Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Yes. Let's say 'a lot'. Wait, how did the ozone get depleted?

Was that caused by a volcano eruption or giant undersea earthquake? I completely missed it.See I thought that CFCs, that you credit the increased warming of the earth to, were anthropogenic compunds. But then you just finished telling me that anthropogenic global warming had fallen flat on its face. Apparently it doesn't.

No, it does not.

The phrase 'trap more heat' means to hold a greater quantity of heat energy at any given moment.The energy will still be able to escape, so it is not 'never let go', but there is more of it within the containment area of interest.Take a house, as an example. If I put the heater on, the heat energy in the house will go up. Heat energy will still leave through the walls, windows and roof etc. If I open a window, heat energy will escape more quickly. If I install insulation, more heat will be trapped. Heat will still escape the trap, but at a slower rate than before. Since the heater is still generating the same amount of heat energy, the overall heat energy in the house will go up.

Except with the window, it's actually mostly conduction. And with more carbon dioxide there is more heat energy absorbed. That wasn't the claim I made. I simply stated that 'trapping heat' does not mean 'trapped forever'. I'm fairly sure the evidence you are asking for here has already been presented, and you have already rejected it. Is there much point in presenting it again? Here is something NASA wrote for all the good that it will do. The phenomena is called energy imbalance. Eventually all the heat the earth takes in, will radiate out, but it can, for periods of time, take in more heat that it radiates back out:

quote:

---

Energy imbalance arises because of changes of the climate forcings acting on the planet in combination with the planet's thermal inertia. For example, if the Sun becomes brighter, that is a positive forcing that will cause warming. If Earth were like Mercury, a body composed of low conductivity material and without oceans, its surface temperature would rise quickly to a level at which the planet was again radiating as much heat energy to space as the absorbed solar energy.

​

Earth's temperature does not adjust as fast as Mercury's due to the ocean's thermal inertia, which is substantial because the ocean is mixed to considerable depths by winds and convection. Thus it requires centuries for Earth's surface temperature to respond fully to a climate forcing.

---

Well that's not what you said, you said

quote:

---

Trap means to never let it go. You cannot be serious that when co2 absorbs radiation, it keeps it forever?

---

There are other heat transfers taking place too. You mention 'from the surface', but also 'to the surface', for instance - including notably the ocean and to a degree, the ice. You also neglect the fact that N2 and O2 don't absorb infrared photons, while CO2 and CH4 does.

Good. Yes they do. But where are they absorbing it from? A number of sources, but CO2 is one of them - as are other greenhouse gasses. Where is CO2 getting it from? From absorbing it from the IR radiating from the earth's surface.This will result in higher atmospheric temperatures as that o2 will also conduct heat to things such as the ground and people etc.Without the greenhouse gasses, the IR will not be absorbed by them and less heat will be absorbed by the O2 and N2, and the O2 and N2 won't be able to conduct that heat back into people...or oceans. No it's reasonable to say adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap more heat, as that is precisely what happens. The fact this heat gets transferred to other atmospheric molecules doesn't alter the fact that it was CO2 that captured it in the first place. Exactly. So more heat being stored in O2 and N2 and other atmospheric gasses increases the conduction to the ocean and ice from the atmosphere. Do you have evidence that the oceans are cooling now? This is strange because 10 weeks ago (almost to the minute, see Message 311) you said:

quote:

---

In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

---

If the oceans are warming, yet are giving up more energy to the ice and atmosphere, where is all the extra energy coming from? '3% extra ultraviolet B radiation?' caused by CFCs - Can you show your working?And if the net conduction is away from the oceans, might it be a problem if this net conduction amount decreases? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm willing to concede that if our atmosphere consisted solely of the carbon molecules currently present and none of the other gasses, it'd be frickin cold here.But we are talking about the atmosphere we do have. In that atmosphere, adding carbon dioxide captures more of the infrared radiation emanating from the earth's surface. These carbon molecules then transfer that heat to other things, such as the rest of the atmosphere, the ocean back to the surface etc. More heat, leads to higher temperatures.Conversely, less carbon molecules capture less radiation, meaning more of this heat escapes without heating the atmosphere. Less heat being trapped in the atmosphere leads to lower temperatures. They can be, but that doesn't mean they are. It's actually not a controversial topic - the only real controversy is how we respond to it.The Roswell incident is a controversial topic, by some measure. The story that a modified weather balloon holding a microphone as an experimental nuclear bomb detonation detector was covered up by the military as a national security secret is more credible than the military covering up interstellar aliens. Two possibilities:
1) Systemic bias
2) Contrary views are not supportedHow much is accepted in medical journals that heart attacks are not deleterious to health? Solar activity and water vapour are very much discussed in climate change science.Here is a paper A Decade of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer: Is a Solar—Cloud Link Detectable? for example:

quote:

---

The study identifies no statistically significant correlations between cloud anomalies and TSI/GCR variations, and concludes that solar-related variability is not a primary driver of monthly to annual MODIS cloud variability. The authors observe a net increase in cloud detected by MODIS over the past decade of; 0.58%, arising from a combination of a reduction in high-to midlevel cloud (20.31%) and an increase in low-level cloud (0.89%); these long-term changes may be largely attributed to ENSO-induced cloud variability.

---

Or Solar Influence on Global and Regional Climates:

quote:

---

The best estimates of the solar influence on the global mean air surface temperature show relatively small effects, compared with the response to anthropogenic changes (and broadly in line with their respective radiative forcings). However, the situation is more interesting when one looks at regional and season variations around the global means. In particular, recent research indicates that winters in Eurasia may have some dependence on the Sun, with more cold winters occurring when the solar activity is low. Advances in modelling top-down mechanisms, whereby stratospheric changes influence the underlying troposphere, offer promising explanations of the observed phenomena. In contrast, the suggested modulation of low-altitude clouds by galactic cosmic rays provides an increasingly inadequate explanation of observations.

---

Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate:

quote:

---

The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

---

Investigation of cosmic ray-cloud connections using MISR:

quote:

---

Our long-term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed.

---

quote:

---

Thus, to explain observed global warming via CR modulation of albedos, it is necessary to postulate that a 5% decrease in the CR flux decreases global albedo by around half a percent. Fortuitously, the secular decrease in the CR flux since 1891 is equal to the average Fd magnitude in our composite analysis. Thus, if CR flux decreases were responsible for recent warming, then an albedo signal should be visible in our Fd analysis since the 95% confidence interval extends to only 0.0029. Instead, we observe that there is no global albedo response to a 5% decrease in CRs greater than 0.0029 and no hint of any weaker signals imbedded in the noise either.

---

Words. I'll repeat the science:

quote:

---

The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

---

I don't know what counts as 'long term', but the study you quoted goes back to the turn of the twentieth century.

quote:

---

The analysis above suggests that modulation of albedo is not responsible for the majority of global warming since 1900.

---

quote:

---

One caveat on these conclusions is that the upper bound of 0.0029 per 5% CR decrease was derived exclusively in the context of short timescale Fds. It is conceivable that
CRs influence climate via some unknown mechanism that only acts
on longer timescales, and thus wouldn’t be apparent during brief Fd episodes. However the majority of CR mechanisms proposed
in the literature would be expected to manifest themselves on short timescales since the effects of CRs on atmospheric ionization are immediate, and cloud formation processes operate on the order of hours to days.

​

Although both short and long term analysis did not uncover any evidence for spatially localized CR cloud correlations, local effects
cannot be dismissed because the grid size of block-averaged MISR
data is large and the sampling errors in regional correlations
are too large to tightly constrain the magnitude of local effects.

---

I still contend that your claim that remains false.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.