[Bored chemist]

The extra warmth of big cities is well doccumented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
However as most of the earth's surface isn't even land, never mind a city the potential for this to affect the overall temperature is small. Even in a city centre the heat from mankind's activity is less than a tenth of that from the sun. Of course, in rural areas it's practically zero and there are vastly more bits of the world without antropogenic heatig than with.

As for experimental evidence, I have got a greenhouse and it's generally warmer in there than outside so there's no question that the greenhouse effect works.
I also use infra red spectrometry at work and I know that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation.

What mechanism are you proposing that stops the greenhouse effect?

Incidentally, while this

isn't a very sophisticated experiment, it shows the effect of a CO2 atmosphere on the temperature of an object heated by radiation.

[BenV]

Is TED a "sockpuppet"?

IP's don't match.  I think he's an opportunist, rather than a sockpuppet.

[Bored chemist]

Is TED a "sockpuppet"?

IP's don't match.  I think he's an opportunist, rather than a sockpuppet.

Fair enough, but I think you can understand my suspicion.

BTW, Henry,
I know I have not cited particularly evidence to back up the conventional theory. To be fair, there's plenty of discussion of it elsewhere on the net.
Do you have any evidence at all to back up your ideas?

[paul.fr]

Henry, I don't have time to go in to much detail, but just skimming over your posts I have picked a few quotes out:

I hope you will agree with me that it is time to de-mystify some of the aspects of 'global warming' and come up with some real figures and facts, from exact measurements.

I also find the 2,5 ppm's (= 2,5 milligrams per kilo air) much lower than expected. Difficult yet to imagine that a change this small can have such a serious influence on the climate.
 

I have thought about it whole day, but I really, honestly, cannot believe that an increase in the CO2 content of only 70 ppm's (0,007%) since 1960 could possibly be the cause or reason for global warming.

It seems I am not getting the answers that I was hoping for that would prove to me one way or another that the 70 odd ppm’s of Carbon dioxide that were added to the atmosphere since 1960 are to blame for global warming.

 From those quotes I am lead to believe that you just don't understand basic Meteorology or Climatology, and that you have not researched the content of this topic. The subject is only mystifying when you do not know or understand the science, and yes, there are "real" facts and figures from exact measurements, how else could we know the changing state of the atmosphere? One place you may wish to look up is the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii:

 

Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is a premier atmospheric research facility that has been continuously monitoring and collecting data related to atmospheric change since the 1950's. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring consituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change. The observatory is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) - Global Monitoring Division (GMD).
 

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/

 Comments here also seem to be confusing Climate Change with the Greenhouse Effect, and I would again recommend that people read this:
 http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html .

 The greenhouse effect is actually a good thing and needed for life, without it the average surface temperature would be around -18 degrees Celsius. There is no scientific argument that the greenhouse effect is real and happening.

 Global warming, or more accurately global climate change happens because the usual pattern whereby the earth s surface absorbs visible radiation from the sun, which causes heating and the surface and the atmosphere then emit infrared radiation back to space. If this was left uninterrupted then the earths surface temperatures would remain fairly constant, but increased greenhouse gasses have and are changing this. As has been discussed earlier, the concentration of Co2 has increased, this is causing more heat to be trapped in earths atmosphere instead of radiating out into space.

 A pdf from the WMO will give you information on the values of increase in these gases:
 http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg-bulletin-en-03-06.pdf

 The UK Meteorological Office also have an Educational section:
 http://www.metoffice.gov.UK/climatechange/

 You made this comment:
 

Similarly I have noticed in winter that if you come to the city after staying outside on the same plane (height) the temperature in the city is always a few degrees higher.
 

 Which prompted BC to post about the urban heat island. This can increase the local temperature by as much as (IIRC) 5 degrees Celsius, and alter the local climate conditions. What you have noticed is this effect, but for the wrong reason. If you look at the weather maps on your local forecast they will show areas where the temperatures are the same, they are represented as (usually) black lines and they are called an isotherm...places of equal temperature. You could leave that city and go to another town, nearby, that is of a lower elevation and that could have a higher temperature. So your observation is not really valid.

