ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

What does a blizzard on the U.S. East Coast mean for global warming?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



brooklyn-snowstorm-2010Short answer? Not much.

In fact, while no single storm is anything more than weather, stronger winter storms are exactly what climate scientists expect from a warming climate. How can that be? Simple. Warmer air allows for more water vapor, the key constituent of snow (which accords with the folk wisdom from my home state, where when the temperature got really brisk and the sky was leaden, people would observe: "Too cold to snow.")

More frigid temperatures may be exactly what northern Europe and Asia get thanks to global warming. A study published November 5 in the Journal of Geophysical Research  suggests that the melting of the Arctic sea ice thanks to warmer air in the far north is changing weather patterns. And that means more bitterly cold air will settle in over Britain while Greenland may actually come closer to being green (or, at least, balmier in winter).

And, according to NASA, 2010 is now the warmest year since record-keeping began. Plus, the World Meteorological Organization notes that 2001-2010 is now the warmest decade on record. One snowstorm in the U.S.—or even bouts of frigid weather in Europe—won’t change that.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 50 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Trent1492 5:47 pm 01/4/2011

    @Juxtapose,

    "This, of course after the global cooling scare that everyone (like you in context) ran around crying about with no real idea."

    Oh, goodie you are now back to repeating long debunked talking points. I say lets go to the Way-Back-Machine and see what happened the last time.

    Are you talking of the much disinformation about an imminent Ice Age being rampant in the scientific community? That bit of disinformation has been repeated so many times that it has been the subject of peer reviewed paper in which the author go back and do a survey of the scientific articles of the era. Here is what they found:

    "A review of the literature suggests that, to the
    contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists thinking about the most important forces shaping Earths climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."

    The survey found 68 articles concerning the near future state of the climate and then they looked at the impact of these science articles by measuring how many times other science papers cited them. Here is what they found:

    "The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations."

    The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
    http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_131047.htm

    The other 19 articles were neutral.

    And what was your response? It was to attack the authors of the paper not the content. You know what would have been a legitimate response? Reading the paper and fining a major flaw in the analysis or substantially more scientific papers that predicted cooling. You did none of that. All you did after being called on the Ad hominem was resort to silence then after a couple of days recycle the talking point. Pitiful.

    Trent1492: How does past warmer temperatures preclude humans being the cause now?’

    Juxtapose: Sentence of the year! If you need an explanation of why this is the most contradicatory thing you have said yet let me know and I will gladly trash it for you. Priceless.

    Ok, go ahead. This should be entertaining.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Trent1492 6:08 pm 01/4/2011

    "Funny, too, how if I think your wrong I immediately deny the holocaust."

    Reading comprehension: Fail.

    You are using the same tactic as those other Bozos do.

    Slavery Apologist: If you wear cotton, use sugar, or smoke tobacco then you can not utter any critiques of the peculiar institution.

    Holocaust Denier: What hypocrites! Look at what happened to the Native Americans.

    Global Warming Denier: If you use any petroleum products then you should not issue any critiques of these products. You know glass houses and all…

    All of these position invoke real or imagined acts of hypocrisy. All of them suffer from the fact that they do not critique the argument and so fall under the logical fallacy of the Tu quoque.

    " The angle of the earth is lessening from the sun, hence the earth heats up."

    *No it is not. We know how much total solar irradiance (tsi) the Earth receives at the top of the atmosphere and at the bottom of it. The Earth is not receiving any extra TSI. Full Stop. This also ignores the fact that we can measure the Earth’s obliquity and precession.

    Further even if we could not do those measurement it would still be falsified by the following facts:

    1. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming.

    2. Nights are warming faster than days.

    3. The higher latitudes are warming faster than the tropics.

    All of these are falsifications of the solar hypothesis.

    *See the data satellite data I already posted up

    Link to this
  3. 3. R.Blakely 3:53 am 01/5/2011

    Earth’s climate is much more stable than "the sky is falling" environmentalists claim. For example, as Earth warms, more clouds form, which cool down the climate. Everybody knows clouds mean cooler weather because clouds reflect sunlight.
    "The sky is falling" is the scary part of political action in California, and by the "new" EPA. We must not ignore the fact that carbon dioxide CANNOT cause more warming because it already absorbs all the photons that it can. Many, many scientists agree with me (visit climaterealists.com).

    Link to this
  4. 4. R.Blakely 4:04 am 01/5/2011

    Who is Trent1492? Why is he making so many comments? I think he is keeping his real name secret because he is performing vandalism on the article that these comments should be addressing. Trent1492 is making himself the topic instead of the "article". Notice that he places a lot of blank lines in his comments. This shows that his only objective is vandalism.

    Link to this
  5. 5. juxtapose82 8:06 am 01/5/2011

    Wow… you are truly a person that can’t make a valid argument without telling everyone to read about it but then can’t spend the time to look up stuff that they don’t want to believe. Reagan did in fact start a panel to look into the IPCC. His reason was to point out the flaws in their studies but the panel instead concluded that the IPCC was correct that the Earth was warming.. I already stated this but you want to argue it anyway. Hence the prior use of the word panel. How am I lying about facts that even you could google?

    By the way, when you refer to a person as a slaver sympathizer and a holocaust denier = hate. You basically described me as both, and then chased your tale by telling me what the definitions were. Here’s the big difference between the two (three if you want to break it down. GW = debatable science. SS and HD = history / photojournalism. One has studies that are biased on both sides by both sides, the other(s) are historical records about some of the darkest times in humanity. Real classy. I see that you thought out that argument and applied science. When I wrote about glass houses that was directly related to the science of the matter. You instead classified the argument of that of radical Islam / Neo-Nazi culture or anti-abolitionist. It is really sad, as I have already said, that you would stoop to that trick.

    So now you deny paying any sort of GW or eco cause? A previous post you made last week on this issue would lead some to believe that you either lied now or before. Which one is it?

    Now for the biggie; to show that you don’t understand what your own argument is:
    I asked you to explain why the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before. Your answer was Milankovitch Cycles. Of which makes you wrong about another point, I also agree with this argument. Now what happens in this cycle? The Earth is undulating back and forth in its angle to the sun. Well, using winter as an excellent measuring device, when the angle of earth to the sun increases, the climate cools. The decreasing angle then warms. We are currently in a decrease of the cycle. This slow change (about a 40,000 year cycle) would result in temp. fluctuation very subtley over time. Say, maybe, a degree every hundred or so years? Or is this now false and you are sticking with the sun has no factor in global warming? And you are correct that it gets warmer at night, thats called atmosphere. The ozone is already full of GH gasses and has been for awhile, but wait, are we depleting that?

    Link to this
  6. 6. juxtapose82 10:01 am 01/5/2011

    I agree with you, he is pointless and hates to confront facts. He is a lot of fun to wind up though.

    Link to this
  7. 7. syzygy 10:22 am 01/5/2011

    There is a reasonable chance all of the recent posts are the same person under different names.

    Link to this
  8. 8. juxtapose82 10:25 am 01/5/2011

    "Holy Cow! He formed a company to make profits? Why that makes the man darn near a entrepreneur. Scally wag! How dare this man get involved in an issue and then attempt to make money too. There must be a law against this somewhere. How could he possibly attempt to put his money where his mouth is?"

    Didn’t Exxon do the same thing? So you finally admit that someone who credits GW is willing to take money and maybe bend the science to make a buck. Thanks though for finally putting the facade down.

    Link to this
  9. 9. juxtapose82 12:14 pm 01/5/2011

    I promise that I am not Trent, I am almost insulted that the insinuation was made but I assure you, he is much funnier than me.

    Link to this
  10. 10. Trent1492 9:06 pm 01/5/2011

    @R. Blaikely,

    "For example, as Earth warms, more clouds form, which cool down the climate."

    Which is something that you have repeatedly said and I have repeatedly debunked. I keep on pointing out to you two things:

    1. We have already warmed 0.8C since the 19th century.

    2. If what you said was true then the Earth would never experience periods of warming would it?

    "We must not ignore the fact that carbon dioxide CANNOT cause more warming because it already absorbs all the photons that it can."

    Again, another repeat that has been debunked multiple times. Remember me pointing out to you the databases that showed IR absorption by CO2? Of course you do. So why repeat what you know must be a lie?

    Link to this
  11. 11. Trent1492 9:18 pm 01/5/2011

    @R. Blaikely,

    "Who is Trent1492"

    Your opponent in a "debate". Why is it you guys can never address the arguments?

    "Why is he making so many comments"

    Because he likes to "debate" the militantly ignorant. Why is it you can not address the points I have repeatedly raised to you?

    "Trent1492 is making himself the topic instead of the "article"."

    Here you are making me the point of a post yet complain I am the topic. Irony.

    "Notice that he places a lot of blank lines in his comments."

