Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CO2 is so small a player...barely registers on our best instruments.it is impossible for CO2 to have any measureable effect.
It is measurable and also impossible to have measurable effects.
Which is it? It might help you to drop your vehement language so you can understand what your are saying for your own sake. Not to mention it makes it hard for profitable discussion when you are mostly focused on assuring us the impossibility and numb-skullery of opposing viewpoints. Drop this and we'd have a discussion centered around presentation of data, links and facts rather than beating a dead horse.
It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.
The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.
You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.
Who cares. CO2 lags temperature so it clearly has nothing to do with anything. The Holocene Thermal Maximum of 8000 years ago was WAY hotter than today and the CO2 levels were low.
What more evidence do you need to show you that CO2 is meaningless?
How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.
Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.
"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.
The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.
You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.
Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.
It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.
The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.
You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.
Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.
On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.
How about some evidence that actually supports your contention?
You claim to be a reasonably intelligent fellow. Yet you reject the Greenhouse Effect.
No one in climate science has ever rejected the idea that increasing heat will lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But explain to me how THAT gives any indication at all that CO2, which unquestionably absorbs infrared radiation, cannot increase global temperatures.
Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.
"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science? A fucking rightwingnut blog!
Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.
Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.
Where oh where do I reject the greenhouse effect? I merely state that the GHG effect of CO2 is subsumed in the much larger GHG effect of water vapor. As far as the "proof" you desire. You can start here.
"Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."
On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years."
CO2 Science
CO2 Science
CO2 Science? A fucking rightwingnut blog!
Anyone that has done the slightest research understands the lag of CO2 and the Milankovic Cycles. Only total frauds like you try this damnable bullshit for the willfully ignorant.
Then prove it numbnuts. Those are real peer reviewed studies, unlike the pal reviewed crap you clowns use from a website run by a comic book editor....though I must say, based on the crap they spew they couldn't have picked a better person to run it
Gnarly, Westwall claims to be a Phd geologist. Yet he posts and talks like a Polysci major. All opinion, and zero scientific evidence. And, as you have probably already noticed, he never misses a chance to denigrate most of the leading scientists of today, particulary those in the field of geology.
Ya know I was unaware of his credentials. From his posts I induced (and wrongly I admit) that at best this was a college undergrad or more likely egotistical high school graduate with a degree in self-deceit. Learning of this gives us all the more reason to look forward to his data and sources. Yet we mostly see attacks often personal in nature (and therefore highly irrelevant) that is used to claim victory without having supported his claims.
I like Westwall as I do any human. He has his talents but am confused why such an advanced degree can produce little data with lotsa unfounded claims. Must be a personal issue. We empathize, westie, we are all in this together. I hope someday you can come to empathize with the the reality that excessive environmental degradation is appalling and nefarious at the rate we see.
Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words.
On the contrary, you are the one that claims to be a Phd Geologist. So you tell us why all the rest of the scientists presenting their evidence at the AGU Conventions are wrong. And present real evidence supporting your case. The people at the AGU Conventions are real geologists, presenting real evidence, often from years of research on glaciers and the arctic. All you have shown us is fraudulent flap yap.
After Abraham has had his say I'll happily demolish you yet again.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.
Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.
It appears you realize that your argument was completely off point, you're just not willing to admit it.
The only thing affecting water vapor levels in the Earth's atmosphere is temperature. Water vapor cannot create itself.
The atmosphere cannot hold more water than its temperature will allow. It will immediately precipitate out. It could hold a thousand times more CO2 than it currently has. The lifespan of water in the atmosphere is measured in days. The lifespan of CO2 is measured in centuries. A mole of CO2 over the course of its time in the atmosphere will absorb thousands of times as much energy as a mole of water. The only thing humans are doing that will increase the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is warming it with greenhouse gases.
You claimed to be a geologist, right? Who knows this sort of... atmospheric physics better? A geologist or an atmospheric physicist? And what do atmospheric physicists say about this? They say you're full of shit.
Tell us how the greenhouse works. In YOUR words. And no, the Residence Time of CO2 is 16 years...
CO2 and the "Greenhouse Effect" Doom
Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring.
That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim. But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW. The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case. Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify. NOTHING the deniers have presented does.
That's what happens when you pick the wrong side and refuse to face facts.
