

How do we know CO2 is causing Global Warming? - philipn
http://skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html
Folks, also see the graph of CO2 in the atmosphere over time: http://mathburritos.org/Atmos-CO2.gif
======
bumblebird
Doesn't seem like a water tight argument at all to me.

How about the alternate theory that heating up causes CO2 to be released from
the Ocean - the extra CO2 is not the cause of heating, but the result of it.

Way too much energy is being spent on this. Far more imminent threats to
peoples lives and freedoms.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
> In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra
> between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched
> the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared
> both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26
> year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

> What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands
> that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The
> change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical
> expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a
> significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

Direct experimental evidence. Good enough for ya?

~~~
bumblebird
No, I can imagine there being many reasons for that (I'm no expert, but you
have to admit there's quite a leap there between what was observed, and the
explanation).

~~~
dejb
It is nearly always possible to imagine alternative explanations for
observations in complex systems. Sometimes the only way have any high level of
confidence in a theory is to spend years studying the area and then more years
researching the specifics of the particular theory. If you have a passion for
this area then why don't you go down this path. Otherwise, like most people,
you will often have to resign yourself to relying on the opinions of
'experts'. Choose your 'experts' wisely.

~~~
bumblebird
True, I don't have a passion for it at all. I find the whole idea that we
could be responsible for global warming to be far fetched. The idea that we
could do anything to prevent/alter it is also to me, pretty far fetched
really. In short I find the whole thing to be mainly a waste of effort. We
could be curing diseases or something more useful.

~~~
thaumaturgy
If you can't be bothered to know anything about it, then you shouldn't be
commenting on it.

For you, global warming has become a religious belief. So, even if articles
existed which laid out and cited the risks and benefits of warmer climate
([http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
negativ...](http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-
negatives.htm)), or which showed that humans are indeed very capable of
altering their environment ([http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-
insignificant-to-...](http://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-
insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm)), or that debunked the myth that
it won't matter anyway (<http://skepticalscience.com/climate-
sensitivity.htm>), or that global warming can contribute to the spread of
diseases (<http://www.ebiologynews.com/3137.html>) ...

...you would still ignore them.

~~~
bumblebird
3 of those sources are the same (obviously pro-manmade global warming)
website. (Probably from people who get government funding to do the research).

It doesn't interest me to learn all about the thoery/(At times it seems like a
religion), but I don't think that should stop me from commenting on it.

The issue is, anyone can pull 'facts' out of the air to support either side of
the debate. It's not a clear cut thing, it's a heap of theories about what
might be going on.

My point was, there's more useful things to investigate/research/worry about.

------
yummyfajitas
This article provides strong evidence for a minor and mostly undisputed point.
This also proves almost nothing with regards to anthropogenic global warming,
since I could write an identical article about H2O (maybe I'd need to tweak
some citations).

~~~
thaumaturgy
A treasure chest of answers has just been gathered up for you, the result of
efforts of many other people.

And it has been opened for you.

And your attention has been diverted to it, briefly.

And in that brief moment, you've noticed only one gem, found it not to your
liking, and you've walked away, safe and comfortable in your belief that there
is no such thing as a chest full of treasure.

Try clicking some links on the site.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I clicked a link on HN. I noticed the article didn't live up to the title. I
wrote a comment indicating this.

Now it's my job to read other articles on the site (perhaps also misleadingly
titled) to try to find evidence for the theory the original article hinted at
in the title, but not in the body?

------
teeja
Perfect example of the kind of straight-forward writing that is needed to help
people to help people understand what's going on. It'd be great to see writing
like this used to explain evolution clearly. (It may exist, certainly should
exist, but I've never seen it.)

~~~
thaumaturgy
I was all set to get all indignant and bombard you with links to PZ Meyers and
the like, when I realized that you're right.

The wonderful thing about this site is that it does such a great job of
rounding up all the various global warming denialism and answers it factually
and straightforwardly, without an excess of opinion or diatribe.

Even after searching for a bit, I couldn't find anything like that for
evolution.

There are always books, though.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is great. So line up the radiation measurements against temperature
reports and you close the loop. ie, begin to form some sort of hypothesis
about radiation and temperature.