    Yes, to make it easier for people to read. I got news for you. You do not get to dictate how I format my posts. Full Stop. I also think you have not a clue about what the word vandalism means. If you truly think that a space between sentences and paragraphs is an act of vandalism then report it. Once I send a counter complaint of an abuse of Scientific American’s reporting system I will simply put it up again.
    Go ahead do it. Let’s see who comes up on top.

    Link to this
  12. 12. Trent1492 11:47 pm 01/5/2011

    Juxtapose said: Its so bad that they decided to quit with the moniker of global warming and called it climate change.

    I then responded with this:

    Quiz time for Juxtapose:

    Question: The Intergovernmental Panel for CLIMATE CHANGE was established during which president’s presidency?

    A. Ronald Reagen

    B. Ronald Reagen

    C. Ronald Reagen

    I hope this is not a too tough one for you.

    You then said:

    Jxtapose: Ronald Reagan was smart to start that panel, you know looking at actual science.

    So you were never referring to a different panel. You were mistakenly saying that Reagen started the IPCC.

    "His reason was to point out the flaws in their studies but the panel instead concluded that the IPCC was correct that the Earth was warming"

    I must say this would be a neat trick. Since the IPCC was started in 1988 but does not issue its first assessment of the science in 1990. Ronald Reagen’s term ended in January 1989. While I was not looking did someone re-write history and get hold of a time machine?

    First Assessment Report 1990
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I
    /ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

    "By the way, when you refer to a person as a slaver sympathizer and a holocaust denier = hate."

    Since I did not do any such thing. I have an idea! Let get back in Way-Back-Machine and see if that can help. *scrolls up the page*

    "Reading comprehension: Fail.

    You are using the same tactic as those other Bozos do.

    "Slavery Apologist: If you wear cotton, use sugar, or smoke tobacco then you can not utter any critiques of the peculiar institution.

    Holocaust Denier: What hypocrites! Look at what happened to the Native Americans.

    Global Warming Denier: If you use any petroleum products then you should not issue any critiques of these products. You know glass houses and all…

    All of these position invoke real or imagined acts of hypocrisy. All of them suffer from the fact that they do not critique the argument and so fall under the logical fallacy of the Tu quoque."

    Anymore falsehoods to tell?

    Link to this
  13. 13. Trent1492 12:12 am 01/6/2011

    @Juxtapose,

    "Here’s the big difference between the two (three if you want to break it down. GW = debatable science."

    Only if you are of the militantly ignorant variety is it debatable that the Earth is warming and that humanity is causing it.

    "SS and HD = history / photojournalism. One has studies that are biased on both sides by both sides, the other(s) are historical records about some of the darkest times in humanity. Real classy"

    Irrelevant. Regardless of the veracity or moral bankruptcy of the Holocaust Denier or the Slavery Apologist you are guilty of using the same tactic.
    Do not like the slimy company? Then stop using the same slimy and fallacious arguments.

    "So now you deny paying any sort of GW or eco cause?"

    What exactly does that mean? Do you think Al Gore is in league with the bicycle manufactures and house insulation installers?

    "A previous post you made last week on this issue would lead some to believe that you either lied now or before. Which one is it?"

    Well, let’s take a look at it then. Cite the post and paste it up here.

    Link to this
  14. 14. Trent1492 2:03 am 01/6/2011

    I asked you to explain why the earth has gone through cycles of heating and cooling before. Your answer was Milankovitch Cycles. Of which makes you wrong about another point,…"

    Which point is this? You are awfully vague.

    "I also agree with this argument."

    Good. I should not then here anymore of the following sorts of arguments:

    ‘It was hotter in the past’

    ‘Climate changes all the time.’

    ‘Where were the SUV’s that ended the Last Ice Age?’

    "Now what happens in this cycle? The Earth is undulating back and forth in its angle to the sun."

    You are halfway right. Another factor in Milankovitch Cycles is the change in the ellipse of the Earth’s orbit. What all of these have in common though is that each cycle changes the total solar irradiance that Earth receives AND at what points.

    " Well, using winter as an excellent measuring device, when the angle of earth to the sun increases, the climate cools."

    In the Northern or Southern Hemisphere but not at the same time. For what its worth it is the incidence sunlight that the high latitudes receives that is most important in the coming and going of Ice Ages.

    "The decreasing angle then warms. We are currently in a decrease of the cycle. This slow change (about a 40,000 year cycle) would result in temp. fluctuation very subtley over time. Say, maybe, a degree every hundred or so years? Or is this now false and you are sticking with the sun has no factor in global warming?"

    Here are some facts for you:.

    The amount of solar irradiance has not changed at the bottom of the atmosphere . That is a fact. We can measure the irradiance. Repeat after me: We can measure the irradiance. Say it again. We can measure the irradiance. I have shown you those measurements. Those measurements show no change in the irradiance. Why are you in denial?

    "And you are correct that it gets warmer at night, thats called atmosphere."

    No. That is called you speaking mucho amounts of nonsense. Do you understand why nights warming faster than days is a falsification of the Solar Hypothesis?
    Apparently not, so allow me to explain. The reason why is that if the TSI is increasing then the day time temp trend will warm faster than night. You know the sun is out in the day time and an increased difference between night and day should be noted. However, if CO2 is absorbing and reradiationg long wave radiation then at night when the the surface cools the CO2 will act as a blanket. This is a phenomena that was predicted way back in 1896.

    Link to this
  15. 15. Trent1492 2:18 am 01/6/2011

    "The ozone is already full of GH gasses and has been for awhile, but wait, are we depleting that?"

    No you have it wrong again. While CO2 is a well mixed gas; it is a well mixed gas in the troposphere. We are very, very far from having a saturated atmosphere in CO2.

    I will point out to you the difference in the average temp between Mercury and Venus and ask that you pay special attention to the diurnal difference between the two. Now remember Venus is more than twice the distance of Mercury from Sun and yet has a dramatically higher average temperature and very small diurnal swing in temperature. Compare that to Mercury and just remember the inverse square law is universal.

    Link to this
  16. 16. Trent1492 2:21 am 01/6/2011

    @syzygy,

    I bet it must make you feel all special making baseless accusations. Tell me, what is your reasoning for this accusation?

    Link to this
  17. 17. R.Blakely 3:49 am 01/6/2011

    Earth’s climate is much more stable because as Earth warms, more clouds form, which cool down the climate. Everybody knows clouds mean cooler weather because clouds reflect sunlight.
    Carbon dioxide CANNOT cause more warming because it already absorbs all the photons that it can. CO2 is incredibly transparent (it is used in microwave wave-guides). CO2 lets sunlight thru, and then it only stops 15-micron photons from going into space. All 15-micron photons are stopped already. More CO2 will NOT stop more photons.

    Link to this
  18. 18. R.Blakely 3:51 am 01/6/2011

    "Vandalism" and "Trent1492" have the same number of letters. Do not respond to his ranting.

    Link to this
  19. 19. Trent1492 4:44 am 01/6/2011

    "aErth’s climate is much more stable because as Earth warms, more clouds form, which cool down the climate."

    You keep on repeating this and I keep on shooting it down. Say hello to my little friend – The Ice Age and Inter-Glacial

    "Everybody knows clouds mean cooler weather because clouds reflect sunlight."

    Actually that depends on the altitude of the clouds. Low enough and they act as insulation. So please take the Ad populum to some place where people will swallow it with more credulity.

    And here is 10 years of cloud formation research which indicates that clouds have a slight positive feedback.

    A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

    Link to this
  20. 20. Trent1492 4:46 am 01/6/2011

    "Vandalism" and "Trent1492" have the same number of letters. Do not respond to his ranting."

    Oh, look Internet Numerology. How quaint and typical of the militantly ignorant.

    Link to this
  21. 21. juxtapose82 8:15 am 01/6/2011

    Trent, my man, I’ve had enough. You cope so poorly with being wrong that I now understand why you argue like a tabloid. You can’t think for yourself and you are a spiteful person. You constantly speak in half truths and only repost half of what is said.

    If you think you are justified in your actions have fun with that. I will say this, you have accomplished one thing and that is completely polarize me from your side. You stopped using science a long time ago and despite your best efforts to cover it up, you are the one trying to use silly tactics. Say what you want but I read the initial post you made of holocaust denier and you were just trying to smear.

    Its people like you that make it so easy to debate the subject because you can’t look at anything fairly. You stopped looking at science a long time ago and now you just clutch to semantics and biased testing, just like the oil industries. You refuse to look at anyone elses points and you march forward like a lemming.

    Science is to question the world around us, you have attempted to argue an absolute. Unfortunately, the science has not made your point so. You have proven nothing to me but instead thrown a tantrum and insulted a lot of people. You will never prove this point you have to anyone because you aren’t willing to listen to anyone else.

