Posted on 11/09/2017 11:40:58 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
If observed climate variables such as temperature or precipitation change over time, it raises the question as to whether human influence plays a role. To investigate this, scientists are applying a method for estimating causal relationships.
The fact that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are changing the global climate system is scientifically undisputed. Climate researchers often look to the future with their models and try to calculate how the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect various climate variables.
To test whether these climate variables are influenced by rising greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, scientists have developed the detection and attribution method.
The method involves a combined analysis of long observation series and simulation experiments in which climate models are calculated both with and without human influence in order to compare them with the actual observations. If the latter are only reproduced by the simulations with emissions, it can be concluded that man-made climate change is demonstrable in the observations.
The detection and attribution method is an important instrument for climate research and was used in the last UN climate report in the chapter on the evidence of man-made climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
You have found the flaw in my scheme.
But rest assured, the climate change proponents will not.
In fact, they probably are in favor of killing all the Earth’s inhabitants, to save it.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGlobal climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps it 33°C warmer than it would be without trace gases in the atmosphere. 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.0385 volume percent of CO2. If CO2 exhibited such an extreme effect, however, this would show up as a thermal conductivity anomaly even in an elementary laboratory experiment. Carbon dioxide would manifest itself as a new kind of 'super-insulation,' wildly violating the conventional heat-conductivity equation.
Such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed in CO2, of course.
many times have they predicted that Miami would be underwater in 10 years if we don’t
= = =
It is Settled Science that Miami IS underwater, you Denier!
I agree completely. I didn't read past the first chart. It had no real labels or scales for both axes. That's an obvious reason to disagree with any conclusions. Any person who can't even put a scale on his data is just a flake.
if you make a campfire you also certainly are warming the planet,
= = =
Hmmm,
What if I don’t make a campfire, but that wood I would have used, just decays?
I posit that the heat from the decaying process is the same as from a fire, but just over a longer time.
And I don’t know this, but let me put it into my prediction model.
“The fact that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are changing the global climate system is scientifically undisputed.”
The author is an idiot.
WX and WX anomalies for several years or decades are meaningless since true climate science take the average of 100 years to make ONE, SINGLE data point tick among thousands that would comprise a valid evaluation of the climate.
Sadly, I think your right.
Anyone can look at the data and understand that the earth does not emit radiation from the surface to space at more than a few discrete frequencies. If this were not so, then the surface temperature of the Earth would be identical to the surface temperature of the Moon. Heat radiating from the surface is captured by the atmosphere and that heat then drives convection which is the primary heat transport mechanism in the lower atmosphere.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
The atmosphere does not eliminate radiation to space, it simply causes the majority of the radiation from Earth to space to take place at a higher altitude, where colder temperatures means a reduction in the amount of radiative heat emitted. Surfaces emit heat in a smooth curve across all frequencies. Atmospheres can only emit radiation in the discrete wavelengths of emission from each constituent molecule.
In the lower atmosphere, each gas constituent absorbs all radiation in its discrete wavelengths before it can escape to space, until at higher altitudes eventually there is not sufficient concentration of that type of molecule to absorb it, which results in that heat being lost to space. So the only effect of increasing CO2 concentration is raising the altitude where emission from the CO2 occurs.
If the relationship between temperature and radiation was linear, then there would be a slight increase in radiation with altitude, because there is more surface area the higher you go. However, radiation is related to the 4th power of temperature, which drives the relationship the opposite direction.
Interestingly, temperatures start to increase again at altitudes above 20,000 meters, so when CO2 doubles one or two more times it will start to cause increased heat loss to space. https://scied.ucar.edu/webweather/weather-ingredients/change-atmosphere-altitude
Not really true.
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth's Upper Atmosphere“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activity can directly affect our planet.”
Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
Sorry my sentence wasn’t more clear. The story you linked is in agreement with what I was trying to convey. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.