So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong?
Of course it has. If we want to discuss just the things that have had consensus that have been wrong, we’d be here for hours.
As in concluding the opposite of what is actually happening?
Thing about science is that there are more than just opposites.
...hard to find almost anything on this scale in recent history.
1950? 1930 (for the latter)? Those aren’t recent?
I'm simply arguing that consensus among experts in the field makes it more likely.
And you’re right, to an extent. We have to be able to trust ourselves–humanity–as well as what the world around us exhibits.
On the other side of the argument, what do you have to support the counter-claims?
I’ve presented a portion of it, at least, which is fairly strong.
Other than conspiracy theories, lobbyists for the energy industry and a desire for this to be wrong because it is inconvenient.
A theory of conspiracy, sure, due to the nature of the manipulation; no energy industry lobbyists; and absolutely nothing that would suggest the last point.
The argument that it is obviously false does not stand up well to scrutiny when every attempt to expand on that argument simply demonstrates ignorance of the science.
And yet when we get to the fundamental point–As there is no warming even with an increase in CO2, the mechanism claimed to be the source of warming must not not exist, but not be a cause–the discussion just peters out.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Valid examples but, again, the use of individual cases to draw a generalized conclusion...
The very CONCEPT of peer review does not require rerunning of tests. I take serious issue with it. What is science if not reproducible?! It’s the equivalent of “SUB 4 SUB” on YouTube, where people subscribe (in BOTH senses of the word) to each other’s posts for the sole purpose of increasing subscribership (and therefore the illusion of popularity and the fallacy of quality therefrom). When many of the primary source claims of AGW have their studies rerun and shown to either not show what was claimed or even show the opposite, I get a little disillusioned with the Holy Book of “peer review” that its proponents tend to scream from the hilltops.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified.
What other concern would there be? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I've seen no credible scientific dispute of this work. Do you have citations for such?
Wait, which topic specifically?
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted. Given that general statement, I can't contribute any further on this subject, beyond observing that I don't think that you really understand how science is conducted, let alone the detail of the relevant science itself.
You are referring to the Scripps Institute, National Academy paper on the coral response to dissolved CO2 presumably. It looks like a nice study. It has no bearing on the effect of CO2 on climate, however. Not sure what your other reference might be, as you didn't provide a citation.
Remember that the only significant heat loss mechanism from a planet is thermal infrared radiation. There is, obviously, no conduction, convection or any other transport mechanism available.
An atmosphere only affects the rate of radiative loss if it absorbs the thermal radiation emitted from the surface. Nitrogen and oxygen do not - carbon dioxide and water vapor, together with other trace gases such as methane, do. So, if the earth's atmosphere were only nitrogen and oxygen then correct - it would have little effect on thermal equilibrium and the earth would not be colder than with no atmosphere at all, although it would be around 30 °C colder than with our actual atmosphere.
The 30 °C difference is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that do absorb some of the thermal IR radiation. Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents, which is why relatively small changes in those gas concentrations makes a big difference.
You forgot to mention that water vapor has an absorption band that almost completely overlaps that of CO2.
So almost everywhere CO2 doesn't contribute to heat trapping (only at the poles where the air is dry CO2 has a (very small) absorption band.
Yes - water vapor is also a significant greenhouse gas. But why does that mean that increasing the concentration of another greenhouse gas (CO2) doesn't matter? I don't follow your reasoning.
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted.
I take issue with the manipulation of data collected through the scientific process and data not collected through the scientific process.
I don’t think that you really understand how science is conducted...
So my previous statement in the other thread, regarding how data is recorded, was incorrect? What was wrong about it?
I'm not, obviously, saying that you don't understand anything (you clearly do), so providing an example of something you do understand doesn't mean that you understand how or why the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well. Your comments demonstrate clearly that you believe that it does not work which, combined with the fact that you are not a scientist (not being critical there), tells me that it is a lack of understanding on your part that leads you to that conclusion.
...the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well.
I have no quarrel with research as long as it’s done scientifically. Claiming things are research when they have no basis in science is part of the problem. Peer-review I can’t abide because it doesn’t force the reviewers to rerun the experiments or recollect the data.
I understand, in principle, how the latter works. I just can’t subscribe to its validity because of the inadequate definition to which it is held.
...the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well.
I have no quarrel with research as long as it’s done scientifically. Claiming things are research when they have no basis in science is part of the problem. Peer-review I can’t abide because it doesn’t force the reviewers to rerun the experiments or recollect the data.
I understand, in principle, how the latter works. I just can’t subscribe to its validity because of the inadequate definition to which it is held.
OK - but take this case as an example. Again, without wanting to sound over-critical, I would suggest that you are entirely unqualified to judge this research as having no basis in science, and I don't think that you can cite anyone who is qualified espousing that opinion.
As for peer review - part of that review is to determine if the data are sufficient to establish reasonable confidence in the conclusions. If it meets that test it will likely get published. If it turns out, despite that, to be wrong then that will likely be demonstrated pretty quickly by other researchers. In the field of climatology, especially relating to GW, not only has peer-review been quite intense, but multiple groups around the world have re-analyzed the data and come to similar conclusions. It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study. PM with the scientifically relevant opposing data for the general topic inbound, because it’s too much data for the thread.
It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study. PM with the scientifically relevant opposing data for the general topic inbound, because it’s too much data for the thread.
That makes no sense - a simple article search demonstrates the consensus to exist, quite aside from the simple fact that the converse also applies - you can barely find any papers that disagree with the basic conclusions.
Agreed that the discussion has probably exceeded the scope of this thread, but you will find that we had the detailed discussion that you are requesting, by PM, earlier this year. I don't have the time or energy to do that again if you have forgotten it. I suggest that we agree to differ for now. No doubt this topic will arise again, as more data, more publications and other information develops.
I have no quarrel with research as long as it’s done scientifically. Claiming things are research when they have no basis in science is part of the problem. Peer-review I can’t abide because it doesn’t force the reviewers to rerun the experiments or recollect the data.
I understand, in principle, how the latter works. I just can’t subscribe to its validity because of the inadequate definition to which it is held.
Peer-review is probably the best information filter we have at this point. The scientific method is not without its controversies. Replication in a controlled environment is often not possible, methods of inference regarding the results is still being debated. Studies conducted over time, for example collecting data as time series, are even more suspect. I cringe when I hear the term "scientific". It is being used by every cat and dog on the planet when they wish to reinforce their beliefs.
There are many books written about the Philosophy of Science, Statistical Inference, etc... as well as relatively more accessible books by people like Stephen J Gould in which the nature of evidence is discussed. It's not a simple topic and, unless you are dealing with situations which can be replicated ( rarely the case with climate or time), debates are still ongoing. At this stage I would think that the peer review process which at least keeps the discussion witching an informed group is the best we can hope for. The unfortunate situation is that many of the most important issues that keep recurring here are really rely on soft sciences which have a lower threshold of evidence.
Peer-review is probably the best information filter we have at this point.
Well, that’s terrifying.
Replication in a controlled environment is often not possible, methods of inference regarding the results is still being debated.
You can’t go to Greenland and drill ice cores right next to where the original study’s were drilled? Or take even more from an even broader selection of the island? You can’t go back to the paper records and match 1:1 the study’s claimed sea level height values/temperatures/atmospheric composition with the actual record?
It’s work, yeah. But it’s hardly impossible.
Studies conducted over time, for example collecting data as time series, are even more suspect.
Wait, you can’t mean what I think you mean, so I need you to correct me. You’re not saying that the very act of collecting the only data that matters in determining these things is ‘suspect’ in making that determination.
At this stage I would think that the peer review process which at least keeps the discussion witching an informed group is the best we can hope for.
Ah, but what about when it doesn’t remain within an informed group? If consensus is a secondary metric by which accuracy can be determined (though not proof of accuracy), is not professional certification within a given field a secondary metric by which right to review can be determined (though not proof of accuracy)?
Germany (cold, fairly densely populated) has plenty of solar power farms and does very well out of them. They're already as cheap as fossil fuel burning plants on a MW/$ basis. They're not a complete solution in winter for countries further away from the equator but their efficiency is improving at a significant rate.
solar provides 6% of their electricity and coal almost 50% at roughly half the price.
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted. Given that general statement, I can't contribute any further on this subject, beyond observing that I don't think that you really understand how science is conducted, let alone the detail of the relevant science itself.
couldn't have been said better. That's why I didn't bother to go down that rabbit hole with him in the first place.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study.
No respectable climate scientist uses the word 'consensus.'
It is a word that some politicians on the left (and a couple of bureaucratic agencies and some NGOs) use. The skeptics/deniers ran with it as though it's something that the scientific community claims.
couldn't have been said better. That's why I didn't bother to go down that rabbit hole with him in the first place.
Yup. That's why Tim Cook's views on this are so great. The time for debate is over. It's time to start doing something, and since he's in charge of such a high profile company, hopefully, that means other companies will follow.
No one has ever convinced anyone of this in an Internet thread (just like evolution). It's futile. Moreover, it accomplishes nothing. For many many deniers, they simply won't believe at all even if half of Florida and other lowland areas are underwater and some areas will become inhospitable to human life. Hell, the time to prevent it was over 20 years ago. Our children will have to live with the consequences.
You are referring to the Scripps Institute, National Academy paper on the coral response to dissolved CO2 presumably. It looks like a nice study. It has no bearing on the effect of CO2 on climate, however. Not sure what your other reference might be, as you didn't provide a citation.
Of course it has, it's part of the ipcc scare mongering tactics.
Coral effects are relevant to climate change because they are all part of the same conspiracy? I'm sorry - if you can't keep this discussion to the scientific issues at hand then it becomes pointless very quickly.
The other article is interesting, but without the full Nature paper I'm not sure what to think, since the summary on phys.org is rather contradictory.
Quote:
Therefore, if we compare global warming over recent decades with the increase in temperature that happened 250 million years ago over the Permian-Triassic boundary, current climate change seems incredibly fast. Between 1960 and 2010, the temperature of the oceans rose at a rate of 0.007 degrees per year. 'That doesn't seem like much,' Prof. Kießling says, 'but it's 42 times faster than the temperature increase that we are able to measure over the Permian-Triassic boundary. Back then the temperature of the oceans rose by 10 degrees, but as we are only able to limit the period to 60,000 years, this equates to a seemingly low rate of 0.00017 degrees per year.'
?That is in line with conventional paleoclimatology, but then later we read:
Quote:
In their study the researchers looked at around two hundred analyses of changes in climate from various periods in geological history. It became clear that the apparent speed of climate change appears slower the longer the time periods over which increases or decreases in temperature are observed. The reason for this is that over long periods rapid changes in climate do not happen constantly in one direction. There are always phases during which the temperatures remain constant or even sink—a phenomenon that has also been observed in the current period of global warming. 'However, we are unable to prove such fast fluctuations during past periods of climate change with the available methods of analysis.
As a consequence, the data leads us to believe that climate change was always much slower in geological history than it is today, even when the greatest catastrophes occurred. However, that is not the case,' Prof. Kießling says. If we consider these scaling effects, the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed. The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out.
Unfortunately the article here doesn't even attempt to explain how that was determined, so the reader is rather left hanging. In particular, the sentence that I underlined looks remarkably like a statement of the trivially obvious. Clearly there must be more to this study. I'll pull the full paper when I get into the office tomorrow.
I agree with you on this simply because you’re generally right and I’m fine with any AGW proponent who does use it getting swept out of our mutual (in this case) label of respectability.
Originally Posted by THT
The time for debate is over.
Yeah, sorry, that’s not how it works.
For many many deniers, they simply won’t believe at all even if half of Florida and other lowland areas are underwater...
Which, at current rates, will happen in 61,856 years (since muppetry refuses to believe NOAA’s own statements, we’ll say 31,865 years for good measure).
