EnviroLink Forum

As there is actually a mechanism with evidence to support it for CO2 and none for cosmic rays, the cosmic rays would have even less evidence of cause and effect., thus it would have to be negative.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Not true, observational evidence shows that GCRs impact aerosoles, precipitation events, precipitation trends, and correlate well to both cloud cover and temperatures.

Where is the observational proof that CO2 is having a large impact on the atmospheric parameters?

My understanding of this issue is limited I must devulge. My understanding that IR is absorbed by CO2 in the band illustrated before by the spectrograph tests. These tests were conducted by passing different frequencies of IR through a very high sample of CO2. Not pure but as close as they could get it. As the IR is absorbed that molecule exsists at a higher state of excitation.


1.If IR is reflected off a CO2 molecule it doesn't absorb it and raise its excitation level how does any extra heating occur?

2. If spectrograph tests involve almost pure samples how do we know CO2 absorbs IR at the same level in the atmosphere?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Correlation does not equate to causation. You keep being told this large fact and you continue to claim the correlation and causation are the same in this case. What is the mechanism shown by any reproduced experimentation that impacts both cloud cover and temperature sufficiently to match the observations? Unless and until you can show such a mechanism you have only correlation and nothing else.



The same type of correlation and if you tweak the data sufficiently it will match up just like the tweaking made the same correlation appear in some of the papers you support. The major difference is there is an actual mechanism which can be shown for CO2 and that is more than can be said for the hypothesis you support.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

To be more specific, these molecules are opaque to these particular frequencies. What that means is these frequencies will not go through. If the light beams in question hit the molecule just right, the molecule will absorb that light but otherwise the light is redirected like light hitting paper. Yes, some heating will happen in the atmosphere but more will happen when darker objects are hit like the earth. A hot atmosphere will send off it's own infrared light but with far fewer molecules in air as a gas, far less infrared is emitted. This radiated infrared is like standing in front of a bon-fire on a cold night. You feel warm even though the air is still cold. Airplanes in the upper atmosphere experience extreme cold even on sunny days because what warms the air is the earth rather then the sun. It is the warming of the earth that is so worrisome rather then the atmosphere. Thunderstorms happen from rising warm air from a warm earth showing that the weather is based on the surface temperature more then the air temperature. I hope this explains #1... the heating does not happen much in the air. As for #2, every molecule does the same thing as it always does no matter what other molecules are near it. As I mentioned earlier, we can figure out what is in the atmospheres of planets and even clouds in star formations... simply by the very characteristic bands of color that are reflected or absorbed and which pass right on through.

Point 2 is way outdated. People who use FTIR instruments to monitor long path emissions have thousands of spectrographs of atmospheric concentration CO2 absorptions. I saw some presented at a source emission conference a couple of years ago where the CO2 absorption band was specifically mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_tr ... ectroscopy

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Mr. Stollings to clarify I was not making a point. I was merely asking a question. If spectrograph tests are conducted using pure gas samples, and I assume at the same pressure as the atmosphere, is it reasonable to conclude CO2 behaves the same way in the atmosphere?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

First, I am Wayne, and second, the point I was trying to make is that the tests are performed at all ranges of concentration of CO2 and matrix combinations. Thus, we know the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs just like the same concentration in the lab using the same matrix of balance air. That means the "if" preceding the question was outdated as the tests were not just with pure CO2. The short answer is then, yes, we can conclude the CO2 behaviour is the same even if the tests were only performed using pure CO2.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I don't understand. The spectographic evidence that has already been discussed, the keeling curve, historical records, proxy reconstructions of past climates need I go on? There is lots of evidence otherwise 97% of climate scientists would not agree.

That evidence does not count. You must have a control planet to show exactly how much the climate would change due to the anthropogenic influence unless you propose some alternate mechanism and then just a simple correlation is sufficient evidence, and that can be adjusted to fit if necessary.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I think I just figured out the point of confusion hereThe reason spectrograph studies must be done on as pure a substance as possible is because EVERY type of molecule has it's own unique spectrograph pattern. So they can figure out which ones come from the CO2, they cannot have any other molecule adding it's own effects. Once they know what CO2 looks like on a particular piece of spectrograph equipment, they can match those lines up on unknown mixtures and if the pure CO2 sample lines match up to the unknown sample, they can conclude that at least one of the many items in that sample are CO2. The pure sample is just for calibrating the equipment so something similar such as CO2 made with Carbon 14 instead of Carbon 12 can be identified as a different substance with a unique but similar spectrograph pattern.

And once again spot, you, just like Wayne, have created a fundamental proof that Greenhouse Gases are contributing to the warming, and have an effect.

There is also fundamental evidence that the sun has an effect, and thus, contributes to the warming:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2610003056

By applying multitaper methods and Pearson test on the surface air temperature and flare index used as a proxy data for possible solar sources of climate-forcing, we investigated the signature of these variables on middle and high latitudes of the Atlantic–Eurasian region (Turkey, Finland, Romania, Ukraine, Cyprus, Israel, Lithuania, and European part of Russia). We considered the temperature and flare index data for the period ranging from January 1975 to the end of December 2005, which covers almost three solar cycles, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd.

We found significant correlations between solar activity and surface air temperature over the 50–60° and 60–70° zones for cycle 22, and for cycle 23, over the 30–40°, 40–50°, and 50–60° zones.

The most pronounced power peaks for surface air temperature found by multitaper method are around 1.2, 1.7, and 2.5 years which were reported earlier for some solar activity indicators. These results support the suggestion that there is signature of solar activity effect on surface air temperature of mid-latitudes.

GHGs re-radiating heat doesn't tell us anything about the magnitude of the GHG warming.

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articl ... rFinal.pdf

Regardless of if it is Cosmic Rays or not, Wayne (though therer is much evidence for a GCR-climate connection), an amplifying mechanism is needed for the sun-climate connection.

Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as
a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle.
This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux
into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over
the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can
be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative
forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just
those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification
mechanism, though without pointing to which one.

I did not create that proof, it is proof It's a observable mechanism effecting the climate. your cosmic rays or whatever have not been observed doing anything to the atmosphere all you have is weak correlation.

I see you quote someone else's work, I don't understand, what is the multitaper method?

I did not create it nor did Wayne, A chap named Svante Arrhenius first proposed it, If I may be so bold as to offer an observation; You really should learn about his work before you claim to be a "climatologist".