You certainly are picking up a lot of new fans.![]()
Yeah, kind of weird. They have few posts but almost all of them are to attack me.
You certainly are picking up a lot of new fans.![]()
Yeah, kind of weird. They have few posts but almost all of them are to attack me.
OK. This is for the idiot deniers that don't have clue about what a greenhouse gas does.
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).[2][3][4]
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012.[5][6] and has now reached 400 ppm in the northern hemisphere. This increase has occurred despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions by various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[7][8] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO
2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, andnatural gas.[9] Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth andthe livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide.[10] Greenhouse gases also trigger[clarification needed] ocean bio-geochemical changes with broad ramifications in marine systems.[11]
They have few posts but almost all of them are to attack me.
So you and foxfucker seem to saving your few posts to attack the global warming science. Which organization do you work for? The same one piehole does?
And it's pretty pathetic that you and co sock-puppet disinformer friends don't know what a greenhouse gas. Didn't your think tank tell you about that?
I now expect you to quote Salby or Tim Ball. LOL
Fraud,
How many times a year do you wear out the "C" and "V" on your keyboard?
Apparently you have me confused with someone else. I mentioned the pause in passing, but did not say, nor suggest, that it is cause for rejection of Hansen's hypothesis, which it isn't. I mentioned it to be accurate regarding the temperature record from the late 19th century through today.
Let me add that you are fast losing credibility with me. Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength. Furthermore, gases may play roles in addition to their greenhouse function -- CO2 certainly does. Some of these additional roles might even have the effect of cooling the atmosphere. For a gas that is quite soluble in water the gas-solute equilibrium, a function of temperature, affects it concentration measurement in humid air. Usually CO2 in dry air would be reported, but all scientists know that this is not necessarily the free concentration of CO2 gas in humid air. These are complex and dynamic relationships. To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous. Having the property of greater absorption in the infrared region than in the visible region, where it is transparent, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for CO2's greenhouse properties to show up in the overall scheme of things. It would be an understatement to say that your view of CO2's role in the atmosphere is extremely naive.
Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor. Even if I disagreed with him, I would never refer to him as a fool and a fraud, nor would I refer to James Hansen, someone I believe has made an honest mistake, as a fool and a fraud. Surely some degree of respect is due to those who know far more about this global climate issue then we.
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas Todd?