EDIT: Whoops, you said half of Florida. So 30,928 and 15,932.
and some areas will become inhospitable to human life.
Like Antarctica and the Sahara.
Hell, the time to prevent it was over 20 years ago.
Oops! We’re all dead! Oh well! Now keep your delusions to yourself and stay out of other people’s business. All the predictions from 20 years ago were false.
Yes - water vapor is also a significant greenhouse gas. But why does that mean that increasing the concentration of another greenhouse gas (CO2) doesn't matter? I don't follow your reasoning.
I explained that already, water vapor has an absorption spectrum that overlaps that of CO2, so a higher concentration of CO2 makes no difference, except at the poles.
Comments
So you really think that the bulk of, or at least a significantly large amount of widely supported scientific work in the past has been completely wrong?
Of course it has. If we want to discuss just the things that have had consensus that have been wrong, we’d be here for hours.
Thing about science is that there are more than just opposites.
1950? 1930 (for the latter)? Those aren’t recent?
And you’re right, to an extent. We have to be able to trust ourselves–humanity–as well as what the world around us exhibits.
I’ve presented a portion of it, at least, which is fairly strong.
A theory of conspiracy, sure, due to the nature of the manipulation; no energy industry lobbyists; and absolutely nothing that would suggest the last point.
And yet when we get to the fundamental point–As there is no warming even with an increase in CO2, the mechanism claimed to be the source of warming must not not exist, but not be a cause–the discussion just peters out.
The very CONCEPT of peer review does not require rerunning of tests. I take serious issue with it. What is science if not reproducible?! It’s the equivalent of “SUB 4 SUB” on YouTube, where people subscribe (in BOTH senses of the word) to each other’s posts for the sole purpose of increasing subscribership (and therefore the illusion of popularity and the fallacy of quality therefrom). When many of the primary source claims of AGW have their studies rerun and shown to either not show what was claimed or even show the opposite, I get a little disillusioned with the Holy Book of “peer review” that its proponents tend to scream from the hilltops.
As to concerns about this research - there clearly are, but only by those claiming that the research is falsified.
What other concern would there be?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Wait, which topic specifically?
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted. Given that general statement, I can't contribute any further on this subject, beyond observing that I don't think that you really understand how science is conducted, let alone the detail of the relevant science itself.
Of course it has, it's part of the ipcc scare mongering tactics.
The other article is a geologic survey: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-global-fast-today.html
Remember that the only significant heat loss mechanism from a planet is thermal infrared radiation. There is, obviously, no conduction, convection or any other transport mechanism available.
An atmosphere only affects the rate of radiative loss if it absorbs the thermal radiation emitted from the surface. Nitrogen and oxygen do not - carbon dioxide and water vapor, together with other trace gases such as methane, do. So, if the earth's atmosphere were only nitrogen and oxygen then correct - it would have little effect on thermal equilibrium and the earth would not be colder than with no atmosphere at all, although it would be around 30 °C colder than with our actual atmosphere.
The 30 °C difference is caused by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that do absorb some of the thermal IR radiation. Quite a big difference being caused by less than 1% of the atmospheric constituents, which is why relatively small changes in those gas concentrations makes a big difference.
You forgot to mention that water vapor has an absorption band that almost completely overlaps that of CO2.
So almost everywhere CO2 doesn't contribute to heat trapping (only at the poles where the air is dry CO2 has a (very small) absorption band.
Yes - water vapor is also a significant greenhouse gas. But why does that mean that increasing the concentration of another greenhouse gas (CO2) doesn't matter? I don't follow your reasoning.
Here’s what NASA has to say on the subject.
This is what NASA says about the issue http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted.
I take issue with the manipulation of data collected through the scientific process and data not collected through the scientific process.
So my previous statement in the other thread, regarding how data is recorded, was incorrect? What was wrong about it?
Sorry, no. None of that is legitimate data.
OK - so the consistent message is that you take serious issue with how science is conducted.
I take issue with the manipulation of data collected through the scientific process and data not collected through the scientific process.