I just don't have the time to go in to detail, and may aspects have been left out, such as the most important one, water vapour and the effect increased Co2 has on it. Why not try reading and learning some basic meteorology and get a feel and understanding of how things work before trying to challenge something big like climate change?


here are a few places to start:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//
www.theweatherprediction.com

[Henry Pool (OP)]

OK, let’s sum up what we got on my original question. We found only one place in the whole earth where they dutifully kept track of the CO2 content each year.. It was noted that about 70 ppm’s of CO2 were added to the atmosphere since 1960 (in Hawaii). This was considered to be so small, that it would hardly make a dent in the oxygen content, i.e. no measurable difference in the oxygen content.. The question has now shifted from “How much CO2 is added every year” to “How much is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to global warming”.  A variety of people have told me to go and do some studying because I just don’t understand but no one so far has given me an  answer... Fine, CO2 and water etc. absorb in the infra-red region. So what? What does that prove? Maybe these gases should cause cooling, because they keep that infra red from reaching earth? Why would they not start acting as a mirror outward to keep the heat out? Where are the studies that show this as proof, using varying amounts of carbon dioxide so that anyone (especially the stupid people in government and me) can understand it?

Please note: I am not denying that global warming is happening. I can see it. There is talk of the northern passage opening up and shipping magnates are already happy, because when it does, they can ship their stuff much faster from the east to the west. In fact, 400 yrs ago Barents was hoping on finding this northern passage open, but got stuck in the ice.

But why is global warming happening? We have to find the correct reasons. Seas and oceans are no longer empty. There are filled with ships and aeroplanes that put enormous amounts of energy in the air. Half of the world population has no excess to gas and electricity from a plug in their homes, they still use wood or anthracite for cooking and heating. The whole world is putting out enormous amounts of energy up in the air. Is it not more logical to blame or partly blame human activity for global warming rather then some or other gas up in the air?  (As proven from Henry’s experiment A )

BC thinks that he can compare the CO2 green house effect with his warm house in the garden. I think this is an over simplification and may also be completely wrong. I don’t think the CO2 is like a “film” in the air. Surely it is diffused into the air, very much like sugar into water?

Anyway, to settle this matter, we have to do some testing. Or bring the studies that prove this, hopefully in such a way that anyone can understand it.

[Bored chemist]

Just for a start while it's true that "We found only one place in the whole earth where they dutifully kept track of the CO2 content each year." we didn't bother to look very carefully. There are thousands of CO2 monitors in the world- not least the ones used to check vehicle emmissions.
We usually cite the ones measured in Hawaii because they are unlikely to be infuenced by local events.

You also say that
"The question has now shifted from “How much CO2 is added every year” to “How much is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to global warming”.  "

Well, you shifted it by saying
"I have thought about it whole day, but I really, honestly, cannot believe that an increase in the CO2 content of only 70 ppm's (0,007%) since 1960 could possibly be the cause or reason for global warming. That is not it. Impossible. "

In saying that you asserted (without any evidence) the the greenhouse effect of CO2 is not responsible for global warming.
You said that it couldn't be the reason because the change is so small.
In doing so you failed to notice that a change of 0.007 percentage points is a change in total CO2 of roughly a quarter. That's quite a big change.

You put forward the idea that the change is due to the waste heat from industialised society and I pointed out that our direct heating is a drop in the ocean compared to the heat we get from the sun.

You also ask "Why would they not start acting as a mirror outward to keep the heat out? "
Well, I don't know about you but I wouldn't make a mirror out of coal. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Do you actually understand the conventional view of the greenhouse effect?
"BC thinks that he can compare the CO2 green house effect with his warm house in the garden. I think this is an over simplification and may also be completely wrong. "
We all know it's a simplification; it may be wrong.
Please provide a better model or an viable alternative reason for the observed heating or shut up about it.

As for things like
"Is it not more logical to blame or partly blame human activity for global warming rather then some or other gas up in the air?  (As proven from Henry’s experiment A )"
I wonder what you think you mean. Have you actually done the experiment?
If not this should be relabeled as "Henry's uninformed guess A" which doesn't, of course, prove anything.

Also re "I don’t think the CO2 is like a “film” in the air."
Nobody said it was; do you not realise that the peopple here are very good at spotting strawmen and will just point out that, if you have to resort to logical fallacies to make your point then that point can't be very good?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

If something has not (yet) been proven to me (i.e. that CO2 is in fact to blame for global warming), I have to take a point of view that makes more sense to me. Please read experiment A again. It is about proving that if you add more energy to a vessel, you will note an increase of the temperature in that vessel. Surely I donot actually have to perform Experiment A to know what will happen? The result of that Experiment A already proves to me that heat/fire/transport/ warming activities caused by humans may have some % influence on global warming. So, I already have proven my point. I just don't know by how much %. Now, because of that, I don't think I am the one who has to shut up....  I just hope we can find someone who can come to us with measured evidence that proves CO2 is to blame, and maybe get some figures from (an) actual experiment(s).Otherwise there is still experiments B, C and D...

[Bored chemist]

Sod this pointless argument. Let's take a planet and add lots of CO2 to the armosphere and see if the temperature goes up.
OK, done that. It did. End of debate.
Any argument that the process of generating the CO2 also generated some heat is a distraction because we know that the heat added is tiny compared to that added by the sun.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Poor BC. We gave him a hard time. I hope we don't need a whole planet to either prove or disprove Henry's theory. I have done some thinking about what might happen if we do experiment 4. I think we might be in for a big surprise. I think we might find that G-E  and H-F is <0. In other words, I think we might find that the CO2 causes a cooling effect rather then a warming effect. How do I come to this belief? BC also mentioned this and most chemists know this, namely that CO2 absorbs in the infra red region. What does this mean exactly? It actually means that it blocks the infra red. (in a similar way, this was the reason why I chose KBr to introduce infra red into the vessel because I knew that the glass of the vessel would block most of the IR).  So this being the case, if CO2 blocks IR then this probably happens in a similar way as ozone blocks UV. (IR is the hot radiation, UV is the cold radiation). So therefore, if CO2 blocks IR, if anything, it should protect us from more heat coming in, rather then the other way around. So if we do this experiment, and if we have a fan, and if we release identical amounts of IR energy as were released in experiment 3, it could well be that we see the CO2 blocking some IR energy from coming into the vessel.
So now, come on BC, why not simply admit that we won't know for sure one way or the other, unless we do the tests?   

[paul.fr]

Henry, your original questin asks "How much is the increase in CO2 every year". Here are figures for the Annual Mean Growth Rate at Mauna Loa, Hawaii
year  ppm/yr

1959   0.95
1960   0.51
1961   0.95
1962   0.69
1963   0.73
1964   0.29
1965   0.98
1966   1.23
1967   0.75
1968   1.02
1969   1.34
1970   1.02
1971   0.82
1972   1.76
1973   1.18
1974   0.78
1975   1.10
1976   0.91
1977   2.09
1978   1.31
1979   1.68
1980   1.80
1981   1.43
1982   0.72
1983   2.16
1984   1.37
1985   1.24
1986   1.51
1987   2.33
1988   2.09
1989   1.27
1990   1.31
1991   1.02
1992   0.43
1993   1.35
1994   1.90
1995   1.98
1996   1.19
1997   1.96
1998   2.93
1999   0.94
2000   1.74
2001   1.59
2002   2.56
2003   2.29
2004   1.57
2005   2.56
2006   1.69
2007   2.17
2008   1.66

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

This is a link to NOAA's Earth System Research Lab (ESRL), and their carbon tracker.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/

This link is for the GMD Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group (CCGG)

The NOAA ESRL Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases group makes ongoing discrete measurements from land and sea surface sites and aircraft, and continuous measurements from baseline observatories and tall towers. These measurements document the spatial and temporal distributions of carbon-cycle gases and provide essential constraints to our understanding of the global carbon cycle.

You say "My proposal is that we must agree to a number of standard places on earth where we measure the CO2 and O2 content".
Well, NOAA has a  network of five global baseline observatories and about 100 global cooperative sampling sites extends from the high Arctic to the South Pole. Samples are also taken at five-degree latitude intervals from three oceanic ship routes. A Baltic ferry line collects samples as it makes its daily crossing. All samples are sent to Boulder for analysis and comparison with NOAA's world standards for the gases. So we already do have those standard places.

This last link from ESRI is for THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, R/GMD, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3328
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Have a look around their pages, you will learn all you should need to know.

Again I repeat this

I hope you will agree with me that it is time to de-mystify some of the aspects of 'global warming' and come up with some real figures and facts, from exact measurements

It is not mystifying if you know the science and are willing to listen to people. There are facts and figures if you are willing to look for them or accept the help and assistance of others, bitching and name calling will get you nowhere.
More when I have the time...

[paul.fr]

Sod this pointless argument. Let's take a planet and add lots of CO2 to the armosphere and see if the temperature goes up.
OK, done that. It did. End of debate.
Any argument that the process of generating the CO2 also generated some heat is a distraction because we know that the heat added is tiny compared to that added by the sun.

