A Simple Proof of Global Warming By Greenhouse Gases

For a full discussion, see:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

Keep in mind that this effect can be created by ozone depletion or by the accumulation of other greenhouse gases. Ozone, however, is a greenhouse gas nonetheless, and the conclusion remains unchanged.

(apologies for the weird ending)


More direct evidence in favor of GHG, especially C02.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• global
• warming
• skeptic
• anthropogenic
• swindle
• argument
• proof
• climate
• change
• troposhere
• stratosphere
• aviation
• space

[BeachofDreams]

@tomaz2007 Thanks for these refs. I know Harries et al. but wasn't aware of the Murphy.

[oomblikkies]

I am saying that there is enough doubt on man made GW that given the current economic crisis, it would be irresponsible just to abandon fossil fuels. The core of most countries financial problems are the reliance on the import of energy from abroad. Right now focus should go into the optimum utilization of own energy resources. Research should continue into alternative energy sources, but NOT at the expense of fossil fuels.

[david222444]

Even our Pagan ancestors knew how important the Sun is to climate. The Planet is now cooling abruptly. Today the Troposphere is 0.4 degrees celcius cooler than this day last year. A Grand Solar Minimum is expected. Cooling has been forecast for at least the next 30 years. See the cloud mystery on youtube. google AMSU-A temperatures.

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar

1.) Yes, there are cycles of climate change for which we know the causes (mainly Milankovic cycles, but those are really long term, solar irradiation, etc.) The current trend of temp. rise since the 70s can't be explained by these known natural cycles

2.) If your asking for references about the heat content, see for example Murphy et al, JGR 114, 2009.

3.)Because the missing wavelengths are those which CO2 absorbs (see for example Harries et al, Nature 410, 2001)

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 You keep saying the same things aover and over.

1)long term trends are cyclical.(depends on how long the longterm is)

2)how a dn who measured the heat content of the Earth?

3)How do you know tha the missing radiation is kept by CO2 not H2O(which we have 100 times more in the air than CO2)?

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar "Climate has been changing for billions of years. So?"

Indeed, it has. Unfortunately, the warming of the past 30 years can't be explained by natural causes. Again, atmospheric temperature may go up and down from year to year due to heat exchage with the oceans, but: 1.) long term trends are still positive 2.) heat content of the Earth is measurably increasing 3.) The missing radiation that shoud be leaving Earth is kept in the system by CO2

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "are you then actually agreeing that we are experiencing climate change but you claim that it's natural? "

Climate has always been changing. What is new about this?

I don't need to make up myind about anything i look a the data.

Climate has been changing for billions of years. So?

[judomagyar]

@judomagyar sorry, it is not" has not been further cooling for a decade"

but "has not been further warming for a decade"

[judomagyar]

@tomaz2007 "You keep ignoring the fact that it was MEASURED that the earth is accumulating heat."

According to NASA there has not been further cooling for a decade, while the CO2 is going up. Where is the correlation?

It does matter very little what the antropogenic CO2 concentration is doing.

[tomaz2007]

@judomagyar You keep ignoring the fact that it was MEASURED that the earth is accumulating heat. We are not in a stationary situation where the in and out fluxes cancel eachother out. We will reach it at some point, it will just be at some higher average temperature. It has nothing to do with a runaway situation. It's obvious that an increase in CO2 doesn't lead to a runaway situation, it will settle down eventually. We are not at equilibrium at this moment.