Arguments
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
Less energy is escaping to space: Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time. |
|||||
Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
At a glance
Empirical evidence? None? That's a big bold statement to make, so let's take a look. 'Empirical' is defined as something that may be actually measured and presented as a finding. Let's treat the topic as a criminal prosecution. The accused is CO2 and the accusation is that its increased levels through our emissions are warming the planet. As with all court cases, it's important to present an accurate account of events. So firstly, we'll examine the background to this particular case.
It all started in the 1820s, when French physicist Joseph Fourier had worked out that, at its distance from the Sun, Earth should be very cold. He proposed that Earth's atmosphere must contain something that kept the planet warm, like some invisible blanket. His ideas were, it turned out, correct albeit incomplete.
Some decades passed before the nature of Fourier's blanket was discovered. This was done through a series of experiments involving various gases. Interestingly, two investigators worked on it independently, John Tyndall, in the UK and Eunice Foote in the USA. Impressively, their results were virtually identical.
Foote, writing in 1856, was the first scientist to state that carbon dioxide can trap energy. She predicted that if there had been more CO2 in the atmosphere at times past, an increased temperature would have prevailed. That was something the geologists already knew. Tyndall went on to write, in 1861, that on top of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons - such as methane - would have even greater effects at very low concentrations. The greenhouse effect and its key players had been identified.
The landmark paper, "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change", was published just under a hundred years later. Essentially, it stated what we know now. Without the atmosphere and its greenhouse gases, Earth would be an uninhabitable iceball. As Fourier started to reason all that time ago, greenhouse gases act like a blanket. They keep Earth warm by inhibiting the escape of energy back into space. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels, thereby intensifying the effect.
That's the background. As we emit more greenhouse gases, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket. Even less heat is lost. So how can we tell that? How can we find hard evidence, like good CCTV footage of our suspect up to their mischief?
How about measuring it?
Satellites orbiting our planet carry sensitive instruments on board. Through them we can measure how much energy is arriving from the Sun. We can measure how much energy is leaving the Earth, out into space. So right there we have two things to compare.
What do the measurements tell us? Over the last few decades since satellites became available, there has been a gradual decrease in the energy heading from Earth's surface back into space. Yet in the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the Sun has hardly changed at all. Something is hanging onto that energy and that something is getting stronger. That something is carbon dioxide - doing exactly as Foote and Tyndall said it would 160 plus years ago.
Verdict: guilty on all counts.
Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!
Further details
The well-established theory that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is supported as well as any chain of evidence in a rock-solid court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. It has done so for most of geological time. Humans are adding substantial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. Empirical evidence abounds to support the contention that the rising temperatures are being caused by that increasing CO2.
The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket
It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).
Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.
Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.
Without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is. That would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C.
Greenhouse gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated from Earth's warmed surface, back out into space. If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?
The heat-trapping effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases were discovered in the mid-19th century but we can do more sophisticated stuff these days. We can measure the heat energy going into Earth's climate system and that coming back out.
In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries et al. 2001). What they consistently found was a drop in outgoing radiation.
This change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the Harries paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs & Harries 2004, Chen et al. 2007). In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has hardly changed at all.
When there is more energy coming in from the Sun than there is escaping back out to space, it should come as no surprise to learn that our climate is accumulating heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy et al. 2009). Just since 1998, the planet has accumulated heat energy equivalent to the yield of 3,260,000,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs.
The primary greenhouse gases responsible for the trapping of heat – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air. The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually transparent to long-wave or infrared radiation.
For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in millions of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone above 400 ppm. It's now getting on for 420 ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by 50% in the last 150 years.
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Fig. 1. Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapour is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans et al. 2006).
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
Summing Up
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a demonstrable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is mostly from burning fossil fuels.
And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Finally, the myth-creator refers to climate models as "concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator". That statement demonstrates nothing more than a limited grasp of what models are and do and is rebutted at this post in our series.
Last updated on 9 July 2023 by John Mason. View Archives
Tom Curtis @275.
I think the term "hockey stick" used by RedBaron refers to the NH millenial temperature reconstructions and so means AGW. I don't think he refers to the atmospheric CO2 record.
My reading of what is being said @274 is that the levels of climate forcing from CO2 would be greatly reduced had not mankind done such damage to the biosphere around the world. Thus, "the ecological sink is far too small to actually counter Fossil Fuel emissions in its current degraded state."
