Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:33am:



So a 150 years worth of extra, man-made CO2 hasn't made a difference yet? But will in the future? This is like the promise to Alice bout jam every other day.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 11:42am:


We have been (and continue to do so) increase our co2 emissions exponentially.

You do know what "exponentially" means dont you ?
If not, look it up.
We probably produce as much c02 in a couple of years now, as we did in the first 100 or your 150 year timeline.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2012 at 12:00pm:

An exponential rate of change is itself changing exponentially!

 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 9:04am:


That may be the case, but carbon dioxide that is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels is the same carbon dioxide that causes the natural greenhouse effect. It's the same molecule, and it still absorbs outgoing long wave infrared radiation centred around 10 microns wavelength, thus augmenting the natural greenhouse effect.

What annoys me is the fact that people who don't even understand that mechanism, (which is basic atmospheric physics) are too quick to jump on the denialist bandwagon.  Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. I just hope that he can live a long life so that he can eventually be subject to the justice of a less civilised age where things are going majorly pear-shaped due to inaction.

There is a term for a person who argues against something without understanding what he is arguing against. It's called "TAPS".

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 6:22pm:



Of course it is.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2012 at 10:57pm:


It's basic atmospheric physics, Gizmo.  I don't know if you followed that link I gave to Soren, but that shows how you can calculate planetary temperatures from basic physics as fundamental as calculating planetary orbits. They could do that for Mars long before any probes landed there.

Your statement is like saying "Oh, so they reduced  the Earth's mass and proved that there was less gravity?"
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html

For God's sake man, you obviously have more common sense than Soren. Can't you see the relative contributions of water and CO2 for each planet? If you don't, say so and I'll explain some more. The water vapour in the Earth's atmosphere is driven by CO2(and is obviously subject to solar fluctuations too. On Mars, the atmosphere is too thin to support  any substantial concentration, so the total Greenhouse effect is less.  (This is a first order approximation of course)

For  Venus, the answer is significantly out because it fails to include the effect of the sulfuric acid clouds. 

Now does that make sense to you or not?

There are gaps in our knowledge about gravity, but it doesn't prevent us launching satellites and knowing precisely where the satellite is at any stage.

Don't think of the Greenhouse Effect in terms of an insulation system. It's much more useful to think of it in terms of the Earth's energy (heat) balance.  Increase greenhouse gas concentration, and less energy is released to space.

Quote:


You see, CO2 can be both a cause and an effect.  The old strawman that CO2 lags, and doesn't lead has caused a lot of confusion. What we have is an equilibrium. Increase the Global temperature due to increased solar activity and CO2 is released.  Increase CO2 due to increased burning of fossil fuels (for example), and temperatures increase due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. If you deny the latter, you must also deny that CO2 provides a natural greenhouse effect in the first place. It's not a linear relationship either. It's a logarithmic relationship, so we talk about warming for doubling of atmospheric CO2.

I'm not sure which part you disagree with, but you can easily measure the absorption of infrared by CO2. It's a very simple measurement.

From the satellite measurement of radiated IR radiation, we can measure the changes over time and we can prove that progressively more energy is retained by the atmosphere. 

This is very basic atmospheric physics. It's taught at University and there are no other competing theories. It's not quantum mechanics. It's really very fundamental.