It doesn't matter whether we have long term data for Mars, because the same for earth are completely ignored by the IPCC.
Clever guy who can deduct from this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... that CO2 causes global warming.
On the other hand, this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... would suggest much more strongly a correlation between sun spot activity and climate.
In this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... you can clearly see the correlation between temperature and CO2. It's clear that as CO2 goes up, temperature goes with it. Oh, wait...
While in this graph https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... you can clearly see that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures. Oh, wait...
Anyway, data proves that the hypothesis that CO2 leads to higher temperatures, because the IPCC says so. (Oh, wait...)
What makes you think that CO2 makes it warmer? Because the IPCC says so?
Then you could as well throw all science overboard and believe the Priests.
Or the Imams.
Or... or...
I'd be more concerned about global cooling, as in solar cycles.
Every maunder and other minimum is associated with a low sun spot activity, and the next one is on its way, if it hasn't started already.
Agriculture thrives and is less water consuming with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It suffers, and with it human populations, when it's cold.
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
CO2 will be released from the deep oceans as those also heat up slowly, and Henry's Law demands that the ratio of atmospheric-to-oceanic CO2 concentrations shifts to the atmospheric side as a result.
And that's exactly what we have been able to observe, whether we lowered our CO2 emissions considerably, as during the 1920s-30s, or not. During those 2 decades the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge. The amount of our emissions weren't noticeable in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Say no more...
Well actually I looked at the graph with a time window of a few million years, or was it hundreds of millions?
let alone causation.
Helllo? The 1800s called. It's Tyndall and Arrhenius on the line. They want some words with you about the thing called 'greenhouse effect' they discovered.
You forget to mention Fourier.
And yes, a greenhouse effect exists... in a greenhouse.
Greenhouses are those boxes with a transparent lid on top.
The earth's atmosphere has no lid somewhere in the middle. Convection rules up to 10 km height where it ceases to exist due to the low pressure (less than 0.1 bar).
I've never seen a reputable physics textbook, like Feynman, mentioning (and supporting and explaining) a greenhouse effect on earth's atmosphere.
On the contrary, thermodynamics (Feynman lectures, lecture 40), in the absence of convection, predicts a negative temperature gradient (with reference to height) caused by the difference in kinetic energy of the air's molecules. However, convection in the lower part (below 10 km) of the atmosphere makes the effect unmeasurable.
I don't need a group of miners decide for me what is physics and what is not, thank you very much.
So let's see, a recently created account by the name of "slazy Rio" that contributed little of value to this community starts executing a Gish gallop of complete bullshit denialist talking points. Are you even trying to not look like a shill/troll ?
I really don't mind whether you consider me a shill, troll or what not. I'm just giving you my formed opinion. I'm not a 'climate denier'. Climate warms up. It always does after an ice age when the sun gets active sun spots again. But after a period, determined by the solar cycles, not the CO2 that we produce, it cools down again, and if you watch the solar activity recently (barely there is) you'd realise that we're heading toward a cool period again.
And, oh, by the way, did I already mention that human contribution to CO2 is undetectable?
Climatologist (99.7%? Yeah, right) Murray Lewis Salby pointed out this out in one of his lectures. If you look at the atmospheric CO2 graphs of the last century and correlate them with the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, you'll see that even in the 1920's-30's, where the global economy--and with that the carbon emissions--literally tanked, but the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge. Also in the late 1900's, where emissions really took off, the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge either.
This isn't really a confirmation of the AGW theory but can be explained with Henry's law, which edicts the vapor/liquid equilibrium of gases (CO2 is a gas) and liquids (like deep-sea water).
Due to our earth still coming out of the latest ice age, and the very slow,
If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 vs global temperature (whatever that may be) there is not much correlation, let alone causation.
And if there is causation it's the other way around: CO2 follows temperature. Which is logical if one considers that by far the major part of the global gaseous CO2 is stored in the oceans. Henry's law of vapor/liquid equilibrium dictates the amount of atmospheric CO2 through the temperature of the (deep) oceans, which are still slowly warming up as we're still coming out of the latest ice age.