The transition from the net LUC emissions & biosphere absorption being a source to becoming a sink depends on the ratio of chopping trees to burning FF. It is also dependent on the levels of absorption into the biosphere as CO2 levels rise. If we adopt a value of 25% for the proportion of our emissions currently absorbed by the biosphere, we can calculate a rough date for the biosphere becoming a net sink by using FF+cement emissions & LUC emissions - 1971.
I read RedBaron @274 arguing that the 25% value would be far higher had mankind not reduced the size of the biosphere by chopping it down or whatever. If the biosphere were, say, twice the size of its present diminished state, would it not absorb twice the CO2? With double the absorption, a the date of transition from source to sink occurs in 1930, even without adjustment to the LUC figures. Under such assumptions, if the biosphere were absorbing twice the amount of our emissions, the rise in atmospheric CO2 would be halved and atmospheric CO2 today would only be 337ppm.
Thus RedBaron concludes "the principle of the effect ecosystem services being capable of moderating atmospheric CO2 is proven by the very thing you mentioned." While this does amply demonstrate the influence of the biosphere on atmospheric CO2 levels, that is something I don't think is in dispute. And beyond that point, I don't see it supporting the various argument from RedBaron scattered down this thread.
MA Rodger @276, I suggest you reread the first paragraph RedBaron's post @262, which I believe clearly indicates that he thinks anthropogenic emissions from LUC have followed a hockey stick. He can, of course clarrify this for himself.
I think he is furhter arguing that by reversing the degradation of the biosphere, it can absorb more than current FF + LUC emissions, thereby reversing global warming, but that that is for him a seperate but related thesis.
With regard to the biosphere in general, assuming that the biosphere is constantly fifty percent of the total sink, then the biosphere first becomes a net sink from 1942-1950. It returns to being a net sink again in 1960, and except for 1961, '67 and '68, remains so thereafter. I calculated this using CO2 concentration data from Law Dome. Using the same data and assumptions, the biosphere peaks as a source in the late 19th century, and follows a more or less linear trend downward since about the 1940s. Potentially it could be fitted to a quadratic after 1850, and presumably linear before 1850, making it an inverted hockey stick. If we take this seriously, that again contradicts either version of RedBaron's hypothesis. That is, LUC emissions have been an inverted hockey stick, not a hockey stick as required by the version you do not believe he holds; but also the biospheres capability to act as a sink has increased over time, contrary to that part of the theory we both think he holds.
Having said that, I do not think the assumption of a constant ratio of biosphere to oceanic sink is safe.
[DB] RedBaron's response to you was moderated out due to repetitive sloganeering (multiple simple assertions lacking any credible support).
Apparently I am being silenced now. Fair enough. I suspected it would eventually happen. As much as I would hope that science was free of politics, it isn't. I'll leave you with some empirical evidence and it will be up to you to figure out why it shows the flaw in your numbers without commentary from me. Because quite frankly I am not interested in debating on a forum where discussing different interpretations of the same evidence is not allowed.
How ecological restoration alters ecosystem services: an analysis of carbon sequestration in China's Loess Plateau
Good luck
Red Baron,
You are not being silenced. If you want to continue the discussion you only have to cite peer reviewed papers that support your position. You must also address the data others have presented that argue against your position. In science you cannot continue to make unsupported claims and expect people to listen to you forever.
Tom Curtis @277.
For a second time we use slightly different forms of analysis (I was assuming %(CO2 emissions), you %(drawn-down CO2) using Law Dome data) but I haven't before considered using ice core data to extend analysis of atmospheric levels back before the Keeling curve.
While the Law Dome data does show some curious wobbles, it does allow a calculation of sorts for the Atmospheric Fraction back into the 1800s. There is no evidence from such a calculation that there was some grand absorbing sink of CO2 existing back then. (There's even an SKS post from 2010 that does a similar analysis with the same outcome.) This strongly suggests that the marked trashing of eco-systems over that period has not altered "ecosystem services" to any significant extent on a global scale.
MA Rodger @280:
Exactly!
Indeed, RedBaron's thesis is intrinsically implausible in that it requires biosphere sequestration of CO2 (by an unaltered biosphere) would go from just matching preindustrial LUC (at best) to matching industrial era emissions with a few years lag at most. It is thoroughly implausible that so sensitive a feedback mechanism would not either act as an inexorable pump of CO2 levels down to far below preindustrial levels, or result in wild fluctuations in CO2 levels on an annual and decadal basis. As neither has happened, presumably the feedback mechanism is slow, as is indicated by all the data.
