jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 141,585
- 30,066
- 2,180
you know what, I completely agree with your position and you have your rights. As do I and many others on here. Because I choose not to believe does not make me a denier. I take much exception to the term and it is not the skeptic's side making the statement. So the undisciplined discussions result of a matter of name calling from the warmers with the word "denier". Starts right there and ends there.I've never heard of science or physic teachers calling individuals deniers. Nor use the word consensus until climate folk came along and one politician, and you know of him. Threats as well, jail time, killing those who don't believe. Naw, i think you need to read the warmer side.I read they entire article. They are very objective scientifically. But it is a very hard read. It looks like you misread some of it. If you don't agree with what it says I'm not going to argue further because the physics is too complex for a forum discussion.I did read it, and again, there is nothing known today that wasn't known then. I read it looking for an observation. What was it, that CO2 can make water vapor? So the only water vapor is from CO2, is that what you think it's saying. I thought the oceans and other bodies of water provided water vapor? hmmmm, I missed that.The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.
I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."
what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?
Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.
Dude, again, I trust most all of what Ian writes. he believes a little differently than me, but for the most part I believe he is in pursuit of understanding how the atmosphere works. I only care because some punk said we're all gonna die unless we stop breathing. Doh!! if I stop breathing, I ....... Therefore I ask, prove to me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. And you know what? The answer to that is ..............................................I'm still waiting. You've provided no answer to that question. back radiation black bodies all of that crap, means nothing to me. What does is this question.... what does 120 PPM of CO2 do to temperatures? Give me a number as well. I've evolved a little for an additional request.
oh, oh, one additional thing, the thing that motivates me is when someone uses the word consensus and then can't back it up. no one on the warmer side can do that. So.....here we are. I have my views for which someone wants me to die for. huh? What kind of messed up crap is that? I say, anytime to each and everyone of those k00ks.
Also I am not a punk kook who thinks the earth will disintegrate. I have a great skepticism of CAGW and a bit of skepticism of AGW. My attitude may change in 20 years when we see how the climate is heading. You certainly have a right to be skeptical, but I'm not going to call anyone on either side of the debate a kook unless that person has silly ideas on the science. There is enough reason to be skeptical without having to resort to ridicule or ridiculous ideas.
Last edited: