[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Henry@damocles
clearly you have not understood at all the principle of the Gh effect and the reality of re-radiation.
I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...
How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)
perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.

[damocles]

I suggest you read the examples that I quoted. When UV and IR light hits water it is converted to heat because water absorbs in the UV and IR region and is converted to heat because there is MASS in the oceans.
In the case of gas there is little mass, so it has to re-radiate, mainly. There is too little mass to take in the heat...

On the contrary, there is plenty of mass. The lifetime for spontaneous emission of CO2 is of the order of seconds; the lifetime for collisional deactivation (in the atmosphere, specifically near the stratopause, because collision rates vary directly with pressure) is of the order of milliseconds. So the probability of collisional deactivation is at least 1000 times that of (immediate) re-radiation.

How else do you explain the paper that I quoted showing you that radiation specific to the CO2 absorption spectrum  bounces back from the moon the earth?
(meaning cooling of the atmosphere by the CO2)

This is a very technical paper. It is looking at the possibility of detecting life on Earth through features in its reflectance spectrum. The aim is to use the methodology on Earth-like planets that are discovered in other solar systems. The reflectance spectrum shows clearly the presence of CO2 among other things as an absorption feature (most clearly seen in Figure 7). I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

perhaps it will help if you read and quote my whole post...
and come up with the balance sheet that I have been asking everyone about.

You clearly have no real understanding of the nature of scientific debate. Science is a very conservative institution. There are good reasons for this -- it needs to change slowly in the light of good evidence of anomaly in the accepted picture. Even then, a certain amount of anomaly can be temporarily accepted -- difficult issues are often put on the back burner. You do not come to a scientific debate with a preconceived attitude of attack, because of your belief that something simply cannot be true. In order to attack the accepted position you need to
• have a deep understanding of all of the science behind the accepted position.
• understand why the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position -- and this means a respectful understanding; no conspiracy theories or assuming that all of the scientists who have accepted the position are less intelligent than you are.
• be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.
• effectively refute any arguments that are brought forward against you. An effective refutation does not mean continually referring an opponent to points you have already made; it means addressing their points on the terms and basis on which they have been made.
• recognize that the onus is on you to prove your point.

The whole reason for this is that science would be very unstable and unsatisfactory if every time anyone had a new thought it could quickly get into the mainstream.

[yor_on]

Funny thing, the more sane the responses the less hits?
What is it with people

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!
Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus. Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts. Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.

[yor_on]

You are stepping out of my comfort zone. The reason why I do not waste time with you is not that you in any way will be found correct. Damocles made some very valid points, that you just don't seem to accept? Taking a personal affront to them instead? Too many wild west shows maybe? The lone gunslinger coming to town, is it?

Cleaning it up??

Please, feel absolutely free to go somewhere else.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

ur-on says
You are stepping out of my comfort zone.

henry says
true science frightens you? I cannot help you/.

[yor_on]

Well you can actually
please find some other outlet for your frustrations.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@your-on
what is wrong with you?

[yor_on]

Hmm?

It's not me refusing to accept facts. We've shown you statistical evidence and explained the energy distribution. And we do not fill the space in between with 'righteous calls' to, and for, some personal divinity, do we Let's just say I'm getting sick and tired on lone rangers wanting to disprove decades of scientific work on some loose assumption, or even worse, presumption, not accepting any answers. I've seen this kind of behavior before. And while I'm at it, why not learn how to read a name correctly?

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

henry@your-on
seems to me you are refusing to accept the facts,
as you are clearly not engaging into the scientific debate we are having here?

I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....

[JP]

Cool it with the personal attacks, folks, or I'll lock this thread.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

henry@jp
sorry
I agree that I should not have reacted to the remarks of yor-on
as he did not engage in any scientific argument or debate

[JP]

That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.  Knock it off if you want this thread left open.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

increasingly I get the impression on this blog that you think you can turn the 60 years or so back (or have the right to do so) with all of your so-called "rules"
AS EFFECTIVELY IT MEANS : CONTROL OF INFORMATION
in the direction where you want it to go

I am waiting for the responses on my remarks I made to Damocles, from either of you or Damocles himself.

[JP]

JP says
That includes making intentionally trollish and provocative remarks, Henry.
henry says
there are no such remarks from me
please clarify?

It is not appropriate make disparaging remarks about Yor_on's posts to get in the last word after being warned by a moderator.  Hence the second warning and shrinking of your post.

In addition, if you have complaints about moderation, we'll take them up on the moderator board if you PM one of the moderators.  We do not argue moderator decisions on the forum, as its unprofessional and detracts from the purpose of the side: science Q&A. 

If damocles wants to respond to your posts, he can.  I'm only here to moderate.  I made my opinion of this thread's scientific content clear already and it'd be a waste of time to repeat myself. 

[damocles]

damocles says
 I completely fail to see why this indicates cooling rather than heating.

henry@damocles
Nevermind, you completely fail to understand the argument that I make. I will try to explain it again to you from another angle. Check this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The red is what you get on your head. The yellow marked amount of radiation of that solar spectrum is what is being back radiated, to space, mostly by the O3, HxOx and NxOx, and lastly also by CO2. This is why we are even able to measure it as it bounced back to earth from the moon. That is the what the "technical" paper was about. All these gases are GHG's, agreed?
Now, do you not understand that if there is more of these gases coming into the atmosphere, either naturally or man made, that more of it is being back radiated? If more is being back radiated it means that less radiation is coming in, the red part is becoming smaller, hence we are cooling. So, more GHG naturally means more cooling. 
Hence the reason why I say that if you want to prove that the net effect of an increase in one particular GHG is that of warming rather than that of cooling you have to show me a balance sheet that would prove how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a certain% increase of that gas.   
The problem is that science has stood still in this regard and has relied heavily on the closed box experiments - by Tyndall and Arrhenius-, and these only show one side of the coin. Further more, the absorption of CO2 causing the back radiation to earth 14-16 um, is at around 200K, while the incoming radiation at 2 and 4 um being back radiated to space is around 5000K. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to think that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming.
Do you now see what the problem is? If you want to prove to me that more CO2 causes warming you have to give me the balance sheet that would convert those 2 differences in energy caused by a certain % increase of the GHG, so that I can compare... If you say such proof exists, of all GHGs, then where is it?

Thankyou henry. I can now at least see where you are coming from. Unfortunately the only part of this post that I can agree with is that "all these gases are GHGs". You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared. Any back radiation from that will be 50% directed towards the Earth's surface, and lead to warming rather than cooling.

Where is the balance sheet? I suggest that is is present in the fact that the steady state average temperature of the Earth should be around –20°C (easily calculated from Planck's black body radiation laws and a geometric consideration of the proportion of the sun's radiation that the Earth intercepts, and observed in the average temperature of the moon) and the fact that it is 15°C, now going on 16°C, because of a natural greenhouse gas effect from water vapour and carbon dioxide, now supplemented by an unnatural human input of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Damocles says
 ....the majority of scientists in a particular field have come up with an accepted position....
......be armed with good evidence of an anomaly.....

henry@damocles
So, do you not agree with me that if it were not for a few people in history, like Isaac Newton, we would all still be crawling around in the darkness?  quite literally, at night, I think!

No i do not

Sorry for you, pal. Science is not by consensus.

In a sense it is, though! Certainly a mass popular vote by people who have no in depth understanding of the issues and can be easily persuaded by those with vested interests, one way or the other, is not the way that science works. But there is a scientific jury that weighs up every piece of science and judges whether or not it deserves to be incorporated into the mainstream, and its judgements are rather conservative.

 

Unfortunately for many people, their income now depends on this whole sick theory. Millions have been invested and even our pension now depends on it. That is why there is this reluctance to accept the (naturally occurring)  facts.

There is a lobby at least as strong by people whose livelihood depends on the continuing exploitation of fossil fuels (Do you have a vested interest to declare? I do not, by the way -- I am retired, and in all probability have only a short time to live.)

 

Actually, this whole warming-by-CO2 theory was mainly driven by one man, namely Hansen, and I am sure that history will soon prove him wrong, as this article by a respectable scientific publication relates.
http://www.dailytech.com/Warming+Evangelist+Hansen+Retires+Researchers+Advise+Panic+Despite+Flat+Temps/article30322.htm

Although I have worked in this field for some time I have never previously heard of Hansen, and I would never regard the publication that you cite as "a respectable scientific publication". There is a widely recognized convention of requiring peer review, and of not quoting editorial type articles. Hansen only comes into this story so that the journalist can introduce the real purpose of his article, which is to claim that net cooling over the last 15 years refutes the claim that the changing climate is linked to increasing levels of carbon dioxide

As to your 2nd statement: you seem to want to claim that I have not provided good evidence to the contrary of the current theory

I put it to you that I did provide this evidence.
1) as related in the article above, it is even generally accepted now, even by members on this forum - if you read through the posts- , that earth has in fact not warmed for the past 16 years, despite the increase in CO2.
2) In my first post on the first page, I have shown to you what my own results show: it has been globally cooling for the last 11 years, which is the equivalent of one whole solar cycle.  I have also shown that most other data sets also show a negative trend i.e. a cooling trend over the last 11 years.
3) In my last graph, which I will quote here again,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
it is clear to me that this cooling will continue, because there is a clear definable pattern. It happens every 90 to 100 years or so with 50% of the cycle time warming and 50% cooling. Even the ancients knew about this. Think about 7 x 7 years= 49 years + 1 jubilee year every 50th year?
According to my prediction, we are on our cooling path back now, and by about 2040 everything will be back to where we were in 1950.

I may have a slight error on the time scales, but all indications are that global cooling will continue and that it will accelerate in time to come. Better get ready for that. To prevent famines as experienced in the past during such times, I recommend less agriculture at higher latitudes and more at lower latitudes...please.

Have a happy cooling off time.

Your "clear definable pattern" does not show up in the ice core records. The fact of a decade of (slight) cooling does not refute the link between carbon dioxide and rising global temperature. You have provided evidence, but the evidence is neither well-organized nor good.

I thought you were the clever one here
perhaps damocles is the clever guy:
he remains silent if he does not know the answers....

There are several possible reasons for my occasional silence. Not knowing the answers is certainly one of them. Here are a few of the others:

• I am operating on Australian Eastern time, and therefore probably asleep when the discussion here gets lively.
• I see nothing new in the points that are being made and cannot be bothered to keep on replying to the same ones
• I am too busy with real life issues to catch up with this forum
• I am not particularly well

------

My own view of these matters? I am greatly concerned about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I am slightly agnostic about the link with climate -- there are too many earth systems involved, with complicated feedbacks, and they are too little understood. I think it is about 85% probable
that the increasing levels of CO2 will result in global warming. I am 100% confident that we cannot interfere with a natural system like CO2 to the extent that we have without causing some natural catastrophe (e.g. collapse of the oceanic food chain through increasing acidity of the oceans)

[yor_on]

Some of the statistical, and experimental, evidence and ideas, you will need to refute MoreCarbonOK.
Climate change: How do we know?

And if it solely is the question if CO2 is the perpetrator driving a global warming from a long time scenario, and how that might work, you should have a look at How do we know more CO2 is causing warming? And as always be sure to read the comments.

And to get that debate, take up your ideas there. See what they make of it.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

damocles says
You seem to be confusing the incoming solar radiation -- mostly in the UV and visible, and largely absorbed at the Earth's surface -- with the Earth's radiation -- mostly in the far infrared.

henry@damocles
this is the point where everyone went wrong. The graph that I quote clearly shows you that incoming solar radiation (SW) is not constant if there is variation in the composition of the atmosphere..... More CO2 gas in the atmosphere means less (radiation) 2 and 4 um on your head. As long as I can get that in your head, you will be just fine. BTW most recently they also found some absorption of the CO2 in the UV.
What they ("the scientists") have done is not look at the whole spectrum of a molecule, but only the part of the molecule in the far infra red,  where earth emits....Obviously then you only see "warming' i.e. the closed boxed experiments.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

 
Henry@yor_on
 It is my experience that Skeptical Science have no respect whatsoever for dissenting views. They are the SS of science and they believe they have the right to remove comments as if it is nothing at all.....

Skeptical Science is the ONLY blog listed on WUWT as being completely unreliable due to a) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (b) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.