Indeed, that is what we should expect. In principle, the Net Ecosystem Productivity (ie, the rate of Carbon sequestration) of an undisturbed forest will approximate to the rate of formation of coal. That is, it will be effectively zero. Immediately after it is massively disturbed, as by clear felling, it will become a carbon source, but will then become a large carbon sink with regrowth. However, within a few years or decades (depending on the rate of growth of the trees), it will decline as a sink, and approach the rate of sequestration of the formation of coal over time (if completely undisturbed). (See here, and also here.)
This pattern also applies to grasslands, with a possible (but not demonstrated by RedBaron) ongoing and slightly higher rate of sequestration due to the accumulation of soil carbon. Even there, however, carbon accumulation in soil is dependent on the rate of bioturbation, which implies such carbon soil carbon is outgassed at some rate depending on the rate of bioturbation at a given level. From that in turn it follows that even soil carbon will reach net zero sequestration given mature conditions, with a slight excess of sequestration if the soil is buried by sediment, and a slight excess of emission if it is eroded.
This pattern also means you cannot project high rates of initial sequestration in ecosystem reclamation projects (as in his linked article @278) forward as an expected sustainable rate. It will peter out rapidly for grasslands (excluding sequestration in soil), and over a few decades for forest. Soil sequestration will peter out more slowly, but will itself reach equilibrium over time.
The upshot is that the high rate of biosphere sequestration we see now is a consequence of prior degredations. Absent the regrowth of northern forests (particularly in the USA), it would be much smaller.
@Tom,
You said, "Soil sequestration will peter out more slowly, but will itself reach equilibrium over time." Maybe. I would like some evidence that aside from the atmospheric CO2 levels reaching ~170ppm +/- that there is any reduction in healthy grassland ecosystem's sequestration of CO2 in the soil.[1] Overgrazing can cause a reduction. Undergrazing can cause a reduction.[2] But judging from the actual evidence and the cause of carbon sequestration[3], I seriously doubt there is any "petering out" of carbon sequestration as soils improve. Here is why, one of the primary reasons for such increased soil sequestration of carbon in grassland soils is the mycorrhizal fungi plant symbiosis. This effect is not dependant on carbon already sequestered, but instead a direct feeding of products of photosynthesis to the fungi and it has a direct relationship to grazing pressure.[4] I conclude that the reason Savory, Sacks, Teague, and several others are seeing a difference in the sequestration rate differences according to management practices is this symbiosis. They also are finding the quantity of carbon contained in soils is directly related to the diversity and health of soil biota. This correlation deriving directly from root exudates which feed the mycorrhizal fungi, which then produce glomalin.[5] Unless you can show any break in that cycle (other than atmospheric CO2 levels dropping below what C4 plants can effectively use as generally happens) that might occur when soils reach a certain level of SOM, there is no reason to believe sequestration will "peter out" in the soil. Unless you can back up that assumption. Keep in mind you would also need to show there even exists enough CO2 in the atmosphere to reach any kind of plateau like that.
You also said, "It is thoroughly implausible that so sensitive a feedback mechanism would not either act as an inexorable pump of CO2 levels down to far below preindustrial levels, or result in wild fluctuations in CO2 levels on an annual and decadal basis."
And yet atmospheric levels have experienced an inexorable pumping down well below those levels. It happened every glaciation phase but this one. What stopped it, if not the megafauna extinctions? Remember we have evidence that both overgrazing AND undergrazing reduce carbon sequestration in grassland soils and about the same general time the megafauna extinctions occured, the CO2 levels stopped dropping. Much later they started rising significantly. Analogy would be a draining pool. First you plug the drain, then you begin filling. Soon it will overflow. But if you hadn't stopped the drain when you began filling it, likely it wouldn't overflow. It just wouldn't empty. The reason your models are flawed is because you are measuring the stoppered pool and assuming this is the extent of the drain. Instead you must measure a cleared drain to calculate what fill rate will make it overflow. This is the relationship of the grasslands ecosystems which are the primary driver of global cooling and fossil fuels which are the primary driver of global warming. In order to make a proper compareson you need measurements of fully functioning grassland ecosystems that are not over grazed or under grazed, and certainly not tilled. There are only a few such measurements available, but the ones available seem to indicate that the "drain" when cleared is significantly bigger than the "fill".
