Um, here's what you said.
wrong
This is the reference graph
Clearly CO2 was 2000-4000 ppm through much of the history shown including when there were ice ages
I answered your question indicating CO2 would not be an issue because of the logarithmic absorption of CO2.
Incremental additions to concentration adds diminishing returns of absorbance. There is only so much Infrared radiation available at the right wavelength specifically around 15 micrometers.
Think of a gallon of water putting out a fire leaving the occasional smoldering ember , the next 10 gallons will likely snuff out more embers but the job was pretty much accomplished by the first gallon
I never indicated the world could support 70 billion and I was quite clear that space, food and water would be issues long before reaching those levels
And again for the hundredth time , the count of scientist opinions does not determine a hypotheses validity. you are an engineer , you should know this ... what school did you go to ???
I never said anything about optimal ranges. I merely pointed out that ice ages occurred when C02 was well in excess of today, which is not supportive of the catastrophic hypothesis.
You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with the concept that elevated CO2 occurred in history when it was hot and also when we had ices ages
Which invalidates the hypothesis CO2 is the control knob for temperature
The logarithmic relation of concentration to absorption is NOT inconsequential. It is a scientific fact which clearly shows that the catastrophic hypothesis is not supported by the physics and why much higher ppm CO2 would not be an issue
You did not have a logical rational response to this scientific fact, so instead you avoided that scientific fact altogether and try to make it personal
That is not a logical approach to a scientific discussion
It is indeed very odd that you on one hand attempt to validate your position claiming scientific superiority by quoting the number of scientists with an opinion (which is not absolute), yet on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss a (actually four) scientific fact(s)
Do you not see your hypocrisy?
A new record: CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit an all-time high
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
Again "So if it easily accessible and known to anyone with a basic knowledge of the topic, then why did you not know about it?.."
Once again you completely avoided the question as the truth hurts doesn't it
You did not have a clue about water vapor, logarithmic absorption, historical CO2 levels and ice ages or the lag time of Co2 increases behind temp increases by 800 years
you have a nasty habit of trying to make it personal when your scientific ignorance is exposed
That statement is false.
From NOAA.
As that is your central thesis, your entire theory is fucked since its based off a falsehood.
I would bet you your participation in this board over that claim, if I trusted right wingers.
Since I don't, I'll just challenge you.
Every subject you bring up here and claim 'isn't accessible and known' is referenced in IPCC reports, with links to the original papers.
Every single claim you make has already been discussed and rebutted by people way smarter and experienced in this subject than you.
I challenge you.
So your attempted argument devolves into you claiming that you know more than everyone else. Unfortunately for you, the scientists who study these things and have known about your irrelevant facts since at least their undergrad know all about it and have concluded those facts don't mean much to the topic.
Sad that all you have are conspiracy theories and unwarranted bluster.
And yes, it is quite obvious that you first heard about those things recently on some denier blog. I doubt logarithmic absorption is discussed because of the math level but I'm pretty sure the rest of the actual facts (that 800 year lag time not substantiated) are likely found in high school textbooks.
Poor you, being persecuted because the entire scientific community is unwilling to recognize your brilliance.
God knows you've made a lot of dumb, ignorant and misinformed posts over the years but this one has to rank up there with some of the doozies.
There was an excellent column in the National Post on the weekend by Fr. Raymond J. de Souza, called "It's time to stop pretending our politicians 'follow the science'.
nationalpost.com
Without a doubt, all these democratic socialists who want to ex-communicate any scientist who questions the climate change dogma have seen "settled science" take a massive hit during the coronavirus pandemic.
For example:
Masks don't work; masks do work.
Travel bans don't work and actually promote racism; travel bans do work.
There is "no evidence" the coronavirus can be spread from person to person.
Gathering in large crowds is dangerous and irresponsible; large protests are less risky than the virus: .
And of course there was Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said computer model predictions about the future should only be viewed as a "hypothesis
Raymond J. de Souza: It's time to stop pretending our politicians 'follow the science'
The flaw in 'following the science' is that it assumes that a policy option can be drawn from a scientific finding absent a value judgment
nationalpost.com
Without a doubt, all these democratic socialists who want to ex-communicate any scientist who questions the climate change dogma have seen "settled science" take a massive hit during the coronavirus pandemic.
For example:
Masks don't work; masks do work.
Travel bans don't work and actually promote racism; travel bans do work.
There is "no evidence" the coronavirus can be spread from person to person.
Gathering in large crowds is dangerous and irresponsible; large protests are less risky than the virus: .
And of course there was Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said computer model predictions about the future should only be viewed as a "hypothesis
here I am going to toss you a bone
I had stated four facts which refute the alarmist claim of Co2 induced Armageddon
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
point c was based upon this graphic which shows the ice age of 450 million years ago
however this graphic is inconsistent with point d) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
The graphic does not show temperatures changes predating co2 increases by 500-800 years.. This shows millions of years differences in changes
If one is going to preach about the need for scientific integrity one must walk the talk
So I wiil drop point c, not because of any insulting argument presented, rather because the timing as presented in c& d are inconsistent
the logarithmic nature of absorption still precludes elevate levels of CO2 from causing excessive temperatures, however that statement C as present is inconsistent with statement d)
three facts which still refute the alarmist claim of Co2 induced Armageddon
a) the dominance of water vapor as the primary greenhouse gas
b) the diminishing returns of absorbance with increasing concentration. Absorbance is logarithmic
c) Temperature increases determined in antarctic ice cores predate co2 increases by 500-800 years
Of coarse being truthful and honest may have its costs and I expect some to hurl a lot of abuse my way
However one can not put a price on integrity & the three rock solid facts still stand
Last edited:
a) ignorant claim as water vapour is a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing, only CO2 can change the climate while water vapour reacts to climate change.
b) See a)
c) high levels of CO2 in the past coincided with thermal maximums where there were mass extinctions and no polar ice. Bad comparison.
d) wrong
The anthropogenic theory of climate change predicted the warming we are seeing right now.
You cannot provide an alternate theory to explain 19 of the warmest 20 years happened since 2000.
Trump doesn't follow the science and they now have 25,000 new cases a day of coronavirus.
Canada does much better following the science and we're down to 300 a day.
It's funny to see your inability to use the quote function distracting from the ridiculous nature of your conspiracy argument.
Fact - The scientific community knows all about the ideas you claim are suppressed by some political conspiracy. You are just unhappy that those scientists see through your bullshit as easily as I do and are sticking to actual science.
Actual Science??
Suppressing the fact that water vapor is by far the dominate greenhouse gas is not at all real science
it is propaganda
No mention of water vapor despite the FACT water vapor is the dominate green house gas and it is the primary gas which keeps the planet warm
This is a blatant and apparently successful piece of propaganda intended to mislead the public on how the greenhouse effect works
here is the true representation of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
The difference is huge. Both from a scientific & ethical POV
No way they could sell (fool) the public with the second (true) representation
And it all comes back to the pseudoscience of only looking at possible human causes
Q1. Is water vapor found in the atmosphere ?
A Yes 2-4% by volume
Q2. Is that quantity larger than other greenhouse gasses?
A Yes by a significant amount
Q3 Does water vapor absorb Infrared radiation?
A Yes quite strongly and far more frequencies than CO2
Q4 Why does the IPCC exclude water vapor from its list of greenhouse gases in its supposed scientific assessment?
A, Its original mission statement was it intend to only look at man made warming
Q5. Is that real science?
A. No. That is a political agenda and propaganda, Real science does not hide or misrepresent facts
You are being complexly disingenuous if you refuse to recognize how the IPCC and alarmists misrepresents the science in order to sell the agenda
Any scientific theory which relies on propaganda and silencing it critics is not worth a bucket of piss
Its not suppressed, its in the IPCC report.
