88 wrote:
If an increase in CO2 results in a warming of the atmosphere, then we should be able to measure the increased warming in the atmosphere as a function of CO2 increase. But the data shows that the atmosphere is not warming. Only a few of the surface temperature sites show warming. Direct me to a paper showing a warming atmosphere where the greenhouse gases actually perform the heat-trapping function of the theory.
wow you're all over the board here.....yes, the atmosphere is warming as a function of of the short wave radiation that is emitted by the sun, and bounced back into the atmosphere as long wave radiation....the more CO2, the more long wave radiation that is absorbed which causes the CO2 molecules to vibrate which creates heat.....this is fucking science 101 and was discovered back in the 1800's.....if you can't grasp that simple concept, we should probably stop this discussion.....
now insofar as a warming earth, dude even anthropomorphic climate critics admit the earth is getting warmer.....they simply don't believe it's attributable to anything that man is doing....I'm not sure exactly what kind of a paper you're looking for here, but it seems you need an education in basic physics......
If oscillations between snowball Earth and hot house Earth naturally occurred in the past, what makes us think we can or should try to prevent it from happening again in the future? And wouldn't hot house Earth be much better than snowball Earth?
no, a hothouse earth wouldn't be a great idea.....if you can't understand why, I suggest you go sit in a sauna heated to about 90 degrees for a few hours, then come out and see how you feel....
Why doesn't your video idiot attempt to explain the lack of an increase in surface warming during the past 15 years?
fifteen years? not much of a time frame there when we're talking about glaciation and warming that in the past has occurred over millions of years....but lets look back on the last 50 years, and I'm sure you can link me up to some scientific data that demonstrates the surface of the earth hasn't been warming....
Few dispute that over the past century or so, measurements of surface temperatures appear to show that there has been a slight increase in average temperatures.
then why do you want me to provide you a scientific paper on it if you freely admit it?
to what degree the current change in climate is attributable to an increase in CO2 from human emissions
that's what they're trying to determine....but remember, it isn't just CO2, water vapor plays a pretty significant role as do other gasses like methane and ozone....all of these gasses tend to absorb longwave radiation
would reducing the amount of CO2 emissions from human sources have any appreciable affect on Earth's climate;
when you burn fossil fuels, you're adding CO2 to the atmosphere right? again, this is basic physics....so, while were slowly eliminating the rainforests, were reducing the amount of CO2 that can be converted back to oxygen.....so, if were producing more CO2, and eliminating one of the primary means by which CO2 is converted to oxygen, what do you think happens to to the CO2? it doesn't disappear, it just sticks around as CO2....more CO2, more longwave radiation that is absorbed....jesus, this is like sophomore high school level shit
assuming, for the sake of argument, that the AGW crowd is right and human emissons of CO2 are driving the climate toward hot house Earth, why is this such a bad thing?
hotter earth with less oxygen? hmm, that didn't work out to well the last time it happened.....you might want to look it up.....they called it a dead zone for 200k years for a reason....
the data is all over the place.
no it's not
Your video idiot cannot quantify the amount of warming caused by increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to human emissions. He is still struggling to arrange his various journal articles in such a way as to establish some sort of coherent picture that CO2 is a principle driver of recent climate change.
like I said, you need to go back and study some basic physics, because it's obvious to me that if you're not capable of understanding why increased CO2 results in increased temperatures, there's no hope....
by the way, the guy you keep calling an idiot is named Peter Hadfield, and he's been a scientific journalist for the past 20 years or so, read more scientific journals and peer reviewed documents on climate change than anybody I know.....he simply presents FACTS, not hyperbole, not insults, just scientific facts....why you feel the need to resort to calling him names as opposed to presenting data that supports your position is why it's so frustrating talking to people like you....you haven't read any of the literature, but somewhere along the way you quit trying to learn anything, and have dug your feet in determined to defend a position on something you know nothing about with insults, innuendo, asking nonsensical questions, not doing any research yourself, etc, etc.
and you expect me to take you seriously?