Recommended supplemental reading:
Is 2015 The Year Soil Becomes Climate Change’s Hottest Topic? by Natasha Geiling, Climate Progress, Apr 29, 2015
Myth has not been addressed.
Yes, CO2 is increasing. Yes, temperature is rising. This is a correlation and does not mean causation. The cause could also be natural temperature changes. What arguments are there to show that it is the CO2 and not natural temperature change causing the warming? For example: is temperature rising faster now than in earths history? If it is then it is likely to be man-made.
da, what exactly is "natural temperature change"? What sort of mechanisms are involved?
The claim is based on the premise that CO2 absorbs/emits thermal infrared radiation. The evidence for that premise is abundant, and there's no challenge. Increase atmospheric CO2, and the surface-to-space path of thermal infrared lengthens in time/space.
By the way, da, did you click on the "intermediate" tab at the top of the article?
Of course, there is also that pesky stubborn thing called physics. It always wins eventually.
ringingrocks... Your video from David A. Dilley is rather long and wide ranging, but has a large amount of incorrect information. You can easily go through each of the myths listed on the top left of this blog page and see responses to each and every issue.
Overall, best I can make out, Mr. Dilley does not have the credentials that he claims. A quick search on google scholar doesn't turn up any published research by a DA Dilley on any climate related issue. You're probably better served by sticking with actual researchers in the field of climate science.
ringingrocks: The credibility of David Diller is low, given that he claims to be able to accurately predict ENSO events (El Nino & La Nina) and hurricanes four years in advance, yet does not show his past predictions versus the realities, despite him having been in his business for 25 years. He also claims to accurately predict earthquakes. And claims that in 2025 global temperatures will hit a catastrophically major low. And then there is this astonishingly wrong claim that a grade schooler could correct, but which apparently is a key basis for his predictions: "The gravitational cycles of the moon and sun cause the seasonal tilts of the earth's axis and the 4 seasons."
Oh, and we already are on our way to that 2025 catastrophic global low temperature, Diller claims, because global temperature peaked in 2012 and has been cooling ever since. Really, that's still on his web site.
Oh, and ringingrocks, if you are actually skeptical (not simply doubtful), you might want to reverse your research process. Start with the basic physics and work from there.
Rob Honeycutt @288, David Dilley claims on his website to have an MA in meteorology, and to have worked with the US Air Force and then NOAA as a meteorologist. He also claims only two, self published papers on climate, so no peer reviewed publications at all. His masters thesis appears to not have been published.
What I find interesting is his claim that:
The research justifying the claim is supposedly contained in an e-book for which his website no longer provides links. The prediction was made no later than August of 2008, so it predicts continued cooling in 2009 to "temperatures ... observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s". For the record, 2009 was 0.1 C warmer than 2008. It was also 0.6 C warmer than the 1940-1979 average, and 0.46 C warmer then the 95th percentile of 1940-1979 global temperatures (GISS LOTI). No year since 2008 (when the prediction was made) has been as cool as, let alone cooler than 2008.
For his 2023 prediction to be valid, global temperatures must fall by more than 0.1 C per year for eight years running - a rapidity of temperature change not witnessed at any time in the modern record. No doubt that prediction will be a bust as well.
As a predictions of global temperatures, these are among the most spectacular fails ever seen. It is also inconsistent with his claim to be a reliable predictor of short term climate and ENSO states in general. Consequently it is no surprise to find no archived copies of his predictions at his website. We 'know' he is a successful predictor only because in 2015 he tells us what his predictions for the years up to 2015 were.
Tom Curtis, the odd phrasing of Dilley's bio leaves unclear whether he actually got a B.S. or an M.S. Normally people list "B.S. Meteorology," or "B.S. major in Meteorology," and "M.S. Meteorology, emphasis on climatology." Instead Dilley wrote "studies for B.S." and "studies for M.S." It's possible to audit graduate classes, and in some schools to even take them for credit, without being in that school's Masters program. So maybe he took classes but never got his B.S., or got his B.S. but never got his M.S. His misunderstanding of what causes seasons is evidence that he was incapable of getting either degree.
My personal favorite claim on his bio page is this one:
Yes, an obvious typo, but humorous none-the-less. That along with the statement that he has an article published on NoTricksZone dated August 28, 2016.
He seems to be somewhat temporally challenged, in a way that a simple proof reading could cure.
Rob, what do you have against Time Lords?!
