Global warming is not caused by CO2

[PlasmaSphere]

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

As much of the U.S. is being blasted by vicious ice storms, a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is "unstoppable" and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

According to Dr. Douglass: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

"We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

"The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.

"In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface* and thus the climate.

"Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."

What do you make of that? that's not going to go down very well at the IPCC, that's for sure!

Amazing really that it has taken so long for people to realize that variation in the original source of Earths heat can effect the climate in a big way. Maybe we should be calling it solar warming, rather than global warming. These space websites seem to agree;Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate (Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division); http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Global Warming Detected on Triton; http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

Study says sun getting hotter; http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

Solar System Warming?; http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3434

 

[chroot]

The IPCC is primarily a political organization, so I believe its views on science should be considered skeptically.

It also wouldn't surprise me at all if CO2 turns out to be mostly irrelevant. Water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, and the Earth has endured long periods of enormous CO2 concentrations in its geological past without any calamitous increases in temperature. The hydrologic cycle has a much, much larger impact on our climate than our lightbulbs, and it'd be silly to think otherwise.

Right now, all we have to go on are models -- systems of differential equations solved numerically by supercomputers. Obviously, the addition or removal of a term or two can radically affect the predictions of such models, and we all know that these models are still very much in their infancy. We have no evidence that they are capable of predicting anything at all, in fact.

It's actually quite amazing to me that so many people are willing to spend so much money solving a problem (CO2 emission) that exists only as a prediction of some poorly-understood differential equations.

This is not to say I'm not an environmentalist -- I think pollution is terrible, I prefer bikes to cars, and I would love to see governments and corporations held to higher standards with regards to their environmental impact. If anthropogenic global warming is the impetus they need to finally clean things up, great -- I just personally don't believe it for a minute.

I see the entire AGW exercise as nothing more than an illustration of human psychology: people always seek to find patterns in randomness, and people always need something to fear.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

On the other hand, this paper presumably does not present any evidence of its hypothesis either (I have not read it yet). Can cosmic rays really influence cloud cover to an extent large enough to change climates? Has the solar wind actually varied enough to make cosmic rays suspect?

- Warren

 

[PlasmaSphere]

When people say that CO2 may not have such a drastic effect that is often attributed to it, people usually react as if you have said that you endorse pollution. They are completely separate issues. Pollution from man is obviously bad for the environment in every way, but that does not mean that it is causing global warming. Even if CO2 is not fully to blame for global warming, we still need to cut down on emmissions for other reasons.

I just wish people would focus on real environomental problems instead of coming up with apocoliptic senarios where the whole of the human race is doomed. I for one would much prefer more effeort to be put into saving the rain forests, stopping pollution of the sea, preventing the spread of man made genetically modified organisms and other more imporatant issues.

That is the reason why people have an inherent tendency to believe global warming is caused exclusively by us, as it gives them a good reason to want to protect the environment. They have good intentions at heart, but i feel we are beggining to loose focus on what is actually going wrong with the planet.

In my opinion there are far worse things than the Earth warming a bit. The IPCC is far to political now, and the whole global warming movement is based on politics and money, it should be about the general condition of the planet, not about something that currently the evidence is so weak for.

 

[Coin]

I think that when on the one side we have the consensus of basically the entire climatology community and the last couple decades of research, and on the other side we have a single paper as paraphrased by newsmax (which is NOT an objective or reliable source) then the weight of the benefit of the doubt clearly goes to the former. If this paper does in fact present evidence against the climate change consensus then the climatology community is obligated to address that evidence and provide an explanation as to why the consensus should deserve to stand in face of that evidence. But solar-caused warming hypotheses have been around a long time, and I would have been well-known to the people who comprised the IPCC report. I think it would have to take some pretty dramatic new information to change or even significantly impact the conclusions already drawn about those hypotheses.

In the meantime, I find it very unusual that this paper-- which is presented here as something rather earth-shattering-- is not being reported on absolutely anywhere I can find except newsmax. What do you think this tells us about the paper's actual significance and impact? Does this paper actually say anything new, or provide significant new arguments or data, or simply restate what is already known about a fringe hypothesis about global warming? There are other slightly suspicious things about this paper as presented in the article. One minor point would be the phrasing "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."-- "but very costly"? It is probably not reasonable to dismiss a paper based on a single sentence, but does this strike you as scientific analysis or the wording of someone with an axe to grind? Something slightly more worrisome might be the inclusion of Fred Singer as paper coauthor, who according to Wikipedia is "an American electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1] and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax." Hmm...

 

[Bystander]

Three hundredths of a percent in solar output corresponds to a 20 mK change in Earth surface temperature. That's over 20 years, and includes no discussion of instrument drift, or measures to correct for instrument drift. Polar "melting" on Mars? Over seven (?) years (I ain't going to reread that one for this post) isn't a long enough time frame to say anything.

As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as the IPCC --- concatenations of unstated, implicit "if" statements that go on for a half dozen to dozen logical steps to reach meaningless conclusions.

Science is about unambiguous tests of single "if" statements.

 

[PlasmaSphere]

On the other hand, this paper presumably does not present any evidence of its hypothesis either (I have not read it yet). Can cosmic rays really influence cloud cover to an extent large enough to change climates? Has the solar wind actually varied enough to make cosmic rays suspect?

- Warren

That is a valid point, it has not been published in any mainstream media, but considering they are not likely to agree with what they are saying, that really proves nothing. I don't know if the paper is published yet, or is online to see, i would very much like to read it before jumping to conclusions though.

I would imagine that since the solar wind is technically an electric current (as the flow of charge, by definition, is an electric current) that an increase of the amount of particles in the solar wind would have the capabiltity of heating the upper atmosphere by electric current heating. The word 'wind' in solar wind has always confused me, you do not say that your kettle is powered by 'wind' flowing through your wires, you call it an electric current. Also the amount of particles in the solar wind does not neccisarily correspond to the light output, or heat output, of the sun, as sometimes the solar wind stops completely. It has stopped for two entire days before; (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm ) So if their is a relationship between the amount of electric power in the solar wind and the temparature of the Earth, its going to be very complex. But I think that variation in the suns output is a definate conteder for GW, although there are obviously many other factors that influence it aswell.

 

[jim mcnamara]

As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as the IPCC ---

We butted heads earlier on this topic. Do you mean to say
'As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as is the IPCC <science>'

If so, yes, I agree. IPCC was/is almost as much political as scientific.

CC is real. CO2 is undoubtedly a player. I'm not a climate scientist, just a Population Biology type and I have not read primary materials on the subject.

PS: From what I'm told it is getting to the single "if" that is a colossal problem in climatology - analogous to getting to the level of changing temperature regimes bacterial growth patterns.

 

[Bystander]

We butted heads earlier on this topic.

Wouldn't call it "head-butting" --- "A failure to communicate," perhaps. --- Strother Martin.

Do you mean to say
'As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as is the IPCC <science>'

Guess maybe I need to check Chicago on preferred styles for use of ellipses --- but, you got what I meant.

If so, yes, I agree. IPCC was/is almost as much political as scientific.

CC is real. CO2 is undoubtedly a player. I'm not a climate scientist, just a Population Biology type and I have not read primary materials on the subject.

"Real?" Certainly. Everything on Earth is a "player." Identifications of significant players present the bases for debate.

PS: From what I'm told it is getting to the single "if" that is a colossal problem in climatology - analogous to getting to the level of (effects of) changing temperature regimes (on) bacterial growth patterns.

?

Observations: increased atmospheric CO₂, from the Keeler curve, 1948 to present; rising sea level, from 150 years or so of tide gauging.

IPCC hypothesis: fossil fuel consumption leads to increased atmospheric CO₂ which leads to increased GMT which leads to increased melting of icecaps which leads to increased sea level.

How many untested "ifs" in the IPCC hypothesis? "If₁" biological activity fixing carbon and producing CO₂ is constant, and "if₂" CO₂ exchange between the atmosphere and ocean is constant, additional sources of atmospheric CO₂ lead to increased atmospheric concentration of CO₂. "If₃" Arrhenius' hypothesis that CO₂ is the major "greenhouse" contributor to Earth surface temperature is correct, increased CO₂ concentration will result in increased atmospheric temperature. "If_4a higher air temperatures lead to increased surface melting of ice caps, and "if₅ that meltwater can percolate through 1-3km of ice to lubricate glacier movement, or "if_4b there is some mechanism transferring heat from the warmer atmosphere to the icecap-earth interface (Pinatubo, Hekla, and Krakatoa particulate signatures are NOT coincident as would be expected from surface melting), lubricating movements of ice caps, then there will be increased ice "run-off" from Greenland and Antarctica resulting in increased sea level. "If₆" there are no other sources of water inflating ocean volume, the logic train can be followed in the opposite direction to confirm the hypothesis.

"If₁:" has biological production of CO₂ been matched by biological fixation over the past century? What is the fixation rate for fallow (in the sense of dry-land wheat farming in the American mid-west --- crop one year and leave idle the next, not allowing weeds to grow) agricultural land? What is the CO₂ production rate for that same fallow ground? (The soil is well aerated and contains significant organic material.) Given that the Earth's human population increased from 1-2 billion to 6 billion during the 20th century, what area has been converted from year round fixation by weeds to every other year crop production?

"If₂:" Same sorts of questions apply to marine biological fixation and production regarding commercial fisheries peaking 10-15 years ago at 100 million tons per year, bycatch decomposition in surface waters, and possible changes in surface to deep water carbon transport.

"If₃:" heat transfer from Earth's surface to the 3-4 K CMB? Heat transfer measurements for low density (earth's atmosphere) gases are an absolute b*tch; sorting conduction from radiation is next to impossible. Ditto for measurements of absorbances/emissivities. Effects of 300-400 ppm traces in such systems? Nobody's got a clue.

"Ifs_4a,b:" "a" doesn't fly in the Antarctic, nor for most of Greenland until air temp exceeds m.p. of water, plus, the particulate signatures of volcanic events haven't been merged to the point that the ice core crowd have any trouble finding places to drill and date events. "b" is simply absurd --- but, I have no clue what effects climatologists are apt to appeal to explain behaviors of natural systems --- e.g., Nova's Mystery of the Megaflood and it's appeal to "supercooled" water melting the Missoula glacial dam by friction --- violation of conservation of energy, ignorance of far more heat available from cold bottom water in deep lakes, and complete ignorance of impoundment depth limits for gravity dams.

"If₅:" need I go into detail? You've tried to thaw ice from your driveway or front walk during cold snaps by pouring boiling water on it.

"If₆:" 3000 km³ of groundwater are pumped per year globally. The recharge rate is NOT the 99% asserted by the IPCC in whichever report it was a couple years back with a hand-waving "spit-in-the-ocean" dismissal of groundwater consumption. The ugliest of SWAG numbers for wetland "reclamation" (destruction by drainage, diversion, other methods) during the 20th century is 5x10⁶ km²; what's the depth of the water column in the average wetland? 1 m? 10? 3? I haven't a clue.

These "ifs" are all addressed implicitly (by assertion) rather than explicitly (by analysis) in the IPCC reports. They can be handled one at a time.

Temperature effects on bacterial growth patterns? Single variable. Temperature, nutrient concentration, and oxygen activity, pH, and/or other variables? T effects pH, diffusion of nutrients, oxygen solubility and diffusion in the medium, and you design the experiment to investigate those relationships. You're still working on unambiguous tests of the coupled "ifs." Decoupling the "ifs" can get a little ugly (especially in pop. studies), but you're still sticking to the scientific method and testing them, rather than taking an IPCC approach and asserting results, or ignoring factors completely.

 

[vivesdn]

The solar input is obviously a key factor on Earth climate. But we can do nothing about it.
Now, for a given input, the greenhouse efect of CO2, water, methane, .. can influence the I/O balance.


And the point still is: can we do something to increase output to restore the I/O balance that allows for glaciers to exist?

 

[PlasmaSphere]

Is there anywhere online that you can look at average global temparature data? I would be interested to see if any time after the the solar wind stopped for two days there was a dip in worldwide temp. It was pretty unique occurence, happened Dec. 13, 1999: From May 10-12, 1999.

