Royal Spa

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

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

CIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]
Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.


SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]


SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]

DECEASED SCIENTISTS
— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]
Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]
Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
from the same source

https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

SPEAKING OUT
A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.

Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.

Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,156
113
https://electroverse.net/the-list-s...with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES
— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.
From Mr Science's link:
If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).
Ok, that's easy.
https://whatweknow.aaas.org/
There, the AAAS represents 120,000 scientists who support the science reported by the IPCC on climate change.

larue, you're going to have to better than 85 names if you want to argue that the consensus is not 96% or 99%.
I'd suggest you start here.
list of science deniers

Of course you'll have to separate those who are actual scientists from the hacks, lobbyists, weirdos and wingnuts from that list.
Most of larue's star witnesses are already questionable, like Dr Roy Spencer, a believer of intelligent design who is paid by the oil industry's Heartland Institute.
Good luck, you'll need it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
The real world has benefited greatly from the scientific method based upon unbiased testing of hypothesis and rejection of hypothesis when experimental data does not fully support the hypothesis...
And that is exactly what is happening. But sure, keep on believing that all those scientists are suppressing information for a political agenda.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
...



Frankies spurious correlation falls apart when a longer time frame is used
How large a human population was supported during any of those eras? Call me selfish but I'm more interested in the ability of humans to survive than I am with returning to a time of megafauna.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
So we're just supposed to take the words of the IPCC as gospel.....
Absolutely not (though you seem to have no problem doing so for Trump and Fox News).

The great thing about the IPCC and all other scientific studies is the data is published so you can study it at your own leisure.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
And that is exactly what is happening. But sure, keep on believing that all those scientists are suppressing information for a political agenda.
Oh you mean suppressing information such as

a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years

Ok I will be on the look out for that
Oh Wait... already happened!

Michael Mann seemed to feel it was OK to suppress the medieval warming period
John Cook seems to feel it OK to mislead the world with the 97% survey
& then there is Phil Jones who seems to think he can redefine the peer review process

yeah, no political agenda there at all

Odd how you are now claiming the puedo science is fully in compliance with the rejection of hypothesis when experimental data does not fully support the hypothesis.
Yet a few posts ago you were trying to justify
"a reasonably successful theory is not replaced unless there is a more successful theory presented."
Post # 55
And a few posts latter
The clear majority conclude that human produced CO2 is playing a significant role in the current warming pattern the Earth is experiencing. Which option do you think...actually, we know that. let me rephrase. What option would rational people think makes more sense.
Post # 64

Your positions in post # 55 and posts # 64 are completely at odds with the proven scientific model of "the rejection of hypothesis when experimental data does not fully support the hypothesis." post # 85

Real Science also requires consistency or at the very least an explanation of which of the inconsistent statements you no longer believe hold true
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
How large a human population was supported during any of those eras? Call me selfish but I'm more interested in the ability of humans to survive than I am with returning to a time of megafauna.
Apparently since current CO2 is 400 ppm and Co2 was at least 5-10X that level, a rough estimate would be a 5-10 fold increase in the worlds population.
Unless you want to argue the laws of physics were different back then

Space, food and fresh clean water will a problem of coarse long before we reach those population levels, but lets deal with the currently proposed apocalypse first
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,156
113
Oh you mean suppressing information such as

a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
None of those would explain why we are experiencing a rise in global temperatures with the rise of CO2 we are experiencing.
You have no explanation for what is happening.
You have no alternate theory.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,156
113
Apparently since current CO2 is 400 ppm and Co2 was at least 5-10X that level, a rough estimate would be a 5-10 fold increase in the worlds population.
Unless you want to argue the laws of physics were different back then

Space, food and fresh clean water will a problem of coarse long before we reach those population levels, but lets deal with the currently proposed apocalypse first
250 million ago with dinosaurs roaming the earth CO2 levels were about 5 times what they are now and the planet was undergoing a thermal maximum.
Do you want to put the planet in another thermal maximum?

Just because its happened before doesn't make it a good idea to do it again.

