A new record: CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit an all-time high

[basketcase]

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020....

Portraying yourself as a victim has no validity and is a pathetic attempt to avoid criticism. You're allowed to use your free speech to criticize science and other can use their to tell you how wrong you are.
And funny to see you encouraging questioning while censoring the opinion of someone because you don't agree with them.


p.s. You don't have a scientific theory, you are just trying weakly to poke holes in science because you instinctively are uncomfortable with change.

 

[JohnLarue]

Regardless of what you think caused ocean warming in the first place:
it is causing more CO2 to be released from the ocean into the air --> increase atmospheric temperature --> increased ocean temperatures

There is no scientific experimental proof of CO2 causing increased atmospheric temperature. There is a theory and a whole lot of propaganda , but no scientific experimental proof


a continuous loop?

, increased ocean temperatures ?>>> more CO2 to be released from the ocean into the air --> increase atmospheric temperature --> increased ocean temperature

Gee why have the oceans not boiled away then?
Sorry, nature does not work that way
CO2 was 1000 to 5000 ppm in the past, (during ices ages no less) yet the oceans are still here

it is causing sea ice to melt --> changes albedo--> more energy absorbed rather than reflected - atmosphere warms --> increased ocean temperatures

Again , no scientific proof of these claims

CO2 is a bit player in the greenhouse gas theory and absorbance of IR radiation is dominated by water vapor
CO2 absorbs only approx 16% of the Infrared frequencies , water absorbs far more and is 20 to 40 times more abundant in the atmosphere.
the Physics of infrared absorption just does not support your claim

And a couple not based on water
land ice melts --> albedo changes --> land warms --> more land ice melts
permafrost melts --> methane and CO2 released from it --> atmospheric warming --> more permafrost melts.

Why not blame Covid-19 and the Kennedy assassination on CO2 while you are demonizing it.
Sadly you do this with out even a basic understanding of the physics involved

I don't know them all but there are some very knowledgeable people who study it and even though they don't know everything, they know a fair bit. More importantly and despite all of your posturing, ignoring all the science on climate change because there are some things we haven't completely figured out is like dismissing evolution because we can't explain all the mechanism of mutations.

So we finally have some who admits we have not totally figured this out, yet the ill-conceived, destructive and unattainable solutions are being put in place
Ready shoot , aim does not work well

These economically crippling policies have been put in place, not because there is a good understanding of the science (as you state) rather they are being put in place because of the massive propaganda effort and the censorship of opposing views

 

[JohnLarue]

Portraying yourself as a victim has no validity and is a pathetic attempt to avoid criticism.

What a pile of BS
I never claimed to be a victim. Nobody has censored me. (although Frankie had me banned a couple of times for showing what he truly is)
I also recognize the difference between science and propaganda

No the victims here are the hundreds of scientist who dared to publicly question the Climate Science narrative
Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, Bob Carter , Richard Linzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer Hermman Harde........... to name a few
these people have been treated shamefully , some lost jobs had their careers ruined and were vilified. Many have had legitimate papers trashed and their view silenced . Someone shot at John Christys office
All because they did what all scientist are expected to do. Ask questions and be willing to challenge

then there are hundreds more who were too afraid to speak there minds and choose the path of least resistance. Speaking out against climate science risks losing tenure and employment for many

That is the corruption of science and that is just plain evil
All humanity are the victims of this inquisition as it will retard scientific advancement

It is a lie to the public and intentionally. A whole lot of victims there

And it gets worse as children are being indoctrinated with the climate science narrative. Books are being (burned) / banned from schools
Dr Gobbels would have been so proud

You're allowed to use your free speech to criticize science and other can use their to tell you how wrong you are.
And funny to see you encouraging questioning while censoring the opinion of someone because you don't agree with them.

WTF??? , I have never censored anyone
you are free to say what ever propaganda you want
I just point out when physics and chemistry does not support that propaganda
And believe me there is far more propaganda than real science

p.s. You don't have a scientific theory, you are just trying weakly to poke holes in science because you instinctively are uncomfortable with change.

Ah no !
I recognize when propaganda is being passed off as science, recognize many climate scientists are activists first, scientist second and recognize when some basic facts about the absorption of infrared radiation are being ignored or dismissed

BTW, where is it written one must have a scientific theory in order to recognize the one being presented to the world is inaccurate?

Here is a couple of scientific theories for you
Climate changes, it always has & it always will. Natural viability has caused ice ages , warming period and will lily cause them again
the amount climate scientist do not understand about climate exceeds the amount they do

 

[Frankfooter]

There is no scientific experimental proof of CO2 causing increased atmospheric temperature. There is a theory and a whole lot of propaganda , but no scientific experimental proof

Just existential proof of anthropomorphic climate change.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

larue has no theory to explain the rise in temperature and CO2 levels we are experiencing.

 

[Frankfooter]

No the victims here are the hundreds of scientist who dared to publicly question the Climate Science narrative
Peter Ridd, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, Bob Carter , Richard Linzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer Hermman Harde........... to name a few
these people have been treated shamefully , some lost jobs had their careers ruined and were vilified. Many have had legitimate papers trashed and their view silenced . Someone shot at John Christys office
All because they did what all scientist are expected to do. Ask questions and be willing to challenge

They have been publicly shamed because their work is incredibly shoddy.
Every IPCC paper goes through the same peer assessment, if the criticism of the science questions the work, it isn't published.
Your team just can't past that peer assessment as its just really shoddy work.

Here is a couple of scientific theories for you
Climate changes, it always has & it always will.

Is that a theory? That the climate changes? Those are your big ideas?
Sure, and death happens all the time too.
Doesn't mean you want it to happen to you right now.
Doesn't mean its ok to hit your head with a hammer knowing its bad for you because 'death happens'.

Theory #2

Natural viability has caused ice ages , warming period and will lily cause them again

Assuming you mean 'variability', that's like saying 'trees fall over all the time, so what's the big deal about cutting out big chunks of their trunks, even if they do lean over your house.'

the amount climate scientist do not understand about climate exceeds the amount they do

More correct would be:
The amount larue understands about what climate scientists know or don't know can be detailed as a ratio of pages he's read of reports of the IPCC over fossil fuel funded deniers posts he's read.
As in 0/X

 

[basketcase]

There is no scientific experimental proof of CO2 causing increased atmospheric temperature. ...

Once again, you show you have no idea of how science works, nor do you even have a clue about science that has stood for over 100 years.

 

[basketcase]

What a pile of BS
I never claimed to be a victim. ...

So claiming that modern science is persecuting people like the "Roman Inquisition" isn't pretending to be a victim?

 

[JohnLarue]

Once again, you show you have no idea of how science works, nor do you even have a clue about science that has stood for over 100 years.

I understand the science far better than you do, I can guarantee you that

I suggest you learn some physics before even dreaming about telling me I have no idea about science
What is wrong with you?

 

[JohnLarue]

So claiming that modern science is persecuting people like the "Roman Inquisition" isn't pretending to be a victim?

You are not very quick on the uptake are you?
Activists intimidating scientists, trashing peoples careers, blocking publications and withholding funding necessitates there must be victims
The victims are hard working scientists who do not buy the climate change narrative

You only need to look to Frankfooter as a prime example of such despicable behavior
In numerous threads I have separately mentioned Judith Curry, Richard Linzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer Hermman Harde, Willie Soon and Will Harper as top level scientists who do not support the Global Warming story

Within minutes Frankfooter responds with character assignation in each case,
"Judith Curry was discredited"
"Willie Soon is a loon who is paid by exxon"
"Roy Spencer is XYZ"
"Richard Linzen was proven to be a liar"
"Will Haper takes oil money"

Frankfooter does not understand anything of these peoples work nor does he try. Instead he just launches into Character assignation
Absolutely despicable

Frankfooter is willing to throw away his integrity for the cause
He is a minor nothing bit player relative to real professional character assassins like John Cook

There is defiantly discrimination against skeptics occurring at universities (Peter Ridd, Murray Selby, Bob Carter)
Murray Selby was a hero for his work on the Ozone issue. however he went from hero to being fired when his paper on CO2 was the opposite of what the university expected
Try obtaining funding to study an alternative theory ........ you will have better odds at winning 649


then there is the peer review shame
try getting a paper published which questions "Global Warming theory" or offers an alternative theory.
You will be destroyed funding will be cut and your paper will be trashed (right or wrong),

We will never ever arrive at the truth in such an environment

Dr Gobbles would have been so proud

So yes there are victims.
In fact you are a much bigger victim than I. They manged to fool you.

When ever someone deliberately and intentionally tries to communicate falsehoods, yeah there are victims


Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020....

 

[Frankfooter]

You are not very quick on the uptake are you?
Activists intimidating scientists, trashing peoples careers, blocking publications and withholding funding necessitates there must be victims
The victims are hard working scientists who do not buy the climate change narrative

You only need to look to Frankfooter as a prime example of such despicable behavior
In numerous threads I have separately mentioned Judith Curry, Richard Linzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer Hermman Harde, Willie Soon and Will Harper as top level scientists who do not support the Global Warming story

Within minutes Frankfooter responds with character assignation in each case,
"Judith Curry was discredited"
"Willie Soon is a loon who is paid by exxon"
"Roy Spencer is XYZ"
"Richard Linzen was proven to be a liar"
"Will Haper takes oil money"

Frankfooter does not understand anything of these peoples work nor does he try. Instead he just launches into Character assignation
Absolutely despicable

Frankfooter is a willing to throw away his integrity for the cause
He is a minor nothing bit player relative to real professional character assassins like John Cook

There is defiantly discrimination against skeptics occurring at universities (Peter Ridd, Murray Selby, Bob Carter)
Murray Selby was a hero for his work on the Ozone issue. however he went from hero to being fired when his paper on CO2 was the opposite of what the university expected
Try obtaining funding to study an alternative theory ........ you will have better odds at winning 649


then there is the peer review shame
try getting a paper published which questions "Global Warming theory" or offers an alternative theory.
You will be destroyed funding will be cut and your paper will be trashed (right or wrong),

We will never ever arrive at the truth in such an environment

Dr Gobbles would have been so proud

So yes there are victims.
In fact you are a much bigger victim than I. They manged to fool you.

When ever someone deliberately and intentionally tries to communicate falsehoods, yeah there are victims


Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020....

There is no science and no theory in this post.
Just a lot of butthurt.

larue was banned recently for excessive insults (not due to my actions)
It appears not only can he not learn anything about science, he can't learn board etiquette either.

 

[JohnLarue]

Once again, you show you have no idea of how science works, nor do you even have a clue about science that has stood for over 100 years.

Name the date of experiment and the scientist who experimentally proved CO2 warms the atmosphere.
You cant
It is a theory, not an empirically proven scientific fact, Despite the tremendous propaganda effort

The simple fact that CO2 has been 4 to 12 times today's levels during ice ages lasting millions of years , should have poured cold water on this theory
Yeah that was a long time ago, however unless you can prove the laws of physics behaved different then, this is all you need to know to realize CO2 is not going to destroy the planet

 

[Frankfooter]

The simple fact that CO2 has been 4 to 12 times today's levels during ice ages lasting millions of years , should have poured cold water on this theory
Yeah that was a long time ago, however unless you can prove the laws of physics behaved different then, this is all you need to know to realize CO2 is not going to destroy the planet

Yes and the climate has experienced thermal maximums and ice ages in the past.
CO2 and temperature are clearly linked, that's the point.

 

[canada-man]

 

[canada-man]

 

[Frankfooter]

That chart is a combination of a hand drawn, binary temp reconstruction from Scotese and CO2 levels from a very old, tectonic and chemical weather histories.
There is a reason its not used in modern resources, there are much better ones, like the NOAA chart I posted.

A detailed examination of that chart is here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

Even wiki is a much better source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

 

[JohnLarue]

yeah!
the point being that if CO2 @ 400 ppm is suppose to melt the current polar ice caps, then how did we have ice ages @ 2000-5000 ppm CO2?

Conclusion: The physics of CO2 infrared absorption is once again being misrepresented by climate alarmists

 

[Frankfooter]

yeah!
the point being that if CO2 @ 400 ppm is suppose to melt the current polar ice caps, then how did we have ice ages @ 2000-5000 ppm CO2?

Conclusion: The physics of CO2 infrared absorption is once again being misrepresented by climate alarmists

Answer: We didn't.

That chart has errors, as discussed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/

 

[basketcase]

I understand the science far better than you do, I can guarantee you that

I suggest you learn some physics before even dreaming about telling me I have no idea about science
What is wrong with you?

Clearly you don't. If you did, you would at least understand what makes a scientific hypothesis and what is needed before they are dismissed. You haven't even proposed a theory to be tested, you simply try to immaturely explain why we shouldn't listen to science. You are exact same as 9/11 conspiracy theorists or creationists, trying to claim that because science can't explain everything, we should ignore the 95% it can.

As for physics, would you like to start the discussion with the resonance that infrared radiation causes in greenhouse gases like CO2 and the way that excess kinetic energy is released as more infrared radiation? I can talk about this for a good while before even having to check any details. I'd have to double check the exact frequencies of radiation that cause resonance in CO2 though because it's not something I deal with in my day to day life.

 

[basketcase]

You are not very quick on the uptake are you?
Activists intimidating scientists, trashing peoples careers, blocking publications and withholding funding necessitates there must be victims
The victims are hard working scientists who do not buy the climate change narrative.....

Making up ridiculous claims doesn't help justify your victim complex. Scientists are currently investigating many different aspects and from many different perspectives and 'activists' aren't shutting them down. The only reason why we hear a heck of a lot more about those who acknowledge the anthropogenic greenhouse effect isn't from any kind of censoring but simply because the few who disagree don't have the scientific basis to convince others.

Einstein faced significant pushback when he first released his theory on special relativity from scientists uncomfortable with dismissing some of Newtonian physics but we now accept it because the science spoke for itself. Dr. Soon for example has had his theories out there for a while and the reason they haven't caught on is because the science doesn't merit it (and that he's admitted that he was explicitly paid by the oil lobby for each of his appearances). About 15 year's ago, I though Soon's theory interesting but his explanations why data from 2005-2015 didn't match his expectations didn't make sense.

 

[JohnLarue]

Clearly you don't.

Oh yes I do

If you did, you would at least understand what makes a scientific hypothesis and what is needed before they are dismissed.

You have it ass backwards.
A scientific hypothesis must hold under any and all tests & challenges
It requires only one negative result to invalidate the hypothesis.
Opinions and consensus have no value , rather it is the experimental data upon which the fate of the hypothesis rest on

You haven't even proposed a theory to be tested,

So what? There is no law of physics which states one must propose an alternative if one argues against a proposed hypothesis

you simply try to immaturely explain why we shouldn't listen to science.

Too bad you are not listening to science, rather you are listening to propaganda

You are exact same as 9/11 conspiracy theorists or creationists, trying to claim that because science can't explain everything, we should ignore the 95% it can.

Science explains a great deal including how CO2 is not the dominate greenhouse gas, rather water vapor is.
But you just prefer to ignore that dont you?
Too bad in real science you do not get to ignore what you do not like

As for physics, would you like to start the discussion with the resonance that infrared radiation causes in greenhouse gases like CO2 and the way that excess kinetic energy is released as more infrared radiation? I can talk about this for a good while before even having to check any details. I'd have to double check the exact frequencies of radiation that cause resonance in CO2 though because it's not something I deal with in my day to day life.

CO2 absorbs in approx 16% of the infrared frequencies
Water vapor absorbs in way more frequencies and absorbs in almost all of the same frequencies as CO2
And it is 20-40 more abundant in the atmosphere.
The one absorbing frequency of any significance & partially unique to CO2 is 15 micrometers (wave number 666- the devils number).
Too bad for you this is on the fringe of the escape window and the entire distribution curve shifts to the left as temperature increase , cutting off & reducing co2's impact - Natures safety value

BTW the resonance you describe are rotational and vibration resonance modes of chemical bonds which remain intact and the energy is directly proportional to frequency of the oscillation (E=hν)
Infrared is relative low frequency (lower than visible light)

Temperature on the other hand is driven by the the kinetic energy of the entire molecule as it zips around and collides with other molecules (10 billion collisions per second)
Two entirely different processes

If you must have an alternative theory, I suggest you look further up the spectrum towards UV (much higher frequencies , much higher energy) and postulate what impacts the ozone hole may have had on temperature