    I am taking the high road and telling you that I am done arguing with you. You have not swayed me in anyway and I plan on changing nothing because of your useless self gratifying rants. You are one of the most ignorant people I have ever come across and you are proof to me that both sides of the climate debate are equally extreme and unwilling to budge. Its people like you that demand change but will never get it. Case in point, I’m not re-entering this to see any reply. Instead, I don’t care anymore about your mental incompetencies, plain contradiction, twisting of words and refusal of evidence. You will never change a thing in this world because you are unable to talk to the other side to begin what needs to be done. I am not alone in this feeling, I want you to look back at all the posts about you and how many people like me have grown weary of you and decided that a person like you isn’t worth the time, effort or musing. I thank you for all the laughs and will be sure to cite many of your ramblings and avoidance tactics in future debates. Good luck doing exactly the opposite of your intent in this world and merely cementing the others in their beliefs that don’t always mirror your own.

    Link to this
  22. 22. Trent1492 1:11 pm 01/6/2011

    Juxtapose,

    For someone who claims to have facts and logic on your side you very adverse using them. Here are some facts and logic:

    1. Contrary to your most recent claim Ronald Reagen could not have established a commission to look at the IPCC assessments since the first assessment was not published till 1990.

    2. Contrary to your claim that a switch has occurred from the term Global Warming to Climate Change I have provided evidence that phrase ‘climate change’ was occurring a half century before the 2000′s.

    3. I have also demonstrated to you the fact that it was Republican strategy started at the highest levels to stop using the term global warming.

    4. You have insisted that a scientific consensus existed that claimed global cooling was imminent. I have shown you a survey of the peer reviewed work from the 70′s which demonstrated that a vastly larger body of work predicted imminent warming.

    5. You have insisted that Sun and the obliquity of the Earth is responsible for the modern warming trend. I have shown you multiple times that instrument data indicates no increase in the total solar irradiance reaching the Earth. Further, at least three different falsifications of the Solar Hypothesis have been present to you.

    A. The stratosphere cooling while the troposphere warms.

    B. The high latitudes warming faster than the tropics.

    C. The nights warming faster than the days.

    All of the above findings have been presented with links to empirical peer reviewed science journals.

    6. You have invoked numerous logical fallacies; e.g, insisting that since temperatures have been higher in the past we have nothing to worry about now and humans can not be responsible anyway.

    I have pointed out to you that because temperatures have been higher in the past that does not preclude humanity being responsible for the rise now.

    Now all of the above has been explained to you multiple times. What has been you and your fellow travelers response? Reactions of denial, tactics of moving the discussion goal posts, Ad hominem attacks against authors of papers whose conclusions you dislike, *personal invective, anti-science diatribes, invocations of conspiracies and an unwillingness to read relevant links and weirdest of all the accusation of using the space bar to many times.

    *Yes, I am guilty of that one myself.

    Link to this
  23. 23. R.Blakely 4:01 am 01/7/2011

    One storm is a fact. But only satellites can measure average surface temperature of the Earth. NASA satellite data shows only very small variation in average surface temperature. By including cloud cover data, NASA could predict the end of the current ice age and the start of a new ice age. We are now between ice ages. Now that the sun is super-quite we may be at the start of the next ice age.
    Controlling CO2 will NOT stop the beginning of the next ice age. Environmentalists ignore the fact that we will freeze and starve in the next ice age. They forget that limiting CO2, to lower temperature, will only make the next ice age happen sooner (using their biased logic).
    Actually, CO2 has no effect on climate because it is very transparent. Actually, CO2 lowers Earth’s temperature because it filters 15-micron photons out of sunlight, and so Earth is cooled by CO2.

    Link to this
  24. 24. R.Blakely 4:18 am 01/7/2011

    "Trent1492" also has the same number of letters as "terrorism".

    Link to this
  25. 25. Trent1492 4:39 am 01/7/2011

    "One storm is a fact."

    Yes, and….? Why are you so utterly clueless to the fact you live on a globe?

    "But only satellites can measure average surface temperature of the Earth."

    No, that is incorrect. It has been pointed out to you that surface measurements are regularly taken at the surface. Why are you in denial of these facts?

    "NASA satellite data shows only very small variation in average surface temperature."

    No it does no such thing.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_10.jpg

    See that? That gives lie to your assertion.

    "Now that the sun is super-quite we may be at the start of the next ice age."

    The Sun has been "super quite" and yet here we are with the hottest decade on the instrument record.

    " Environmentalists ignore the fact that we will freeze and starve in the next ice age."

    Go learn about Milankovitch Cycles. Go and learn. It will do your state of ignorance some good.

    "Actually, CO2 has no effect on climate because it is very transparent."

    Again, another lie. Why lie? I have linked to you several databases of CO2 absorption patterns.

    "Actually, CO2 lowers Earth’s temperature because it filters 15-micron photons out of sunlight, and so Earth is cooled by CO2."

    Only if your insane. Have you told the crazy town news to Venus yet?

    Link to this
  26. 26. juxtapose82 3:06 pm 01/7/2011

    Hey Blakely,
    did you read the article on SA about the lakes that are producing 25% of the CO2 in the air? They posted it today.

    Link to this
  27. 27. R.Blakely 3:05 am 01/8/2011

    Snow storms are caused by clouds. But clouds can only be seen from satellites. Average temperature at the ocean surface and on land can only be measured accurately by satellites. We can estimate temperature below clouds, but NASA is not doing that yet, I believe, because cloud cover is not being monitored exactly like it should be monitored.
    CO2 is released from oceans as they warm. But CO2 cannot alter Earth’s temperature now because CO2 already absorbs all 15-micron photons (see the graph in Wikipedia article "Greenhouse Gas"). CO2 molecules are so symmetrical that they absorb only two types of photons. Only the 15-micron photons are important since the other type of photon that CO2 absorbs is already totally absorbed by water vapor.
    Microwave wave-guides are filled with CO2 because CO2 is so incredibly transparent. CO2 lasers take advantage of CO2′s incredible transparency, and that is one reason why CO2 lasers are so efficient.

    Link to this
  28. 28. R.Blakely 3:09 am 01/8/2011

    "Trent1492" was probably born when Columbus sailed in 1492, or perhaps that is the number of comments that he vandalized recently.

    Link to this
  29. 29. Trent1492 1:01 pm 01/8/2011

    @R.Blaikely,

    "But clouds can only be seen from satellites."

    So those puffy things I see outside my window are UFO’s? Amazing.

    "Average temperature at the ocean surface and on land can only be measured accurately by satellites."

    You have been repeatedly corrected on this statement. You have been shown the ground and sea networks of thermometers. Why lie?

    "CO2 is released from oceans as they warm. But CO2 cannot alter Earth’s temperature now because CO2 already absorbs all 15-micron photons (see the graph in Wikipedia article "Greenhouse Gas")"

    Looks like someone does not understand that water vapor is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere. How many times have you been corrected on this lie now?

    "Microwave wave-guides are filled with CO2 because CO2 is so incredibly transparent. CO2 lasers take advantage of CO2′s incredible transparency, and that is one reason why CO2 lasers are so efficient."

    So let me get this. You think that CO2 is "transparent" but amazingly it is able to transmit energy? Do you ever thing before you write?

    Link to this
  30. 30. Trent1492 1:03 pm 01/8/2011

    "Trent1492" was probably born when Columbus sailed in 1492, or perhaps that is the number of comments that he vandalized recently."

    I keep on challenging you to report these "vandalism" to Scientific American. So that I can have the opportunity to report you for the abuse of the system. What is a matter., fear, that I am telling the truth?

    Link to this
  31. 31. R.Blakely 5:04 am 01/9/2011

    CO2 does not emit photons. CO2 absorbs photons at 15-microns and at 4.3-microns. This means CO2 cannot warm the Earth’s surface by itself.
    Scare-mongers usually imagine that CO2 is able to warm the Earth’s surface, but the fact is that CO2 is not able to emit photons, although CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons. This means that CO2 cools the Earth because it strips all 15-micron photons from sunlight.

    Link to this
  32. 32. R.Blakely 5:16 am 01/9/2011

    Only Trent1492 can imagine that a CO2 laser could work with a "greenhouse gas". If CO2 was not incredibly transparent then a CO2 laser could not work.
    If CO2 could easily emit photons then it would not be used in wave-guides.
    Imagining that CO2 is a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is part of the scam that the EPA is placing onto taxpayers. The EPA must imagine that CO2 is heating the Earth so that it can regulate the "dangerous" gas.

    Link to this
  33. 33. R.Blakely 5:20 am 01/9/2011

    CO2 does not emit photons. CO2 absorbs photons at 15-microns and at 4.3-microns. This means CO2 cannot warm the Earth’s surface by itself.
    Scare-mongers usually imagine that CO2 is able to warm the Earth’s surface, but the fact is that CO2 is not able to emit photons, although CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons. This means that CO2 cools the Earth because it strips all 15-micron photons from sunlight.
    But more CO2 will not strip more photons from sunlight because all 15-micron photons are already stripped out.

    Link to this
  34. 34. Trent1492 11:56 am 01/9/2011

    "CO2 does not emit photons."

    I keep on asking this question: Another lie. Why lie? I have linked to you several databases of CO2 absorption patterns. Why is it you will not answer this?

    "Scare-mongers usually imagine that CO2 is able to warm the Earth’s surface, but the fact is that CO2 is not able to emit photons, although CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons."

    Still spreading misinformation. Why is it you are determined to ignore a century and a half of science? Why is it you ignore those databases? Ignore that if what you say is true then Venus would be cooler than Mercury? Why lie?

    "This means that CO2 cools the Earth because it strips all 15-micron photons from sunlight."

    This is nonsense.

    Link to this
  35. 35. Trent1492 12:09 pm 01/9/2011

    @R. Blakely,

    "Only Trent1492 can imagine that a CO2 laser could work with a "greenhouse gas"."

    Oh, I see now you are denying the very existence of CO2 lasers. Reality is not your strong point is it?

    "If CO2 was not incredibly transparent then a CO2 laser could not work."

    This is again nonsense. Just think about what laser is reveals that bit of crazy. Laser is a acronym for Light Amplification Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Get that? Light is captured and and stimulated.

    "Imagining that CO2 is a dangerous "greenhouse gas" is part of the scam that the EPA is placing onto taxpayers."

    R. Blakely once again you demonstrate this unique combination of ignorance and conspiracy theory. Why is it you fail to acknowledge that science occurs outside of the U.S and that those other scientist all agree on the evidence?

    "The EPA must imagine that CO2 is heating the Earth so that it can regulate the "dangerous" gas."

    This message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.

    Link to this
  36. 36. R.Blakely 2:01 am 01/10/2011

    Trent1492 is violent as usual, and so he demnostates his anti-science stance. He is a vanadal.

    Link to this
  37. 37. R.Blakely 2:27 am 01/10/2011

    To be precise I need to adjust my last comment a bit. CO2 emits a few photons. But CO2 absorbs all photons at 15-microns. This means CO2 cannot warm the Earth’s surface to any significant amount, compared to water vapor and clouds.
    Scaremongers need to imagine that CO2 is able to warm the Earth’s surface. They ignore the fact that the atmosphere is colder than the ground (so emission of photons by CO2 is much less due to the fourth power of temperature, and reduced due to the displacement law).
    CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons. This means that CO2 cools the Earth because it strips all 15-micron photons from sunlight.
    The conclusion is that CO2 actually cools Earth in the daytime and warms Earth at night, and so it is not a dangerous "greenhouse gas", despite what the EPA commands us to believe. CO2 actually moderates extremes, like water vapor.

    Link to this
  38. 38. Trent1492 11:46 am 01/11/2011

    @R.Blaikely,

    "Trent1492 is violent as usual, and so he demnostates his anti-science stance. He is a vanadal."

    Why is it you are so totally divorced from reality? Your use of the English language reveals and abuse that is breath taking.

    Link to this
  39. 39. Trent1492 11:52 am 01/11/2011

    "To be precise I need to adjust my last comment a bit. CO2 emits a few photons."

    Hello! You have been shown high school level experiments where this statement is falsified. Why keep repeating this lie?

    "This means CO2 cannot warm the Earth’s surface to any significant amount, compared to water vapor and clouds."

    No it does not because you have no clue what you are talking about. You know we have these neat little toys called satellites that carry IR cameras on board and have observed over the decades the increasing extent that CO2 captures IR waves.

    Again why lie?

    Link to this
  40. 40. R.Blakely 1:00 am 01/12/2011

    Trent1492 probably does not realize that cold CO2 emits fewer photons than warm ground or water. Emission is a function of the fourth power of temperature.
    One other "missing piece" in the puzzle is reflection. Sunlight that is not captured by CO2 due to dispersion, and absorption at 15-microns, has a second chance after reflection from earth or water. Reflection means that sunlight has twice as much chance of heating air, compared to photons that leave the Earth’s surface. This is twice the "cooling effect" of the normal greenhouse or "warming effect".
    The "cooling effect" on sunlight balances the "warming effect", which CO2 is typically blamed for. The balance is because sunlight has a smaller fraction of 15-micron photons than photons emitted by the Earth, and so the "twice" factor maintains the balance.

    Link to this
  41. 41. R.Blakely 1:09 am 01/12/2011

    CO2 absorbs all 15-micron photons. This means that CO2 strips 15-micron photons from sunlight, which cools the Earth.
    CO2 actually cools Earth in the daytime and warms Earth at night, and so it is not a dangerous "greenhouse gas", despite what the EPA commands us to believe. CO2 actually moderates extremes, like water vapor.
    What does a blizzard mean, it means that greenhouse gases are also "cooling gases".

