States look bad. The guy who signed for the US had his family kidnapped to force him to sign the summary.

None of the hundreds of scientists have spoken out yet about the glaring discrepancy between the summary and their conclusions, because the UN has made it clear that anyone who ever reveals the true facts will be sent to syria and tortured.

You read that story about E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession? Pretty damning stuff, huh?

Anyway, it's nice to finally find a kindred soul on this board who understands what's going on with the world.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very pretty chart. There's no actual data backing up the claims in it, but it's certainly very pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]
And signed off on by a panel of hundreds of the world's leading climate experts and the representatives of 113 governments. Every line, statement and error bar is analyzed until the error ranges are wide enough that everyone agrees with them. The whole thing is designed to be the consensus of the scientific community and completely non controversial. In fact there have been criticisms that the report understates the most probable outcomes because the errors bars are widened towards the negative so much in order to gain a consensus agreement. What you see in that table is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.

[ QUOTE ]
We know exactly the mechanism by which CO2 produces warming. It's irrefutable physics and chemistry. There is zero debate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it should be really easy to find evidence, shouldn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
You're making an absolute fool of yourself if you claim that CO2 doesn't directly cause warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily, I've never claimed any such thing. I simply want to see some evidence.

[inlemur]

[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.