What we've seen the latest century is a very steady rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, untouched by the variations of anthropogenic CO2, contrary to what one would expect if 'we' were the cause of the rise.
Even during the economic crisis years of the 1920's-30's, as the fossil fuel consumption literally tanked, the atmospheric CO2 kept rising, signaling quite some disconnect between human fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2.
So no, for me the human origin of the rise of atmospheric CO2 is far from proven.
And then the hypothesis that this would be the cause for global warming? I still have to see proof of that too. It's too much of a coincidence that the global temperature is highly correlated with sun (spot) activity over the past millions of years. I highly suspect there's our connection.
"...scientific opinions from people without scientific background." are not necessarily wrong, so I'd be hesitant to throw out well argued opinions just because the person who presents them doesn't have a 'scientific background'.
Even worse: increasing temperatures also lower the solubility of CO2 in the water and shift Henry's vapor/liquid equilibrium in the direction of more atmospheric CO2, which (allegedly) heats up the atmosphere more, evaporating more water (even a much stronger 'greenhouse gas' than CO2) from the river as a result, of which the CO2 also adds up to that in the atmosphere... enfin, you get the idea: a description of global thermal runaway that the IPCC would have loved to have come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter whether we have long term data for Mars, because the same for earth are completely ignored by the IPCC.
Clever guy who can deduct from this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... that CO2 causes global warming.
On the other hand, this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... would suggest much more strongly a correlation between sun spot activity and climate.
No Mr. A/C, my opinion.
You're just teasing. :)
less than 0.1%
It's currently 0.1 %. We're still far away from 1 %, let alone 8%.
A bunch of CO2 molecules floating in the air is not exactly the same as Boltzman's perfectly black body.
In this graph https://static.skepticalscienc... you can clearly see the correlation between temperature and CO2. It's clear that as CO2 goes up, temperature goes with it. Oh, wait...
While in this graph https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... you can clearly see that solar activity has nothing to do with global temperatures. Oh, wait...
Anyway, data proves that the hypothesis that CO2 leads to higher temperatures, because the IPCC says so. (Oh, wait...)
And now your counter arguments please.
In your world mankind also disappears 'naturally'.
Thank you very much.
And above all: NOTHING solves climate change.
On facebook, youtube, twitter etc., your IP would be banned for hate speach.
I laud the fact that this doesn't happen here at Slashdot.
What makes you think that CO2 makes it warmer? Because the IPCC says so?
Then you could as well throw all science overboard and believe the Priests.
Or the Imams.
Or... or...
I'd be more concerned about global cooling, as in solar cycles.
Every maunder and other minimum is associated with a low sun spot activity, and the next one is on its way, if it hasn't started already.
Agriculture thrives and is less water consuming with more CO2 in the atmosphere.
It suffers, and with it human populations, when it's cold.
As we came out of the latest ice age the earth has been warming up continuously and will keep doing so.
CO2 will be released from the deep oceans as those also heat up slowly, and Henry's Law demands that the ratio of atmospheric-to-oceanic CO2 concentrations shifts to the atmospheric side as a result.
And that's exactly what we have been able to observe, whether we lowered our CO2 emissions considerably, as during the 1920s-30s, or not. During those 2 decades the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge. The amount of our emissions weren't noticeable in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Say no more...
When did the IPCC ever get its predictions right?
If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 vs global temperature (whatever that may be) there is not much correlation
Let me guess, you've looked at carefully cherry-picked time windows...
Well actually I looked at the graph with a time window of a few million years, or was it hundreds of millions?
let alone causation.
Helllo? The 1800s called. It's Tyndall and Arrhenius on the line. They want some words with you about the thing called 'greenhouse effect' they discovered.
You forget to mention Fourier.
And yes, a greenhouse effect exists... in a greenhouse.