This is why I rarely bother with climate cahnge discussions here. They just don't want to listen, and always know better.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Paul, we have already noted that about 70 ppm's of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere since 1960. The only thing that is lacking is any proof (from physical measurements) that CO2 is to blame for global warming.Do you have this proof? BC thinks that human activity (including transport, wars, fires, gas-, coal-, wood- and oil burning etc.) add little energy to the earth's atmosphere. I disagree. I also think that maybe CO2 has nothing to do with global warming or that it might even be good - as it blocks IR radiation. But now it seems no one has has done any tests. 

[Bored chemist]

Measuring the IR absorbtion of CO2 is a physical measuremnt, why do you keep ignoring it?

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Yes, and during this physical measurement we throw a beam of IR onto the C-O bond, and the instrument measures the reflection and tells us that the IR absorbs (C-O blocks the IR beam). So if infra red radiation from outside falls onto CO2 a similar thing must happen, i.e. the CO2 is blocking the IR (although only partially) similar to the UV being blocked by O3.

[Henry Pool (OP)]

look, I cannot believe that there have been no environmental studies done that prove that CO2 is to blame for global warming, other then someone saying: oh, it must be that, because that's the only thing that it can be. Surely, CO2 has been in the air forever. In fact, if it was not for CO2 there would be no supper for us tonight.... Would the good Lord make CO2 if it was bad for us? But anyway, let us please just prove it one way or the other.

[paul.fr]

Henry, the topic question has been answered, the rest of the posts on this topic are all over the place, there are too many questions and no form to the way the discussion is going. You also fail to explain why you think what you do, and fail to cite references or articles you have read.

I also find the 2,5 ppm's (= 2,5 milligrams per kilo air) much lower than expected. Difficult yet to imagine that a change this small can have such a serious influence on the climate.

What were you expecting? and what were those expectations based on?

I have thought about it whole day, but I really, honestly, cannot believe that an increase in the CO2 content of only 70 ppm's (0,007%) since 1960 could possibly be the cause or reason for global warming. That is not it. Impossible.

What are you basing you imposibilities on?
But they are not the only cause or reason for global warming, they play a part in enhansing the greenhouse effect and a role in climate feedback loops.

OK, let’s sum up what we got on my original question. We found only one place in the whole earth where they dutifully kept track of the CO2 content each year..

wrong.

The question has now shifted from “How much CO2 is added every year” to “How much is the influence of varying amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to global warming”

You shifted the conversation. I would suggest that once the initial question has been answered, you open up another topic of discussion to keep them seperate, clearer and lees jumbled up. This may encourage others to post, and will make the whole mess easier to read and follow.

If you are willing to do this then this conversation may continue, if not then I will not continue to get a headache trying to follow it. In the meantime may I suggest you have a read through this book:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10850&page=1

and here are a few links you may also wish to check out:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/aboutcdiac.html
http://www.academicinfo.net/environstwarming.html

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Dear Paul, you are also ducking and diving and not really answering my question. I serve no other interest then my own curiosity. I cannot quote anyone because I am not familiar in this field, I am just a retired chemist. But I think what we discuss here is important, as wrong policies maybe formed because scientists have not done a good job.  I think everyone is on the bandwagon blaming CO2 for global warming, yet no one here could convince me from actual measured evidence that it is bad.. But thanks for your advice& I agree that we must start a new question. I did post a new question.

[dentstudent]

Here is perhaps some useful background reading:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5727/1431

[Henry Pool (OP)]

Not to clear to me, as a layman. But I have posed the question to the author. Just remember: I never denied that global heating is happening. Note that they form their forecasts on global warming on measurements of the oceans, which is correct. But then they blame (amongst others) CO2 - of which it is not clear where they get that "evidence" from.It seems it is just assumed that everyone believes this?

[dentstudent]

I don't think that it's a question of apportioning blame to a single cause, ie, CO2. Firstly, of course in science, there is no such thing as "proof". All decisions are based on a body of evidence, of which there is plenty that CO2 is a GHG and contributes to GCC. Secondly, CO2 is seen as perhaps the "easiest" to remedy through reductions in energy consumption / storage / public awareness. Thirdly, the time that CO2 is active in the atmosphere as a GHG is considerably longer than some other GHGs like Methane, and so it is of greater importance to make sure that it doesn't get there in the first place.

I think that it is quite clear from the evidence that CO2 contributes to GCC as a GHG and that a reasonable response to this is to make efforts to reduce its release.