 

[Contrapositive]

It also wouldn't surprise me at all if CO2 turns out to be mostly irrelevant. Water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2

Makes me wonder if switching to hydrogen would be worse for the environment, since it produces water vapor instead of CO2.

 

[vivesdn]

Water vapour is a greenhouse agent. But water vapour creates also clouds which reduce solar input (higher night temperature -GH effect- but much lower daylight temperature -an effect that we could call umbrella effect).
But water vapour is important to have sufficient water and snowfall. Snow cover has a high albedo (increase of solar output) and is a coldness reservoir (snow needs to be melted before surface temperature can rise above 0ºC).

If you know the exact weight of each factor, you could know if switching to hidrogen is good or not.

By the way, hidrocarbons already produce roughly one molecule of water for each molecule of CO2.

 

[Coin]

Makes me wonder if switching to hydrogen would be worse for the environment, since it produces water vapor instead of CO2.

This is an interesting question. However shouldn't we ultimately be making the hydrogen by cracking water in the first place? So there would be a closed loop.

 

[chroot]

Yes, Coin, hydrogen would ideally be produced (using any energy source available) by splitting water.

- Warren

 

[Contrapositive]

This is an interesting question. However shouldn't we ultimately be making the hydrogen by cracking water in the first place? So there would be a closed loop.

Yes but we would be splitting liquid water and not vapor that is in the air.

 

[Bystander]

Makes me wonder if switching to hydrogen would be worse for the environment, since it produces water vapor instead of CO2.

Water vapour is a greenhouse agent. But water vapour creates also clouds which reduce solar input (higher night temperature -GH effect- but much lower daylight temperature -an effect that we could call umbrella effect).
But water vapour is important to have sufficient water and snowfall. Snow cover has a high albedo (increase of solar output) and is a coldness reservoir (snow needs to be melted before surface temperature can rise above 0ºC).

If you know the exact weight of each factor, you could know if switching to hidrogen is good or not.

By the way, hidrocarbons already produce roughly one molecule of water for each molecule of CO2.

This is an interesting question. However shouldn't we ultimately be making the hydrogen by cracking water in the first place? So there would be a closed loop.

Yes but we would be splitting liquid water and not vapor that is in the air.

Hydrogen is a high specific impulse fuel for "cost is no object" projects like the space program. The residence time for water vapor in the atmosphere is 1-2 weeks. The forum guidelines include a request that users remain "on-topic" in replies to threads. "Other Sciences" forums are effectively unmoderated, meaning users have to keep themselves on topic. These posts belong in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29373&highlight=hydrogen+economy , or your choice of a couple dozen "alternative energy" threads, rather than in a discussion of the quality of the science behind the GW adherents' arguments and of the GW skeptics' objections.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't see a link to the OP paper; it is available http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf"

 

[vivesdn]

Up to my understanding, the conclusions of this paper are:
1) all models are pointing a consistent trend
2) observations made are in disagreement to model predictions.

From these, one cannot say that GH effect is not the cause of the warming. What you can say is that models are not considering an important factor or missunderstanding its relationship. The models are, well, just models. When you use them to test some hypothesis, failure to verify it may be due to a wrong hypothesis or wrong model.

So, GH effect is not the key point in current trends or GH (or other varaibles) is not correctly introduced in those models.

 

[PlasmaSphere]

surely this story should be huge in the media.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists

They then go on to list all of these 400 scientists http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report , what they have said, and the science behind why they have said it. It is a very extensive list. Surely this has to get some attention in the media? this is definitely not a questionable source this time.

 

[vivesdn]

Imagine that GW is directly linked to solar activity. After all, we are very small on earth, it is just our complex of superiority that made us think that we are powerfull enough.
What we should do in this case? Just wait for changes to come and see how our (global) economical structure is suffering?
At the political level, discussing if climate change has human or natural causes makes no difference. At least, we should be planning for it, if not also planning counter measures.

Hannibal crossed the Alps using elephants on his road to Rome. OK, the past was even warmer. But what will happen with water summer supplies on all the alpine countries that are now using glacier melting?
CC is not an ecological issue. It is an economical issue.

 

[mheslep]

Vincent Gray of NZ has been an "Expert Reviewer of the drafts of every single one of the IPCC Reports for 17 years." attended the Bali conference and wrote a http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=177&Itemid=1"

At the UK Met Office Stand I met Richard Betts. The UK Met Office have a new pamphlet which has two interesting features. First they show officially, for the first time, that the globally averaged temperature of the Earth has not only been almost constant for seven years, but that it has recently declined. Betts' explanation for this was "natural variability". It seems that this explanation applies only when the temperature goes down. When it goes up it is "global warming"

 

[I don't know]

Imagine that GW is directly linked to solar activity. After all, we are very small on earth, it is just our complex of superiority that made us think that we are powerfull enough.

- If we really really wanted to screw with the climate, couldn't we do it with a bunch of well placed nuclear bombs?

 

[Andre]

surely this story should be huge in the media.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

They then go on to list all of these 400 scientists http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report , what they have said, and the science behind why they have said it. It is a very extensive list. Surely this has to get some attention in the media? this is definitely not a questionable source this time.

Makes one wonder which previous sources were questionable and why.

 

[PlasmaSphere]

Makes one wonder which previous sources were questionable and why.

Its just that newsmax seemed the only website that covered the paper, and someone else pointed out that they may not be trustworthy. But then someone supplied a link to the paper, so it was an accurate story in the end, as i thought.

 

[Andre]

And doesn't that cast some doubt about objectivity in general?

 

[reasonmclucus]

Three hundredths of a percent in solar output corresponds to a 20 mK change in Earth surface temperature. That's over 20 years, and includes no discussion of instrument drift, or measures to correct for instrument drift. Polar "melting" on Mars? Over seven (?) years (I ain't going to reread that one for this post) isn't a long enough time frame to say anything.

As rebuttals of the IPCC arguments these papers are as strewn with bad science as the IPCC --- concatenations of unstated, implicit "if" statements that go on for a half dozen to dozen logical steps to reach meaningless conclusions.

Science is about unambiguous tests of single "if" statements.

The impact of changes in solar output is not linear and not immediate. Land areas heat and cool faster than water. SSTs increases will follow increases in solar output and will decline sometime after solar output has declined.

The snow feedback loop complicates the situation. As solar output increases more snow melts uncovering land that is then heated by the sun. some of the heat energy warms the air and other heat is conducted to areas still covered by snow causing more melting. This situation results in more warming than would be the case if snow cover remained constant.

when solar output declines the situation is reversed with areas remaining snow covered longer with an increase in reflection of solar radiation and further reductions in heating.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Its just that newsmax seemed the only website that covered the paper, and someone else pointed out that they may not be trustworthy. But then someone supplied a link to the paper, so it was an accurate story in the end, as i thought.

http://www.icecap.us is a better source for climate related research.

 

[reasonmclucus]

Physicist R. W. Wood disproved the claim that greenhouses function by holding in IR in. 1909.

There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the Sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap.

I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinon that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open", the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.

To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 C, the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.

There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 C. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 C, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it,while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection. in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.

Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere. warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground even under the most favorable conditions.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/december_2007/greenhouse_effect_disproved_in_1909.htm

Thus CO2 is incapable of causing warming by affecting IR.

 

[Integral]

It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground even under the most favorable conditions.

I am sorry but I do not read that as a very strong conculsion. If, he, as you claim, had PROVEN that IR is not trapped by the atmosphere he would have used a word stronger then "doubtful", clearly Mr. Wood was not staking a lot on his conclusion. Why should I?

 

[Bystander]

"Mr. Wood?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

 

[Integral]

"Mr. Wood?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Wood

Let me restate that if DR. Wood had more confidence in his results he would have used a stronger word then doubtful.

Happy Bystander?

 

[pitot-tube]

The fact that the temperature in the Pacific ocean has a 10 year cycle that superimposes itself on the 3-5 year El Nino cycle suggests to me that variation in solar output does not account for changes in global temperature - there is something else going on.
No one has found a 10 year cycle for cosmic ray output that is superimposed on a 3-5 year cycle for cosmic ray output.
And why did the sun suddenly change its output to start the current ice age hot/cold cycle when it hadn't done so billions of years before?
Thousands of measurements have been done over land and sea to check the output of heat from the Earth's interior and this is too small compared to the Sun's output of energy to make a difference.
If the concentration of dissolved substances in the oceans had decreased then the amount of water vapour and other gases could increase in the atmosphere accounting for some global warming - but this is not the case:ther is no evidence of a change in concentration of dissolved substances.
As far as I can see the likely answer to the global warming conundrum is also one that accounts for the local warming in the pacific ocean and for both el nino and the pacific decadal oscillation.In this scenario there is an increase in greenhouse gas emission from the ring of fire - the volcanoes beneath the pacific ocean.One part of the ring of fire is causing heating for 3-5 years and the other for 10 years.El nino starts with high pressure off the coast of south america.Gas emitted from under the sea in the area of central america would be carried on the prevailing wind to the south and central pacific causing warming and high pressure there.The pacific decadal oscillation could start elsewhere on or close to the ring of fire.The jetstream can be shifted by warming in the pacific and thousands of years ago this would have resulted in warm weather in ice bound places in the north, and could have caused the rapid emission of icebergs from north america into the atlantic.Something caused the ice age (which we are still in) and people were not around at the time, so whatever caused global cooling is natural and it is therefore likely that whatever caused global warming is too.It should be kept in mind that in any explanation of the cause of el nino/the pacific decadal oscillation there also needs to be an explanation of why the warming effect goes away and then comes back.I think it is important to challenge the computer whizz kids with their hugely complicated models that say phenomena like el nino have no single cause but result from innumerable feedback mechanisms from sea and air currents on a global scale.Why shouldn't something local cause El Nino? Or the pacific decadal oscillation?
The Earth is rising more in the northern hemisphere than in the south (so I've heard - not from my hairdresser though!).Does this correspond with some sort of increased degassing of the mantle in the north - gas released as pressure is released?

 

[ffleming7]

In this TEDtalk, David Deutsch sees the global warming problem as inevitable. He thinks it is already too late, and we had no way of predicting it. Instead of focusing our efforts on preventing global warming, Deutsch believes we should attempt to find ways to live with global warming so we're ready when it is at its worst.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/47

 

[reasonmclucus]

The IPCC is primarily a political organization, so I believe its views on science should be considered skeptically.

It also wouldn't surprise me at all if CO2 turns out to be mostly irrelevant. Water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, and the Earth has endured long periods of enormous CO2 concentrations in its geological past without any calamitous increases in temperature. The hydrologic cycle has a much, much larger impact on our climate than our lightbulbs, and it'd be silly to think otherwise.

Right now, all we have to go on are models -- systems of differential equations solved numerically by supercomputers. Obviously, the addition or removal of a term or two can radically affect the predictions of such models, and we all know that these models are still very much in their infancy. We have no evidence that they are capable of predicting anything at all, in fact.

It's actually quite amazing to me that so many people are willing to spend so much money solving a problem (CO2 emission) that exists only as a prediction of some poorly-understood differential equations.

This is not to say I'm not an environmentalist -- I think pollution is terrible, I prefer bikes to cars, and I would love to see governments and corporations held to higher standards with regards to their environmental impact. If anthropogenic global warming is the impetus they need to finally clean things up, great -- I just personally don't believe it for a minute.

I see the entire AGW exercise as nothing more than an illustration of human psychology: people always seek to find patterns in randomness, and people always need something to fear.

- Warren

Many humans have difficulty accepting the idea that climatic change is normal. Any change seems to possesses the potential for disaster. The fact that social and technological changes are common exacerbates the situation. Politicians who have nothing else to offer often play on fears to gain support. Democrats try to create fear of climate change to win votes. Republicans claim that illegal immigrants are overrunning the country.

Another factor in the global warming scare is the tendency to want any environmental problem to be somehow the fault of human activity. Residents of volcanic islands may feel that when the volcano becomes active they must have done something wrong and have to appease the volcano god by throwing in a virgin. Those who warm about climate change have chosen to blame carbon dioxide which must be evil because it is produced by the evil internal combustion engine.