Greenhouses are those boxes with a transparent lid on top.
The earth's atmosphere has no lid somewhere in the middle. Convection rules up to 10 km height where it ceases to exist due to the low pressure (less than 0.1 bar).
It really follows straightforwardly from basic physics.
I've never seen a reputable physics textbook, like Feynman, mentioning (and supporting and explaining) a greenhouse effect on earth's atmosphere.
On the contrary, thermodynamics (Feynman lectures, lecture 40), in the absence of convection, predicts a negative temperature gradient (with reference to height) caused by the difference in kinetic energy of the air's molecules. However, convection in the lower part (below 10 km) of the atmosphere makes the effect unmeasurable.
Even coal industry shill Richard Lindzen called people who dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas 'a bit nutty'.
I don't need a group of miners decide for me what is physics and what is not, thank you very much.
So let's see, a recently created account by the name of "slazy Rio" that contributed little of value to this community starts executing a Gish gallop of complete bullshit denialist talking points. Are you even trying to not look like a shill/troll ?
I really don't mind whether you consider me a shill, troll or what not. I'm just giving you my formed opinion. I'm not a 'climate denier'. Climate warms up. It always does after an ice age when the sun gets active sun spots again. But after a period, determined by the solar cycles, not the CO2 that we produce, it cools down again, and if you watch the solar activity recently (barely there is) you'd realise that we're heading toward a cool period again.
And, oh, by the way, did I already mention that human contribution to CO2 is undetectable?
Climatologist (99.7%? Yeah, right) Murray Lewis Salby pointed out this out in one of his lectures. If you look at the atmospheric CO2 graphs of the last century and correlate them with the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, you'll see that even in the 1920's-30's, where the global economy--and with that the carbon emissions--literally tanked, but the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge. Also in the late 1900's, where emissions really took off, the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 didn't bulge either.
This isn't really a confirmation of the AGW theory but can be explained with Henry's law, which edicts the vapor/liquid equilibrium of gases (CO2 is a gas) and liquids (like deep-sea water).
Due to our earth still coming out of the latest ice age, and the very slow,
I'm not going to ask you for the evidence, but I haven't really seen it yet.
No I didn't (but now I do) and yes, you're right.
If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 vs global temperature (whatever that may be) there is not much correlation, let alone causation.
And if there is causation it's the other way around: CO2 follows temperature. Which is logical if one considers that by far the major part of the global gaseous CO2 is stored in the oceans. Henry's law of vapor/liquid equilibrium dictates the amount of atmospheric CO2 through the temperature of the (deep) oceans, which are still slowly warming up as we're still coming out of the latest ice age.
What we've seen the latest century is a very steady rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, untouched by the variations of anthropogenic CO2, contrary to what one would expect if 'we' were the cause of the rise.
Even during the economic crisis years of the 1920's-30's, as the fossil fuel consumption literally tanked, the atmospheric CO2 kept rising, signaling quite some disconnect between human fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2.
So no, for me the human origin of the rise of atmospheric CO2 is far from proven.
And then the hypothesis that this would be the cause for global warming? I still have to see proof of that too. It's too much of a coincidence that the global temperature is highly correlated with sun (spot) activity over the past millions of years. I highly suspect there's our connection.
"...scientific opinions from people without scientific background." are not necessarily wrong, so I'd be hesitant to throw out well argued opinions just because the person who presents them doesn't have a 'scientific background'.
Even worse: increasing temperatures also lower the solubility of CO2 in the water and shift Henry's vapor/liquid equilibrium in the direction of more atmospheric CO2, which (allegedly) heats up the atmosphere more, evaporating more water (even a much stronger 'greenhouse gas' than CO2) from the river as a result, of which the CO2 also adds up to that in the atmosphere... enfin, you get the idea: a description of global thermal runaway that the IPCC would have loved to have come up with.
Duh, it's the same as operating a cooling fan from part of the generated power.