As repeatedly noted, water vapour is a feedback effect. You can't warm the planet by changing water vapour levels, instead water vapour levels will only change as a reaction to global temperature changes.
You still are unable to understand this basic, high school level point.
Where is your theory to explain this warming?
This coming from a guy who doesn't get that humans evolved with atmospheric CO2 in the 300-500 ppm range but thinks we will somehow thrive with CO2 five to ten times that.
You keep posting well known ideas while claiming they are suppressed. And to outdo your own stupid claims you say that the masses scientists only dismissed those arguments because of an omnipresent political conspiracy. Bucket of piss is a very apt description of your thinking.
argue the science
Well Known, you say ??
There is no well know scientific rational for excluding the well known absorption of infrared radiation by water vapor.
Water Vapor is a greenhouse gas , Water Vapor absorbs the majority of the out going infrared radiation by far and Water Vapor is responsible for the vast majority by far of the greenhouse effect. That is well known
Yet the IPCC depicts Water Vapor as absent when describing "How Greenhouse Gases warm our planet"
which is an accurate indication of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?
This propaganda piece
Or what is actually found in the atmosphere via measurement ie this representation
If the science is "settled" why the need to mis-represent the relative quantities of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere ?
the IPCC and alarmists misrepresents the science in order to sell the agenda. absolutely zero need for that if they are truly right and the science is truly settled
Any scientific theory which relies on propaganda and silencing it critics is not worth a bucket of piss
Last edited:
larue, your posts are scientifically ignorant.
Its high school level science to understand the difference between water vapour being a feedback effect on the climate, meaning that water vapour levels only change with the climate changing vs greenhouse gases being a forcing effect on the climate, meaning that changes in those levels do change the climate.
The IPCC reports clearly discuss water vapour and its feedback effect on the climate, despite your false claims.
feedback vs forcing
Its incredibly basic yet you are unable to understand this basic fact.
Everything you post is based on this ignorance.
ACS Advocacy Workshops - American Chemical Society
American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.
www.acs.org
.
Climate Forcing
Earth is continually bathed in energy from the sun. A portion of the energy that arrives at Earth is reflected back into space, another portion is absorbed directly by the atmosphere, and the remainder moves through the atmosphere to the surface.
You should try it. Considering your only theory is that a scientific conspiracy is "suppressing" information, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
i have provided multiple alternative theories including natural variability , ozone depletion and non explosive volcanic activity to name but a few
That however is incremental to the requirement to disprove the current alarmist view of catastrophic anthropocentric global warming
If you can not accept the basic premise that a scientific hypothesis must hold true against all experimental testing or it must be rejected, then "you don't really have a leg to stand on." and you have no business commenting on any scientific issue
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/richard-p-feynman-quotes
The scientific method is taught in high school, so it is perplexing that you choose to ignore the fundamental basis of scientific discovery which has so enriched our lives.
This is one of multiple scientific facts which you choose to ignore and you latest post is a perfect example
you were asked a simple straight forward question
which is an accurate indication of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?
This propaganda piece
Or what is actually found in the atmosphere via measurement ie this representation
rather than answer truthfully you ignored the science and reverted to attacking me.
the IPCC and alarmists misrepresents the science in order to sell the agenda. absolutely zero need for that if they are truly right and the science is truly settled
Any scientific theory which relies on propaganda and silencing it critics is not worth a bucket of piss
Your 'multiple alternative theories' rely on propaganda or false scientific claims.
Even so, your theory fails to explain this.
Is that the science that says masks don't work or the science that says masks do work?
Is that the science that says travel bans don't work or the science that says travel bans do work?
In both cases, Canada has taken both of those positions and supposedly based it on the "science."
Sorry, but science doesn't change that quickly.
Opinion: The perils of ‘science by press release'
Even the world’s most prestigious medical journals are having trouble keeping up, as evidenced by three high-profile scandals this month alone
www.theglobeandmail.com
