Remember me
▼ Content

I can't stand deniers say CO2 is not important because it's only 0.04%


I can't stand deniers say CO2 is not important because it's only 0.04%25-12-2015 02:51
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
True, it's only 0.04%, but it's enough to sustain all plant life on the planet. As a comparison, ozone in the ozone layer is less than 10 parts per million and it is able to absorb just about all UV radiation from the Sun, enabling Earth to sustain life. 0.04% of the Earth's air is relatively small, but remember Earth has a lot of atmosphere, and 0.04% of the Earth's air is still 720 billion tons. That makes a pretty thick layer, much thicker than the ozone layer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR4GrHPDcWE
Edited on 25-12-2015 03:03
27-12-2015 16:56
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
True, it's only 0.04%, but it's enough to sustain all plant life on the planet. ..

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 26% (about 316 ppm to 400 ppm) since reliable monitoring began:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
See attached graph.

According to the CAGW viewpoint, this has resulted in a recent, rapid rise in average global temperature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

However that is not what the best global temperature measurements show:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2015_v6.png

This magnitude of this difference is profound.
Attached image:


Edited on 27-12-2015 16:56
27-12-2015 16:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jdm wrote:
This magnitude of this difference is profound.


What the difference between the CO2 levels or the temperature increase?
27-12-2015 17:10
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jdm wrote:
This magnitude of this difference is profound.


What the difference between the CO2 levels or the temperature increase?


Al Gore's chart explains it very well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
27-12-2015 17:16
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jdm wrote:
This magnitude of this difference is profound.


What the difference between the CO2 levels or the temperature increase?


The difference between the magnitude of the alleged temperature increase resulting from higher CO2 levels vs the actual temperature increase as determined by direct satellite global measurements.

The issue is global warming, and best way to determine that is by direct global measurement, not by indirect symptoms. It's similar to someone in a house saying "I feel hot, don't you feel hot?". Then you look at the thermometer and it says 70F.

The two different satellite measurement systems have only been around since about 1979, but that should be sufficient to corroborate the rapid spike in average global temperatures allegedly caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels -- if it were occurring. So far they are not indicating that. Also they make true global measurements, which is appropriate since the issue is global average temperatures.
28-12-2015 13:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jdm wrote:
The difference between the magnitude of the alleged temperature increase resulting from higher CO2 levels vs the actual temperature increase as determined by direct satellite global measurements.

We don't have satellites that can do what you are describing, at least not anywhere near the accuracy required to do what you are describing.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2015 14:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jdm wrote:According to the CAGW viewpoint, this has resulted in a recent, rapid rise in average global temperature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

1. CO2 has no magical superpower to create thermal energy.
2. CO2 has no magical superpower to affect temperature by way of regulating thermal radiation.
3. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source; it is a politically biased propaganda library. If you cite it, you lose your argument.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2015 14:36
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote:According to the CAGW viewpoint, this has resulted in a recent, rapid rise in average global temperature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

1. CO2 has no magical superpower to create thermal energy..


I am not arguing that it does. I am simply stating that widely held viewpoint and contrasting it with what the satellite data shows.

IBdaMann wrote:
3. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source; it is a politically biased propaganda library. If you cite it, you lose your argument.
.


That graph simply a copy/paste from a CAGW website. The original source and hyperlink is clearly listed on the graph page. The authority (or absence thereof) comes from the root source. The reason for posting it is to show the conventional "hockey stick" viewpoint and how that contrasts with actual satellite temperature measurements.
28-12-2015 15:27
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote:
The difference between the magnitude of the alleged temperature increase resulting from higher CO2 levels vs the actual temperature increase as determined by direct satellite global measurements.

We don't have satellites that can do what you are describing, at least not anywhere near the accuracy required to do what you are describing.
.


I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Global satellite temperature measurements cover about 98% of the earth's surface, and the accuracy is sufficient to pick up known events like the 1998 El Nino and much smaller changes. The UAH and RSS satellite data correspond fairly closely.

However extreme accuracy is not needed to illustrate my point. The conventional view is global average temperatures are skyrocketing -- rapidly and unambiguously increasing at an extreme rate. That is why it's called a "hockey stick". Another example, and note the red graph is allegedly instrumented data, not a model prediction:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg

The satellite measurements -- the only true direct global temperature measurements -- do not show that.
28-12-2015 20:10
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
jdm wrote:
.....According to the CAGW viewpoint....However that is not what the best global temperature measurements show....This magnitude of this difference is profound.


How do you mean, profound? (referring to your first 12/27 post)

Near as I can tell, the latest temperature anomaly in the hockeystick graph is a little over 0.4C, the UAH graph anomaly is 0.33C.
Also, the baseline periods for figuring the anomaly are different, 1981 to 2010 in one instance, and, I think, the 20th century in the other case. The overall shapes of the graphs would be expected to be different, given the different time periods involved. The UAH graph can't show any bending that occurred before 1979.
Edited on 28-12-2015 20:15
28-12-2015 20:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jdm wrote: I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Allow me to roll my eyes.

Please, please, please, please and pretty please tell me how you were so easily convinced that you or anyone else knows that the average global atmospheric temperature is increasing...skyrocketing even, when the truth is that as far as anyone knows our planet could be cooling right now, and probably is? I'd really like to know how you were convinced.

Are you aware that warmizombies declare that "skyrocketing" Global Warming is occurring at an imperceptible rate of a couple of tenths of a degree every few decades? That would require global average atmospheric temperature accuracy of much better than a mere couple tenths of a degree.

We don't have anything near that. So let me fire the question back at you: What are you talking about?

To measure any sort of change (increase or decrease) in temperature you need at least two values...followed by a subtraction operation. Please show me all the raw data that went into computing the first global average atmospheric temperature, all the raw data that went into the second such temperature, the math used and the margin of error for each data point.

I'm guessing you don't have, nor have you seen, any of that. I'm guessing you simply saw conveniently provided "already-computed" change values and that you never questioned them...but are somehow expecting others to be as gullible and to just accept the numbers they are handed.

jdm wrote: Global satellite temperature measurements cover about 98% of the earth's surface,

...all synchronized to take measurements at the same instant?

Are you aware that satellites suffer from the major problem that they can't get anyone up into orbit to ever calibrate them? Do you understand what that does for their margin of error and to our confidence in the measurements?

jdm wrote: However extreme accuracy is not needed to illustrate my point.

I bet this is going to be good.

jdm wrote: The conventional view is global average temperatures are skyrocketing -- rapidly and unambiguously increasing at an extreme rate.

The conventional science view is that what you are describing is simply not possible and that observations of the solar magnetic field indicate weakening solar output which means the earth is likely cooling right this very instant and that it will likely continue to cool over the next few decades.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2015 21:23
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote: I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Allow me to roll my eyes.

Please, please, please, please and pretty please tell me how you were so easily convinced that you or anyone else knows that the average global atmospheric temperature is increasing...skyrocketing even, when the truth is that as far as anyone knows our planet could be cooling right now, and probably is? I'd really like to know how you were convinced.


I am not convinced, I was simply conveying both sides of the argument.

IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote: Global satellite temperature measurements cover about 98% of the earth's surface,
Are you aware that satellites suffer from the major problem that they can't get anyone up into orbit to ever calibrate them?

We also can't send a human to Saturn or Pluto to calibrate temperature instruments on those space probes, yet the data is generally trusted. Are you saying a human must be sent into space to hand-calibrate a satellite before its data can be trusted?

IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote: However extreme accuracy is not needed to illustrate my point.

I bet this is going to be good.

As I said the UAH and RSS satellite data correspond fairly closely, also to a lesser degree with various terrestrial records. The hockey stick graph from IPCC AR3 shows a temperature anomaly of nearly 0.7C and a nearly vertical slope:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/IPCC_2001_3rd%20Assessment_Report_SPM.png

Regardless of absolute accuracy the satellite data does not indicate a similar rate of temperature rise. Since both independent sets of satellite data have good correspondence this indicates either good accuracy or a common defect, which if it exists has yet to be uncovered.

IBdaMann wrote:
jdm wrote: The conventional view is global average temperatures are skyrocketing -- rapidly and unambiguously increasing at an extreme rate.

The conventional science view is...the earth is likely cooling right this very instant and that it will likely continue to cool over the next few decades...


I definitely don't agree with that. The conventional "consensus" view is global average temperatures are rapidly increasing with respect to past eras. I'm not saying I agree with that, I was contrasting that view with what the satellite data shows.
Edited on 28-12-2015 21:24
28-12-2015 21:42
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
still learning wrote:
jdm wrote:
.....According to the CAGW viewpoint....However that is not what the best global temperature measurements show....This magnitude of this difference is profound.


How do you mean, profound? (referring to your first 12/27 post)

Near as I can tell, the latest temperature anomaly in the hockeystick graph is a little over 0.4C, the UAH graph anomaly is 0.33C...


The "hockey stick" graph from IPCC AR3 shows a nearly 0.7C rise and a nearly vertical slope: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/research/res_pages/IPCC_2001_3rd%20Assessment_Report_SPM.png

The grafting of historical proxy data with modern instrumented data combined with careful selection of X/Y scales produced a "Gee Whiz" graph that gives many viewers the impression of a recent rapid temperature rise. E.g, it has been described as already being a "state of planetary emergency", and a key factor in that viewpoint is the near-vertical slope of that graph: http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/catastrophe.html

My point is that is not what the satellite data indicates.
28-12-2015 22:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jdm wrote: We also can't send a human to Saturn or Pluto to calibrate temperature instruments on those space probes, yet the data is generally trusted.

The data is presumed to have an ever-growing margin of error.

All earth stations and equipment are regularly calibrated. If any were to be neglected the data would likely be discarded by real scientists until regular calibration is resumed.

jdm wrote: Are you saying a human must be sent into space to hand-calibrate a satellite before its data can be trusted?

The correct words are "margin of error" and "confidence." We certainly trust uncalibrated sensors to lose accuracy and to increase their margin of error, thus reducing our confidence in their measurements.

jdm wrote: As I said the UAH and RSS satellite data correspond fairly closely,

Big deal. If they are both roughly inaccurate to nearly the same extent, you'd expect that result, and you would have no idea just how far off they are.


jdm wrote: The conventional "consensus" view is global average temperatures are rapidly increasing with respect to past eras.

That is only the "conventional" view within the Global Warming religion. Paleontologists don't believe that current planetary cooling is somehow an historical rate of warming. A particular religious view is by no means a "conventional" view. If anything, it is a WACKY dogma like "a guy rose from the dead after walking on water" or "CO2 has magical heat-creating super powers," etc...


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2015 22:47
drm
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
JDM - the two graphs obviously have a very different scale, so there really is no way to properly compare them. The OPs message, that trace amounts can still have major effects, isn't resolved by attempting such comparisons.




Join the debate I can't stand deniers say CO2 is not important because it's only 0.04%:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N222910-12-2019 06:56
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?3610-12-2019 05:06
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact