Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

you lie your ass off. No one has explained how man made co2 is causing warming here on earth. I am not arguing about the mechanism of how co2 bounces IR waves... I am talking specifically about man made co2 causing warming. Explanations which have been given have been based on failed models.

I repeat... no one has ever showing that man made co2 is causing warming.
because no science exists showing it.

There are multiple reasons why it can't be shown yet.

1. change in ocean temps lead atmosspheric co2 levels in the data. So how the heck are you going to show co2 is the cause of the leading variable?

2. This caused the nutters to work on showing that co2 amplified warming. Unfortunately their models have run into problems. Namely clouds. It turns out clouds seem to have a big impact on warming... and the papers are showing that. Clouds are very hard to model.

3. CO2 is also a coolant and it is part of a very big and complicated system which contains many negative feedback systems.

4. We are not in a closed system. We have co2 sinks and we have off gassing into space. So there is no way you can say that when man makes co2 it just accumulates.

5. We don't even know we are warming outside natural variation.

6. There are studies which show that as co2 accumulates it become logarithmically less warming. So at some point adding more does not make noticeable difference. If this studies are correct and it makes sense because how much deeper can the IR penetrate and still get bounced back to earth.... all the nutter models about sensitivity are so "ponderous" because they are wrong and at some point adding co2 will cause cooling.



Ricter said:
I asked you once if you thought a single peer-reviewed paper could prove AGW. I don't want you to say what you believe about the matter, but if you think a single paper could do it. Two competent persons here have explained to jem how science and the science of this matter work, but it's not sinking in. As a working scientist yourself, your answer would have weight. So, could a single peer-reviewed paper prove AGW?
More...
 
Last edited:
by the way a single peer reviewed paper showing that man made co2 causing warming... would be just that.

But... you would then be able to say there is some science and its peer reviewed.
For instance we can say there are hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing the sun and the tides and other mechanisms cause some or all the warming and there is no peer reviewed papers showing man made co2 causes warming.

We would not be able to say that anymore. Everytime you would say... but we do have science.
 
jem said:
No has explained how man made co2 is causing warming here on earth. I am not arguing about the mechanism off how co2 bounces IR waves... I am talking specifically about man made co2 causing warming.
More...
Because CO2 molecules released by man's activity behave differently, vis-à-vis IR, from CO2 molecules released by "natural" activity?
 
I would like to know what is up with all of these "scientists" who constantly post in this thread.

How much lost productivity has occurred due to posting in this thread? Are you paid by private industry or public grant money? Are you a government worker?

Is this the best use of your time? Don't your fellow scientists and researchers notice you constantly missing to go respond to the latest attack on ET. ET is a trading site so it is no big deal if a trader is spending some time on here. But a scientist who should be fighting for our future, well that is a different story. Also, why did it go from being called "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"???? What will it be called next since the name is changed every few years to "mix it up" and "make things fun again". How about "Seasonal Severity" or "Extreme Elementals" or "Climate Bias Profiling" or maybe even "Temperature Inequality"?
 
Last edited:
MoneyMatthew said:
Also, why did it go from being called "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"???? What will it be called next since the name is changed every few years to "mix it up" and "make things fun again". How about "Seasonal Severity" or "Extreme Elementals" or "Climate Bias Profiling" or maybe even "Temperature Inequality"?
More...

Actually the name moved from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since there was limited proof global warming to according to AGW theory was happening. By changing the name to "Climate Change" the alarmists could blame both cold and hot weather on "climate change".

Of course, now there is increasing proof that "Climate Change" does not exist... so they are attempting to move the name to being "Climate Disruption" so they can blame every tornado, blizzard, hurricane, and other weather event on "climate disruption". Of course this name also is struggling as the earth has actually experienced a reduced number of hurricanes and tornadoes over the past decade.

The alarmists will keep changing names trying to get something to stick to drive their political agenda.
 
gwb-trading said:
Actually the name moved from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since there was limited proof global warming to according to AGW theory was happening. By changing the name to "Climate Change" the alarmists could blame both cold and hot weather on "climate change".

Of course, now there is increasing proof that "Climate Change" does not exist... so they are attempting to move the name to being "Climate Disruption" so they can blame every tornado, blizzard, hurricane, and other weather event on "climate disruption". Of course this name also is struggling as the earth has actually experienced a reduced number of hurricanes and tornadoes over the past decade.

The alarmists will keep changing names trying to get something to stick to drive their political agenda.
More...
Thanks for responding to me and also thank you for explaining that. Even if you were to suddenly agree that Climate Change is real, the Left would not be able to solve it. The USA is not a planet unto itself. The Left and their immigration policies actually cause new immigrants to increase their carbon footprint compared to their prior carbon footprint. They want open borders so newly arrived immigrants are never properly taught how they impact the environment. They have no idea on how to force Iran and other developing nations as well as China to get their act together.

If many immigrants are "undocumented" then how can you prove or "document" that they know how to keep their environmental impact/carbon footprint under control? How can it be documented that they understand the Climate Change threat if by definition they are undocumented?
 
Last edited:
the point is you lied your ass off about the science. now you are pretending to be daft.
you understand my argument. I just wrote it out again.

Let me give you a few possible things science would have to rule out.

possiblity 1
The level of co2 in our atmosphere could be set by the change in ocean temps. All excess co2 could be sinked or off gassed.

1.b... the bern convention overestimates how long co2 stays in the atmosphere by a long shot... as seems to be indicated by the bomb test data.

2
CO2 does warming in the early stages out of an ice age as it does indeed act as a blanket. But as the blanket becomes thicker it becomes more a shield.

2. b co2 is a big part of the negative feedback systems... just as NASA says it is. CO2 is one of the most effective coolants in the upper atmosphere, As we add more of it and more of it moves up higher in the atmosphere it is starting to cause cooling.

there are others possibilities also...

you need to understand we live in a complex dynamic system.

Ricter said:
It's jem's argument. He knows CO2 absorbs IR, which is warming, but doubts "man-made" CO2 does the same.
More...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top