    Link to this
  42. 42. R.Blakely 7:37 am 01/12/2011

    CO2 absorbs a few other photons in sunlight. For example, in sunlight it strips sunlight of 1.5-micron photons. So, Earth is cooled in the daytime. At night, CO2 emits 15-micron photons, which warm the Earth’s surface. Therefore, CO2 acts to moderate extremes. CO2 is a "cooling gas" and a "warming gas". Scaremongers imagine CO2 is a "warming gas", and they imagine "climate change" to account for their biased view of the world.

    Link to this
  43. 43. Trent1492 9:21 pm 01/12/2011

    I keep on asking this question: Another lie. Why lie? I have linked to you several databases of CO2 absorption patterns. Why is it you will not answer this?

    And here is 10 years of cloud formation research which indicates that clouds have a slight positive feedback.

    A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

    Why are you in denial of reality?

    Link to this
  44. 44. Trent1492 9:23 pm 01/12/2011

    Here are the actuall studies of CO2 IR absorption:

    Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 43007000 cm1 Toth et al. (2008) A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm1&

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVR-4RBYD6J-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a984bf14bb0c59800a34ee9583aebb4d

    Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 00001 and 30013 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 00001 and 30013 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WK8-4P96277-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d43d99c4227fc5864fe6c43b375cdd42

    You do realize that the spectroscopic work on CO2 has been on going for a century and a half? Of course you do you just like to repeat the lie.

    Link to this
  45. 45. Trent1492 9:25 pm 01/12/2011

    "C02 absorbs a few other photons in sunlight. For example, in sunlight it strips sunlight of 1.5-micron photons.So, Earth is cooled in the daytime."

    It must be so cool to be the only denizen of crazy town. Think about this. You are claiming nights are WARMER than days.

    Link to this
  46. 46. R.Blakely 4:19 am 01/14/2011

    "Trent1492" is "vandalism". Wikipedia is a good source of data for most people. Check the graphs in the Wikipedia article "Greenhouse Gas", which shows that CO2 does absorb 1.5-micron photons. So, CO2 reduces climate change because it reduces sunlight in the daytime. At night, CO2 absorbs 15-micron photons, and so CO2 warms the Earth at night. A blizzard with record amounts of snow is not due to CO2 emissions.

    Link to this
  47. 47. Trent1492 10:34 am 01/14/2011

    "Trent1492" is "vandalism"

    Still mangling the English language, eh?

    So here is what Wikipedia says about CO2 in the atmosphere:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

    "Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth’s atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[2] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[3] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[4]"

    But you have yet to explain why you reject the data base gathered of CO2 absorption in the atmosphere. What is the matter. Facts got your tongue?

    "So, CO2 reduces climate change because it reduces sunlight in the daytime."

    No, matter how many times you repeat a lie it still is a lie.

    "At night, CO2 absorbs 15-micron photons, and so CO2 warms the Earth at night."

    But magically it does no such thing in the day. Moron.
    Do you understand that we have been tracking the falling outgoing IR from the Earth’s atmosphere for decades?

    Link to this
  48. 48. R.Blakely 9:40 pm 01/14/2011

    Clouds reduce surface temperature because sunlight is reflected into space. Similarly, CO2 reduces sunlight in the daytime because CO2 absorbs 1.5-micron photons, and other types of photons. Absorbed photons appear as heat in the atmosphere. Water vapor emits this heat into space (and some towards the Earth’s surface).
    Without clouds a blizzard would not be maintained.

    Link to this
  49. 49. R.Blakely 10:07 pm 01/14/2011

    A blizzard is cold because clouds reflect sunlight into space. But clouds also reflect heat downwards. The net effect is cooling in the daytime and warming at night.
    Similarly, CO2 cools the Earth in the daytime and warms the Earth at night. Scaremongers ignore the fact that CO2 strips 1.5-micron photons from sunlight. They only consider 15-micron photons, which CO2 totally absorbs. They also ignore the fact that CO2 emits little heat since CO2 is very cold, and since CO2 is only able to emit heat as 15-micron photons.

    Link to this
  50. 50. R.Blakely 2:42 am 01/15/2011

    CO2 acts like clouds, which cool the surface in the daytime and warm the surface at night. The fact that clouds can warm the surface in the daytime is not as significant as the fact that they block sunlight. Similarly, ignoring the fact that CO2 warms the surface in the sunshine is not as significant as the fact that CO2 blocks sunlight. "Vandalism" is easy but logical thinking is harder.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Give a Gift &
Get a Gift - Free!

Give a 1 year subscription as low as $14.99

Subscribe Now! >

X

Email this Article

X