# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/421 "2014-02-04T22:43:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The issue isn’t whether there’s overlap or not, the issue is whether the CO2 absorption spectrum adds substantially to the absorption side of the radiative balance. No, I pointed out that somebody who claimed there was no overlap was an idiot. You are trying to change the claim I rebuked. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/422 "2014-02-04T23:00:27Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > CO2, like all greenhouse gasses, is radiatively imbalanced. In perfect radiative balance, CO2 will exist at at roughly -273 C. It doesn’t just gain and radiate at the 13.5 - 14.5 um bandwidth, it gains energy constantly from kinetic interactions with other gases, keeping it above a dry ice state and it radiates all the energy it picks up from any source. It can’t radiate all energy, you know better than that. And it only radiates at the same bandwidth it absorbs, you also know that. And you also know that because of the massive effect water vapor has in the overlap area, CO2 doesn’t even matter there. It is only where water vapor is missing that it matters. > [@Farin](#): > > This radiated energy is picked up by water vapor, which has a roughly 40% absorption rate at the 13.5-14.5 um bandwidth and Nitrogen along the 3-5 um bandwidth which keeps the primary atmosphere gas warmer than it would otherwise be. Yes, and along with O2 and O3 and H20 we call that the greenhouse effect. > [@Farin](#): > > Since Nitrogen doesn’t radiate heat to get to a balanced state like a greenhouse gas, it creates a temperature blanket that is lost through direct interaction, both to other air molecules and the surface of the earth. You are moving away from the overlap question, but that’s OK, you are getting to the good stuff now. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/423 "2014-02-04T23:00:30Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > When it’s moist, the CO2 doesn’t matter much there. But where it is cold and dry, that’s where the CO2 effects the atmosphere the most. > > Which is exactly why Dyson is correct. And those who think they are smarter than Dyson are still wrong. How come those who think Dyson is correct cheerfully just ignore [simple facts like these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17075137&postcount=417)? Facts so well substantiated by the preponderance of scientific evidence provided by competent researchers who, unlike Dyson, are not in the grip of senile dementia, that they have been in scientific textbooks for decades. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > The bands CO2 absorb are not the ones that the temperature of the surface radiate. Honestly, I’d have you on “ignore” if you weren’t so amusing. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/424 "2014-02-04T23:10:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Honestly, I’d have you on “ignore” if you weren’t so amusing. 🙂 Well learning should be fun you know. Here are two easy to look at pictures. They are pretty much the same. Easy to see what happens and shit like that. [![](https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg) ](https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg) [http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Greenhouse\_Gas\_Absorption-dlh.png](http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Greenhouse_Gas_Absorption-dlh.png) They help visualize why Dyson repeated the facts about **the enhanced greenhouse theory**. It is that theory that global warming is based on. The attacks on his simple description are actually attacks on **the theory of global warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect**. That nobody realizes this is pretty funny. There are damn good reasons the models which are based on the theory, predict exactly what Dyson described, which is now being attacked here. Priceless. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/425 "2014-02-04T23:41:16Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Since #359 was mine, may I answer that? What was “bogus” about your numbers was the attempted implication that humanity’s incremental addition to the CO2 balance was insignificantly small. As I’ve already explained, in terms of the alteration of the balance and the consequent long-term climate forcing, it is in fact huge and unprecedented in millions of years, both in its magnitude and its rate of increase. It’s the difference between playing games with numbers, and the physical reality. :smack: to me for mislocating the quote. So, that means that the actual number were right and not bogus. You haven’t profered other, no bogus numbers. Saying that the numbers were bogus was at odds with the truth. and since I said > [@](#): > > Heck, 4% may be enough to cause a lot of damage and disrupt all sorts of cycles and > [@](#): > > 400ppm may be horrible for us, I don’t think so, but they may. it’s not that I don’t know what the numbers mean. My problem with 30 million tons was that, without context, the number is misleading. > [@](#): > > Probably none. We’ve made major advancements in technology and civilization for a couple of hundred years by digging carbon deposits out of the earth and burning them. Now we understand that the consequences of doing this will eventually be disastrous. What was your point, exactly? That saying CO2 is the nexus of evil is simplistic without talking about how far it’s taken us. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/426 "2014-02-04T23:45:39Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It can’t radiate all energy, you know better than that. I never said it did. It radiates all energy above it’s balance point. That’s what makes it a greenhouse gas, but you know better than that. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > And it only radiates at the same bandwidth it absorbs, you also know that. They radiate at the same wavelengths they directly absorb, but kinetic energy absorbed also radiates out at that same wavelength. You also know that. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > And you also know that because of the massive effect water vapor has in the overlap area, CO2 doesn’t even matter there. It is only where water vapor is missing that it matters. And you also know that’s exactly what I said. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Yes, and along with O2 and O3 and H20 we call that the greenhouse effect. CO2 doesn’t have an overlap with O2 or O3. Which is why you may notice I left them out of a review of CO2’s influence. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You are moving away from the overlap question, but that’s OK, you are getting to the good stuff now. Actually, I’m directly explaining why the overlaps matter. Water vapor doesn’t have a Nitrogen overlap and CO2 does. So one greenhouse gas causes one effect and another greenhouse gas causes a different effect based on the atmospheric composition. If it wasn’t nitrogen and was something like gaseous fluorine, it wouldn’t matter that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Instead, I was illustrating that the effectiveness of CO2 has little to do with the radiative wavelengths of the planet like you pretended, here: > [@FX Mastermind](#): > > CO2 does not absorb any radiation at all between 9 microns and 13 microns. Which is the IR range of 220K to 320 K, the temperature range of IR radiated by “the earth” that would warm the surface if re-radiated. And continued to pretend, here: > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well learning should be fun you know. Here are two easy to look at pictures. They are pretty much the same. Easy to see what happens and shit like that. > > [http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/E...onSpectrum.jpg](http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/E...onSpectrum.jpg) > > [http://theresilientearth.com/files/i...rption-dlh.png](http://theresilientearth.com/files/i...rption-dlh.png) > > They help visualize why Dyson repeated the facts about the enhanced greenhouse theory. It is that theory that global warming is based on. The attacks on his simple description are actually attacks on the theory of global warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. > > That nobody realizes this is pretty funny. > > There are damn good reasons the models which are based on the theory, predict exactly what Dyson described, which is now being attacked here. > > Priceless. Warming the actual earf rock has little to do with what climate science is researching about. While I depart from Gigo and similar in that I don’t subscribe to the assumption of catastrophe, for many reasons, the science of how the _atmosphere_ is heating is fairly solid. The new and upcoming field of how this affects the oceans is proving interesting, too, though the understanding of that effect is still being sussed out. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/427 "2014-02-05T00:10:30Z")
Let’s not forget the point I made, quite plainly, about some blogger trying to act smarter than Dyson in these matters. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2. > > OK when you see that level of wrong, game over. Seriously, if you see that statement, and do not know why it is wrong, you have no business discussing climate, climate science, global warming, and especially not trying to put down a scientist. > > That GIGO quotes something that wrong, and doesn’t realize what he is doing, it’s truly sad. All the worse, it’s done to try and say Dyson is stupid and wrong. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It sounds as though you just picked one of Tobis’s statements at random and hoped if you sneered at it hard enough, everyone else would be afraid to question your sneering. utter tripe. It’s a wrong statement, and this is obvious [using the graphic](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_absorption.png)from the NASA site wolfpup uses below. > [@wolfpup](#): > > How come those who think Dyson is correct cheerfully just ignore [simple facts like these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17075137&postcount=417)? Nobody is ignoring, in fact the graphic there clearly shows the overlapping bands of CO2 and H2O, which clearly shows why I said the blogger was an idiot. [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2\_H2O\_absorption.png](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_absorption.png) There is only one place they do not overlap, and as I pointed out it isn’t an important band, too hot. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think an Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences expert from the University of Wisconsin has the business to declare what Dyson said to be wrong, it is you who is the ignorant still about who is an expert. Nope, and that anyone thinks “there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2”, as our idiot blogger stated, is as dumb as he is. You can clearly see the one place that does not overlap in the NASA graphic (thanks wolfpup) [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2\_H2O\_absorption.png](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/CO2_H2O_absorption.png) If you can’t see that, there is no hope for you. The other issue is saturation of absorption. If CO2 already has closed the window to a wavelength, adding more CO2 will not increase the absorption. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/428 "2014-02-05T00:11:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, that means that the actual number were right and not bogus. You haven’t profered other, no bogus numbers. Saying that the numbers were bogus was at odds with the truth. I did provide **relevant** numbers [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17072725&postcount=359) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17073015&postcount=369). **With the relevant context.** > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > My problem with 30 million tons was that, without context, the number is misleading. I provided context, you didn’t. Taken as posted, your information would have led the reader to an incorrect conclusion – that the human CO2 contribution wasn’t very significant. The isolated facts you posted were correct but devoid of critical factual context. That’s called “spin” in any political playbook and “deception” in any dictionary. It’s also SOP for denialists. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That saying CO2 is the nexus of evil is simplistic without talking about how far it’s taken us. I’d like you to find where I, or where any climate scientist providing information on climate change, has referred to CO2 as “the nexus of evil”. For someone so particular about the exact phraseology of what you did or didn’t say, you seem very loose with what you attribute to others. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/429 "2014-02-05T00:16:00Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > Water vapor doesn’t have a Nitrogen overlap and CO2 does. You need to explain what you mean by [Nitrogen overlap](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS531US531&oq=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1668j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8), since the term [isn’t a climate or even a physics term](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=). What do you mean by [nitrogen overlap](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=nitrogen+overlap&title=Special%3ASearch)? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/430 "2014-02-05T00:19:53Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > CO2 … it gains energy constantly from kinetic interactions with other gases, keeping it above a dry ice state and it radiates **all the energy** it picks up from any source. You know better than that. It does not radiate “all the energy it picks up from any source”, and it loses as much energy as it gains from collisions, it’s not somehow always gaining energy, and radiating it away. If it acted like that it would be a cooling gas, not a greenhouse gas. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/431 "2014-02-05T00:23:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well learning should be fun you know. Here are two easy to look at pictures. They are pretty much the same. Easy to see what happens and shit like that. > > [http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg](http://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/images/Energy/GHGAbsoprtionSpectrum.jpg) > > [http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Greenhouse\_Gas\_Absorption-dlh.png](http://theresilientearth.com/files/images/Greenhouse_Gas_Absorption-dlh.png) > > They help visualize why Dyson repeated the facts about **the enhanced greenhouse theory**. It is that theory that global warming is based on. The attacks on his simple description are actually attacks on **the theory of global warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect**. > > That nobody realizes this is pretty funny. > > There are damn good reasons the models which are based on the theory, predict exactly what Dyson described, which is now being attacked here. > > Priceless. No, what will really fry your noodle is the fact that you admitted to the warming in the artistic that the OP was onto, and you tried for several pages to claim that it could be dismissed, **when Dyson all along was agreeing with it** , the problem remains that Dyson accepts that and then right away claims that the warming is just happening there and not elsewhere, leading to claim that the rise in temperature is not global. That is were he is wrong as the contributors to RealCiamate reported. > **[RealClimate: The Starship vs. Spaceship Earth](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/the-starship-vs-spaceship-earth/)** > > RealClimate: Eric Steig & Ray Pierrehumbert One of my (Eric's) favorite old books is The Starship and the Canoe by Kenneth Brower It's a 1970s book about a father (Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist living in Princeton) and son (George Dyson,... > [@](#): > > The examples of this are legion. In the essay “Heretical thoughts about science and society” (excerpted here) Dyson says that CO2 only acts to make cold places (like the arctic) warmer and doesn’t make hot places hotter, because only cold places are dry enough for CO2 to compete with water vapor opacity. But in jumping to this conclusion, he has neglected to take into account that even in the hot tropics, the air aloft is cold and dry, so CO2 nonetheless exerts a potent warming effect there. Dyson has fallen into the same saturation fallacy that bedeviled Ångström a century earlier. The idea from Dyson is indeed to not to deny the warming where it is so clear anyone can notice it ([and as some have noticed that warming in the north is a factor for the changes in the the circulation pasterns in the north pole.](http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/warm_arctic_cold_continent.html)) but to then deny that there is warming going elsewhere, that is what Dyson still gets wrong. And of course the reason is simple, to claim that the warming of the poles\* (once again, repeatedly poo pooed by you but accepted by Dyson) is a local item and is not applicable to a global average. The real funny thing is that as usual I was right: there are no easy pickings from the “experts” you rely on, in reality there is a lot that they have to admit that in the end they do not help unfounded ideas that we should dismiss the warming reported in the arctic because there was “no surface stations”, when it is clear that Dyson can not deny what thermometers from there reported and report. (and there were several instrumental recorders in the area) \*And yes, that does include Antarctica, of course if climate4you was correct they shitted on Dyson too. indeed, all that shows why there are no easy pickings for the cherry pickers. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/432 "2014-02-05T00:31:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The real funny thing is that as usual I was right No, you are still wrong of course. Like how you agreed with some idiot blogger that “Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2”, which I pointed out is so dumb if you don’t know why that is wrong, you have no business in a debate over global warming. I told you he was wrong, and you doubled down. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think an Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences expert from the University of Wisconsin has the business to declare what Dyson said to be wrong, it is you who is the ignorant still about who is an expert. Nope, and no matter how many times you post, it won’t make you right. But at least you finally figured out why arguing with Dyson was futile. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/433 "2014-02-05T00:32:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > No, what will really fry your noodle is the fact that you admitted to the warming in the artistic that the OP was onto Correction: what will really fry your noodle is the fact that you admitted to the warming that the article posted by the OP was on about. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/434 "2014-02-05T00:38:28Z")
[quote=“wolfpup, post:428, topic:679056”] I did provide **relevant** numbers [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17072725&postcount=359) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17073015&postcount=369). **With the relevant context.** So, my numbers were right, thanx. > [@](#): > > I provided context, you didn’t. Taken as posted, your information would have led the reader to an incorrect conclusion – that the human CO2 contribution wasn’t very significant. The isolated facts you posted were correct but devoid of critical factual context. That’s called “spin” in any political playbook and “deception” in any dictionary. It’s also SOP for denialists. You continue to miss where I said > [@](#): > > Heck, 4% may be enough to cause a lot of damage and disrupt all sorts of cycles > [@](#): > > 400ppm may be horrible for us, I don’t think so, but they may where I clearly acknolwedged stuff. > [@](#): > > I’d like you to find where I, or where any climate scientist providing information on climate change, has referred to CO2 as “the nexus of evil”. For someone so particular about the exact phraseology of what you did or didn’t say, you seem very loose with what you attribute to others. Well you said > [@](#): > > As I’ve already explained, in terms of the alteration of the balance and the consequent long-term climate forcing, it is in fact huge and unprecedented in millions of years, both in its magnitude and its rate of increase. so, nexus of all evil is a correct metaphor. You call “phraseology” on me? I gave exact numbers, with a proviso, and you call them “bogus” and you go with the “phraseology” defense? Lemme get this straight. You said > [@](#): > > dump it into the atmosphere at the rate of more than 30 billion tons of CO2 a year and see what happens without comparing it to the natural production on CO2, therefore, negating any context, and it’s right. I provide a contex for the 30 with 750, 25 times, 4%, and say it could be very bad and you call it bogus and without context and spin. Nice. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/435 "2014-02-05T00:43:34Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > No, you are still wrong of course. Like how you agreed with some idiot blogger that “Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2”, which I pointed out is so dumb if you don’t know why that is wrong, you have no business in a debate over global warming. > > I told you he was wrong, and you doubled down. Read it again, the contributors of RealClimate were correct, as I pointed out. Your sorry failed narrative is to hang on to a single rhetorical affirmation so as to ignore the mess of errors that Dyson runs into. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nope, and no matter how many times you post, it won’t make you right. That is nice, everyone else can notice how you are avoiding that there was more to the quote than that, and that you are continuing to run away from the contributors from RealClimate. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > But at least you finally figured out why arguing with Dyson was futile. Just a misunderstanding from you, in reality Dyson was like the blind squirrel that finds a nut, nice for him, but that is not what he is only speaking about, it is clearly his denial of what is going on with the warming elsewhere that is the problem. As it is the huge contradiction of your continuous attempts at clouding the issue of the clear warming of the poles that not even Dyson could deny. What it is clear is that all those denier sources you pointed early that told us by implication that there was no warming going on the Arctic and Antarctic were also shitting on Dyson, glad we could figure that out. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/436 "2014-02-05T00:52:53Z")