Wait!! Isn't that Arya Stark? Is she getting the Many-Faced God to help Dilley?
This makes me sad. ;-)
Science must be objective, impersonal, not subjective (through polls, for example), in order to find the true scientific ways for the benefit of the humankind. Since we all live on a same planet, these correct ways are important and decisive for all. Therefore, I kindly invite you to read the papers "Climate Changes: How the Atmosphere Really Works" and “The Physical Principles Elucidate Numerous Atmospheric Behaviors", which ones demonstrate the true physical principles of the atmospheric behaviors that were also confirmed by experimental data and calculations. And everything there is consistent, coherent and transparent. These articles were strongly reviewed by peers as well as the author is firmly aware on the correctness of the physical principles that he writes.
There you will learn, among many other things:
- the planet works according to two systems of the solar energy area: a solar still and a solar evaporator, and not according to a CO2 layer circling the planet or to a common greenhouse without water;
- the current science on global warming or climate changes caused by the CO2 says that when the atmosphere warms the evaporation increases, but it is demonstrated physically and mathematically that this is wrong. For example, if temperature or warming created water, the Sahara would be the most humid place on the planet;
- the true explanation and solution for the “evaporation paradox”. The corresponding empirical “solutions” found for such incomprehension violate the fundamental laws of the nature or of the physics, such as the law of conservation of energy and mass;
- cloud covers reduce the wind and the evaporation and can increase the warming below them. Clouds do not work only as a cooling medium, as considered until to date;
- through true graphs and calculations, the theoretical influence of the CO2 on the air temperature is shown to be less than one percent, thus, an insignificant influence. Ingenuous arguments such as the rudimentary and incipient ones of the 19th Century used by NASA, for example, to justify the power of the CO2, merely inform that the this gas has a greenhouse effect, but say nothing about how much is its power;
- the CO2 is not decisive for building and changing the temperatures of Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Earth;
- the radiation is not the only heat transfer mode for determining the air temperature and is much smaller than the evaporation one, and then among many other conclusions this is why the "hockey stick" is invalid;
- the Sun is not the only heat source for the atmosphere;
- the geoengineering is an absolute insanity and demonstrates the deep lack of knowledge on the true atmospheric behaviors;
- ice cores are invalid for "determining" "past" temperatures or climates of the planet;
- how an igloo works;
- that's incredible, humans can influence the climate, but not as has been said to us up to now;
- the New Hydrological Cycle, discovered by Sartori;
- which is the most accurate equation for the evaporation rate;
- much, much more.
You can also see a summary of the Sartori theory as well as a scientific comparison between the thermal behavior of the Amazon and of the Sahara at
http://sartori-globalwarming.blogspot.com
And further info at
http://sartori-aquecimentoglobal.blogspot.com
Thank you.
All the best.
[PS]
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular, note comments must be on-topic, with no Gish Gallops. Find a topic you wish to challenge with search function and discuss only that. Furthermore, if you wish to make extraordinary claims, then you must be prepared back your position, preferably with reference to the peer-reviewed literature. (OASRP Journals certainly dont count)
Your claims show a profound misunderstanding of climate science and I strongly recommend you work through the resources provided.
ES, your post is going to get deleted for several violations of the comments policy. Before it goes, though, I just want to point out that I'm laughing my posterior off at your claims. Where in the heck did you get the idea that anyone believes evaporation is the creation of water?
It's easy to build a powerful argument against ideas that no one believes in the first place.
[PS] Please watch tone.
ES, I wholeheartedly agrees with you that CO2 is "not decisive for building and changing" the temperature of Jupiter...
Aside of that, your kind of post is one of the reasons why it took me very little time to find where reality resides when I first started to read about climate. There is the real science, and then there is all the rest. Guess where your ramblings fall...
[PS] Please watch your tone.
The atmosphere does not work according to a CO2 layer circling the planet for climate changes purposes and then you lose too much time and efforts making comments on this negligible aspect. The REAL and TRUE atmospheric behaviors are described in the ES papers. The journals where they were submitted make strong peer reviews as well as the author is firmly aware on the physical principles on which he writes about. True science can be written even onto a napkin, but scientists who are not aware on the corresponding true physical principles are not scientists.
[DB] Welcome to Skeptical Science. In this venue, we discuss the evidence surrounding the science of Climate Change. In doing so, it is incumbent upon participants to themselves use evidence and source citations for claims running counter to the primary literature, and to also compose comments that comply with this venue's Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.