So my previous statement in the other thread, regarding how data is recorded, was incorrect? What was wrong about it?
I'm not, obviously, saying that you don't understand anything (you clearly do), so providing an example of something you do understand doesn't mean that you understand how or why the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well. Your comments demonstrate clearly that you believe that it does not work which, combined with the fact that you are not a scientist (not being critical there), tells me that it is a lack of understanding on your part that leads you to that conclusion.
...the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well.
I have no quarrel with research as long as it’s done scientifically. Claiming things are research when they have no basis in science is part of the problem. Peer-review I can’t abide because it doesn’t force the reviewers to rerun the experiments or recollect the data.
I understand, in principle, how the latter works. I just can’t subscribe to its validity because of the inadequate definition to which it is held.
...the scientific process of research, peer-review, and validation largely works well.
I have no quarrel with research as long as it’s done scientifically. Claiming things are research when they have no basis in science is part of the problem. Peer-review I can’t abide because it doesn’t force the reviewers to rerun the experiments or recollect the data.
I understand, in principle, how the latter works. I just can’t subscribe to its validity because of the inadequate definition to which it is held.
OK - but take this case as an example. Again, without wanting to sound over-critical, I would suggest that you are entirely unqualified to judge this research as having no basis in science, and I don't think that you can cite anyone who is qualified espousing that opinion.
As for peer review - part of that review is to determine if the data are sufficient to establish reasonable confidence in the conclusions. If it meets that test it will likely get published. If it turns out, despite that, to be wrong then that will likely be demonstrated pretty quickly by other researchers. In the field of climatology, especially relating to GW, not only has peer-review been quite intense, but multiple groups around the world have re-analyzed the data and come to similar conclusions. It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study. PM with the scientifically relevant opposing data for the general topic inbound, because it’s too much data for the thread.
It's not as if this is all based on some recent, isolated, controversial study that has not been replicated.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study. PM with the scientifically relevant opposing data for the general topic inbound, because it’s too much data for the thread.
That makes no sense - a simple article search demonstrates the consensus to exist, quite aside from the simple fact that the converse also applies - you can barely find any papers that disagree with the basic conclusions.
Agreed that the discussion has probably exceeded the scope of this thread, but you will find that we had the detailed discussion that you are requesting, by PM, earlier this year. I don't have the time or energy to do that again if you have forgotten it. I suggest that we agree to differ for now. No doubt this topic will arise again, as more data, more publications and other information develops.
Peer-review is probably the best information filter we have at this point. The scientific method is not without its controversies. Replication in a controlled environment is often not possible, methods of inference regarding the results is still being debated. Studies conducted over time, for example collecting data as time series, are even more suspect. I cringe when I hear the term "scientific". It is being used by every cat and dog on the planet when they wish to reinforce their beliefs.
There are many books written about the Philosophy of Science, Statistical Inference, etc... as well as relatively more accessible books by people like Stephen J Gould in which the nature of evidence is discussed. It's not a simple topic and, unless you are dealing with situations which can be replicated ( rarely the case with climate or time), debates are still ongoing. At this stage I would think that the peer review process which at least keeps the discussion witching an informed group is the best we can hope for. The unfortunate situation is that many of the most important issues that keep recurring here are really rely on soft sciences which have a lower threshold of evidence.
Well, that’s terrifying.
You can’t go to Greenland and drill ice cores right next to where the original study’s were drilled? Or take even more from an even broader selection of the island? You can’t go back to the paper records and match 1:1 the study’s claimed sea level height values/temperatures/atmospheric composition with the actual record?
It’s work, yeah. But it’s hardly impossible.
Wait, you can’t mean what I think you mean, so I need you to correct me. You’re not saying that the very act of collecting the only data that matters in determining these things is ‘suspect’ in making that determination.
Ah, but what about when it doesn’t remain within an informed group? If consensus is a secondary metric by which accuracy can be determined (though not proof of accuracy), is not professional certification within a given field a secondary metric by which right to review can be determined (though not proof of accuracy)?
solar provides 6% of their electricity and coal almost 50% at roughly half the price.
couldn't have been said better. That's why I didn't bother to go down that rabbit hole with him in the first place.
I have all the ammunition I need at the links provided, it is not just an unsubstantiated attack as you did. Gore and now Cook ... blah blah
I don't doubt that you have all the ammunition -- real and climate-skepticism-related -- you need.
Let me guess: you also get all your news from Fox News.
The claim of consensus itself comes from a falsified study.
No respectable climate scientist uses the word 'consensus.'
It is a word that some politicians on the left (and a couple of bureaucratic agencies and some NGOs) use. The skeptics/deniers ran with it as though it's something that the scientific community claims.
If I am wrong, do send me a link. A credible one.
couldn't have been said better. That's why I didn't bother to go down that rabbit hole with him in the first place.
Yup. That's why Tim Cook's views on this are so great. The time for debate is over. It's time to start doing something, and since he's in charge of such a high profile company, hopefully, that means other companies will follow.
No one has ever convinced anyone of this in an Internet thread (just like evolution). It's futile. Moreover, it accomplishes nothing. For many many deniers, they simply won't believe at all even if half of Florida and other lowland areas are underwater and some areas will become inhospitable to human life. Hell, the time to prevent it was over 20 years ago. Our children will have to live with the consequences.
You are referring to the Scripps Institute, National Academy paper on the coral response to dissolved CO2 presumably. It looks like a nice study. It has no bearing on the effect of CO2 on climate, however. Not sure what your other reference might be, as you didn't provide a citation.
Of course it has, it's part of the ipcc scare mongering tactics.
The other article is a geologic survey: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-global-fast-today.html
Coral effects are relevant to climate change because they are all part of the same conspiracy? I'm sorry - if you can't keep this discussion to the scientific issues at hand then it becomes pointless very quickly.
The other article is interesting, but without the full Nature paper I'm not sure what to think, since the summary on phys.org is rather contradictory.
?That is in line with conventional paleoclimatology, but then later we read:
In their study the researchers looked at around two hundred analyses of changes in climate from various periods in geological history. It became clear that the apparent speed of climate change appears slower the longer the time periods over which increases or decreases in temperature are observed. The reason for this is that over long periods rapid changes in climate do not happen constantly in one direction. There are always phases during which the temperatures remain constant or even sink—a phenomenon that has also been observed in the current period of global warming. 'However, we are unable to prove such fast fluctuations during past periods of climate change with the available methods of analysis.
As a consequence, the data leads us to believe that climate change was always much slower in geological history than it is today, even when the greatest catastrophes occurred. However, that is not the case,' Prof. Kießling says. If we consider these scaling effects, the temperate increase over the Permian-Triassic boundary was no different to current climate change in terms of speed. The increase in temperature during this event is associated with a mass extinction event during which 90 percent of marine animals died out.
Unfortunately the article here doesn't even attempt to explain how that was determined, so the reader is rather left hanging. In particular, the sentence that I underlined looks remarkably like a statement of the trivially obvious. Clearly there must be more to this study. I'll pull the full paper when I get into the office tomorrow.
If I am wrong, do send me a link. A credible one.
Genetic fallacy.
I agree with you on this simply because you’re generally right and I’m fine with any AGW proponent who does use it getting swept out of our mutual (in this case) label of respectability.
The time for debate is over.
Yeah, sorry, that’s not how it works.
For many many deniers, they simply won’t believe at all even if half of Florida and other lowland areas are underwater...
Which, at current rates, will happen in 61,856 years (since muppetry refuses to believe NOAA’s own statements, we’ll say 31,865 years for good measure).
EDIT: Whoops, you said half of Florida. So 30,928 and 15,932.
Like Antarctica and the Sahara.
Oops! We’re all dead! Oh well! Now keep your delusions to yourself and stay out of other people’s business. All the predictions from 20 years ago were false.
I explained that already, water vapor has an absorption spectrum that overlaps that of CO2, so a higher concentration of CO2 makes no difference, except at the poles.