Before we see yet another GIGO, I mean Gish gallop here, lets get a scientific issue settled. When you look at a graph of absorption by greenhouse gases, or even just CO2 and water vapor, do you think it is showing the possible absorption? Or is it showing the measured absorption? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/437 "2014-02-05T01:05:12Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > CO2 doesn’t have an overlap with O2 or O3. Which is why you may notice I left them out of a review of CO2’s influence. Nobody said there was an overlap. I was pointing out that those gases are responsible for what we call the greenhouse effect. It’s what keeps the earth warmer than it would be with out any water vapor or O2 and O3 in the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/438 "2014-02-05T01:05:46Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You know better than that. It does not radiate “all the energy it picks up from any source”, and it loses as much energy as it gains from collisions, it’s not somehow always gaining energy, and radiating it away. > > If it acted like that it would be a cooling gas, not a greenhouse gas. In the same way that the sun is a “cooling star”: if it’s radiating energy until it reaches it’s equilibrium energy state, it’s warming what’s around it. And it’s always gaining energy from kinetic sources as well as radiative sources that it turns right back around and gets rid of. And, actually, CO2 could be used as a coolant. Unfortunately, it’s most beneficial state would be when it’s a liquid, which is when it’s at ~5 atmospheres and below 31 C. In 1 atm, it goes from solid -\> gas without stopping off at liquidity. As such, it’s useless for us as a coolant material because we’d have to have a very strong and durable material to contain it, which would make heat transfer hard. (Our durable materials tend to get thicker for durability.) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > You need to explain what you mean by [Nitrogen overlap](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS531US531&oq=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1668j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8), since the term [isn’t a climate or even a physics term](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22a+Nitrogen+overlap%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=). > > What do you mean by [nitrogen overlap](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=nitrogen+overlap&title=Special%3ASearch)? :dubious: It was describing the 3-5 um wavelength overlap between CO2 and Nitrogen gas on their respective absorptive spectrums as well as the lack of such an overlap for H2O, which is precisely what I said in those two posts you were responding to. Reading comprehension is A-double-plus. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/439 "2014-02-05T01:14:25Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Before we see yet another GIGO, I mean Gish gallop here, lets get a scientific issue settled. > > When you look at a graph of absorption by greenhouse gases, or even just CO2 and water vapor, do you think it is showing the possible absorption? Or is it showing the measured absorption? Sounds to me like saying that before we look at what scientists reported about what Dyson got wrong, and how the little of what he got right in reality turns the past say so’s of FX into nonsense that is. 🙂 And you really do not know what a Gish Gallop is, that is a creationist special (and climate deniers like Spencer are too). Recently I linked to a post from Skeptico with that we have just about more than a dozen skeptical groups and fighters of pseudoscience that continue to tell us that you can not properly identify what is science and what is not. And who is a real expert from the ones that are not. > **[Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-expertise-lacking-among-global-warming-contrarians/)** > > A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so > [@](#): > > The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science. > > “A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion,” says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. “Cardiologists, for example, don’t prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery—they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty.” > > > [@](#): > > > > Climate scientist Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who worked on the new analysis, admits that it is born of frustration with “climate deniers,” such as physicist Freeman Dyson > > or geologist Ian Plimer, being presented as “equally credible” to his peers and granted “equal weight” as science assessments from the IPCC or U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both of which ascribe ongoing climate change to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activities. “We wanted to ask by objective measures, ‘Who publishes the bulk of the new science in the refereed literature and gets cited the most: those who accept anthropogenic global warming or those who deny it?’” Schneider says. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/440 "2014-02-05T01:22:40Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Before we see yet another GIGO, I mean Gish gallop here, lets get a scientific issue settled. > > When you look at a graph of absorption by greenhouse gases, or even just CO2 and water vapor, do you think it is showing the possible absorption? Or is it showing the measured absorption? An absorption spectrum is a spectrum used to show what wavelengths are absorbed by materials and how much energy potential can be absorbed from that wavelength. A 100% absorption means that it will halt that wavelength from proceeding due to fully absorbing the energy potential of that wavelength. What actually happens, is the energy from the wavelength excites the electrons in a particular orbital shell and they jump from their stable orbits into unstable higher energy orbits. As that electron orbit decays, the energy is given back off in a similar, and sometimes slightly less energetic, wavelength and the electron returns to it’s original orbit. Each atom or compound reacts to different wavelengths because each atom or compound holds it’s electrons differently and it takes varying wavelengths and energy intensities to excite them, based on the strength of the nuclear forces holding that electron into the orbit or bond configuration. If you pump enough energy into a material, you’ll create a plasma, where all of the electrons are free-wheeling billiard balls being captured and released from random atom/compound orbits. The more complex the atom or compound (or “the more natural electron orbits occupied”) the more wavelengths absorbed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=23)