Evidence of the Climate Hoax

[olduser]

This surprises me, because I can hardly recall reading any statements by climate scientists online that say they are unsure of whether humans are influencing the climate or contributing to global warming. Even the few scientists (generally not climate scientists) who think "global warming is not much of a problem" still think that humans are the primary cause of recent warming.

CO2 was shown long ago to be a greenhouse gas in laboratory conditions, such as this: Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect
It is undeniable 1) that higher levels of CO2 trap more solar radiation on Earth, 2) that CO2 levels have been rising since the dawn of the industrial age, and 3) that human activity is the cause of most of the rise in CO2. Therefore, a warmer Earth is to be expected. This is confirmed by the paleoclimate record, which clearly associates higher CO2 levels with higher global temperatures.

CO2 is just one of several greenhouse gases, but it is responsible for significantly more of the greenhouse effect than the others.

Likewise, greenhouse gases are just one of the factors influencing long-term climate change, and it is incorrect to frame the AGW climate change debate in terms of "are humans the sole cause of climate change or not?" or "how is it possible that climate changed in the past without human interference?"

It is generally recognized that in previous times greenhouse gas levels have acted not as an initiator but as an amplifier of trends triggered by orbital cycles. This article explains why there is a lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase in the paleoclimate record: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Here is a really superb article on the history of climate science and how each important discovery was made: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Both those articles are very informative, although to anyone who knows spectroscopy and simple quantum mechanics, there is absolutely no argument against CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Simply CO2 has three atoms, O=C=O, two oxygen atoms bonded to a central carbon atom. The interesting thing about this is that the two oxygen atoms are aligned on the same axis. Each oxygen has a tendency to attract more electron density to its respective nucleus, as it has a stronger electronegativity. This causes an imbalance in the electron density and what is called a 'dipole moment' where the polarity of the molecule changes, and is more towards oxygen, making carbon electron deficient. Examining the linear CO2 structure, you can see that the two oxygen atoms are on opposite sides and thus the net dipole moment is zero, however, it is capable of having a dipole moment. Which is where the greenhouse effect occurs. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is the result of CO2 molecules being capable of absorbing infrared radiation(certain wavelengths fall into this category, generally lower energy 'sunlight') and the polar bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms stretching in different manners(there are 4 possible stretches/bends, 3 of which are infrared active). This means that infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2, and it is absorbed in quantum levels! This is what the real greenhouse effect is! the CO2 absorbs IR radiation, and given the energy scale at the quantum level is NOT continuous, the CO2 will emit the IR radiation at the EXACT same wavelength at which it was absorbed. This is trapping of IR radiation, and it leads to changes in temperature. Now, why don't N2 and O2 behave in the same manner? They don't have any possible dipole! O=O, O2, has two completely indistinguishable oxygen atoms, and thus they do not vibrate in anyway as the electron density is balanced between the two atoms. The basic, and extremely important conclusion is that O2 and N2, and any homonuclear diatomic, does not absorb in the infrared region of the elecmag spectrum.

CO2 is the major greenhouse gas. There is some weird unit, radiative forcing, i think that describes the per unit of area energy release of CO2, and it much higher than any other greenhouse gas. Remember, all gases with any dipole will be greenhouse gases. chlorofluorocarbons, methane, any of them, but they are in incredibly minute concentrations in the troposphere, even compared to CO2.

Anyway, yeah, that was the data set I had been looking at about lag between CO2 and temp(in the article about the same process). When I get time I'll post my contentions with the method of collecting that data specifically, or at least my initial skepticism.

Still not convinced, but do think that CO2 concentrations are incredibly sensitive( concentrations have doubled and the general global trend at the moment, derived from least squares fitting routine of all available climate data, says temp is rising 0.05 degrees Celsius globally. Curiously, in one of my classes we looked at climate data over 25 years in Wyoming and found a remarkably similar trend(^0.05*C)).

[Rick]

Review of the "Climategate" e-mails and an official inquiry into the problems therein:

http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten...bargoedv21.pdf

summary of the above: House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones Climate Progress