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...pike-to-a-level-not-seen-since-the-dinosaurs/
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
Oh you mean suppressing information such as

a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
...
So they 'suppressed' this information but it is still easily accessible and known to anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic? Wow, your conspiracy mind and victim complex are really on overdrive.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
Apparently since current CO2 is 400 ppm and Co2 was at least 5-10X that level, a rough estimate would be a 5-10 fold increase in the worlds population. ...
What the hell are you going on about? Are you really trying to say that our species which evolved during the very late cenozoic era would somehow be much better supported by conditions in the Ordovician Period with average global temperatures 10C above todays (which was the last time CO2 was 10x today's)?


And that ignores the turmoil that would result in the transition.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
So they 'suppressed' this information but it is still easily accessible and known to anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic? Wow, your conspiracy mind and victim complex are really on overdrive.
So if it easily accessible and known to anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic, then why did you not know about it?
Getting your science facts from the CBC are you?

Go to google type in Greenhouse Gas and the look at the image pages
You need to scroll for quite some time before there is a mention of water vapor & you will not find a pie chart showing the true portions which include water vapor without scrolling through several pages
This despite the fact it is the dominate greenhouse gas by far

That does not happen by accident
so suppression by omission at best
Big dollars buying preferential search parameters at worse

Try any subject on climate in google and guess what is ALWAYS the first website displayed
It is this dis-information website run by the extremely well funded fraud artist John Cook

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
That does not happen by accident and that costs huge dollars
So yeah suppression by dis-information
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,062
2,810
113
What the hell are you going on about? Are you really trying to say that our species which evolved during the very late cenozoic era would somehow be much better supported by conditions in the Ordovician Period with average global temperatures 10C above todays (which was the last time CO2 was 10x today's)?


And that ignores the turmoil that would result in the transition.
I never said that at all
I never said anything about 10C higher because that is not at all predicted by the physics
a 10C increase is your mistake

You asked about the ability of humans to survive @ higher CO2 levels
As I pointed out a few times absorption of Infared radiation by CO2 (all molecules) is logarithmic




The carbon dioxide that’s already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the infrared radiation it can. CO2 only “soaks up” its favorite wavelengths of light (less than 16% of infrared wavelengths) , and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths.

the room you are in right now likely has a CO2 level well in excess of a 1,000 ppm
Submarine crews preform their duties at levels of 2,000-5,000 ppm .
Do you think the navy would allow men to run nuclear ballistic subs surrounded by elevated levels of a pollutant?



Somehow you seem to think since we are @ 400 ppm now then 2,000-5,000 ppm must be catastrophic.
It would be catastrophic if absorption was linearly dependent on concentration. It is not a linear relationship, it is logarithmic relationship


The first 20 ppm does almost all of absorbing. Most of the incremental CO2 beyond that does very little
No incremental absorption, no global warming

That explains why CO2 at levels of 2,000 to 5,000 ppm did not prevent ice ages
think about it
You do realize there were multiple ices ages in the earth's history when CO2 levels were well in excess of today levels , correct?

the physics & geological record just does not support the puedo-science of catastrophic global warming as per alarmists
a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) the 2000 to 5000 ppm of CO2 in the past which included ice ages
d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,156
113
You need to scroll for quite some time before there is a mention of water vapor & you will not find a pie chart showing the true portions which include water vapor without scrolling through several pages
That's because water vapour is a feedback effect while CO2 and greenhouse gases are a forcing effect.
Water vapour levels only change with global temperature changes while CO2 changes cause global temperature changes.

From the IPCC.

Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 8.1 | How Important Is Water Vapour to Climate Change?


As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s
climate. However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather
than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change.
Anthropogenic emissions of water vapour through irrigation or power plant cooling have a negligible impact on
the global climate.


Water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. The contribution of water vapour to the natural greenhouse effect relative to that of carbon dioxide (CO2) depends on the accounting method, but can be considered to be approximately two to three times greater. Additional water vapour is injected into the atmosphere from anthropogenic activities, mostly through increased evaporation from irrigated crops, but also through power plant cooling, and marginally through the combustion of fossil fuel. One may therefore question why there is so much focus on CO2, and not on water vapour, as a forcing to climate change.

Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate. When air with high humidity cools, some of the vapour condenses into water droplets or ice particles and precipitates. The typical residence time of water vapour in the atmosphere is ten days. The flux of water vapour into the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources is considerably less than from ‘natural’ evaporation. Therefore, it has a negligible impact on overall concentrations, and does not contribute significantly to the long-term greenhouse effect. This is the main reason why tropospheric water vapour (typically below 10 km altitude) is not considered to be an anthropogenic gas contributing to radiative forcing.

Anthropogenic emissions do have a significant impact on water vapour in the stratosphere, which is the part of the atmosphere above about 10 km. Increased concentrations of methane (CH4) due to human activities lead to an additional source of water, through oxidation, which partly explains the observed changes in that atmospheric layer. That stratospheric water change has a radiative impact, is considered a forcing, and can be evaluated. Stratospheric concentrations of water have varied significantly in past decades. The full extent of these variations is not well understood and is probably less a forcing than a feedback process added to natural variability. The contribution of stratospheric water vapour to warming, both forcing and feedback, is much smaller than from CH4 or CO2.

The maximum amount of water vapour in the air is controlled by temperature. A typical column of air extending from the surface to the stratosphere in polar regions may contain only a few kilograms of water vapour per square metre, while a similar column of air in the tropics may contain up to 70 kg. With every extra degree of air temperature, the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water vapour (see upper-left insert in the FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). This increase in concentration amplifies the greenhouse effect, and therefore leads to more warming.

This process, referred to as the water vapour feedback, is well understood and quantified. It occurs in all models used to estimate climate change, where its strength is consistent with observations. Although an increase in atmospheric water vapour has been observed, this change is recognized as a climate feedback (from increased atmospheric temperature) and should not be interpreted as a radiative forcing from anthropogenic emissions. Currently, water vapour has the largest greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. However, other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, are necessary to sustain the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere. Indeed, if these other gases were removed from the atmosphere, its temperature would drop sufficiently to induce a decrease of water vapour, leading to a runaway drop of the greenhouse effect that would plunge the Earth into a frozen state. So greenhouse gases other than water vapour provide the temperature structure that sustains current levels of atmospheric water vapour. Therefore, although CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate, water vapour is a strong and fast feedback that amplifies any initial forcing by a typical factor between two and three. Water vapour is not a significant initial forcing, but is nevertheless a fundamental agent of climate change
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

larue is unable to understand this point despite dozens of posts trying to explain it to him.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,156
113
the physics & geological record just does not support the puedo-science of catastrophic global warming as per alarmists
Are you saying you don't believe that there have been ice ages and thermal maximums or that there is any correlation between temperature and greenhouse gases?
The greenhouse effect is 150 years old now and nobody, including you or any of your deniers, has disproven it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
I never said that at all

Um, here's what you said.
Apparently since current CO2 is 400 ppm and Co2 was at least 5-10X that level, a rough estimate would be a 5-10 fold increase in the worlds population.
The only time that has been the case was when early animals were evolving.

p.s. Do you see how stupid your hypocrisy is? You claim despite what so many scientists say about there evidence, you claim there isn't enough evidence to support anthropogenic CO2 as the major driver of current climate change but you throw out a ridiculously untested theory that the world could support 70 billion people. You also seem to ignore that for most of the time the Earth's atmosphere was in your ideal range of CO2, the average temperature was 10 C above now
(And actual scientists think a rapid change of only 2 or 3 C will be catastrophic to our society).

The rest of your post is just adding in other inconsequential facts to distract from how foolish your claims are.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,423
6,690
113
So if it easily accessible and known to anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic, then why did you not know about it?...
What a stupid argument. You claim a bunch of well know facts are suppressed despite them being easily accessible and widely known to the people who study this stuff. That quite clearly shows you have a victim complex that is completely detached from any facts.

You should just admit that you don't like that even after knowing your 'suppressed' facts, people who study this stuff don't buy your bullshit and instead follow what science tells them.

p.s. If you base your scientific knowledge on a google image search, no wonder you have so much trouble with science.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts