Carl Sagan in 1985, addressing the UN on anthropogenic climate change

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some more material on climate change from Sagan, from 1980:

Here's Carl Sagan's original essay on the dangers of climate change

Ballantine has issued a shiny new edition of Sagan's book Cosmos, with a foreword from Cosmos reboot host Neil deGrasse Tyson. We've got an excerpt, which reveals how deeply Sagan was concerned about climate change in 1980 when the book was originally published.

gizmodo.com

 

[ding]

Just make your point. Hint: I am not the thread topic.

It might help in the future if you quoted the whole post.

Do you agree or disagree?

So looking at the absorption spectra for greenhouse gases, do you agree that relative to water vapor, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It might help in the future if you quoted the whole post.



So looking at the absorption spectra for greenhouse gases, do you agree that relative to water vapor, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas?

View attachment 568693

Ah, you must be looking for a climatologist.

Here is one:

Solomon, Susan | MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Susan Solomon is internationally recognized as a leader in atmospheric science, particularly for her insights in explaining the cause of the Antarctic ozone "hole". She and her colleagues have made important contributions to understanding chemistry/climate coupling, including leading research on...

eapsweb.mit.edu

Her email: [email protected]

 

[ding]

Ah, you must be looking for a climatologist.

Here is one:

Solomon, Susan | MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Susan Solomon is internationally recognized as a leader in atmospheric science, particularly for her insights in explaining the cause of the Antarctic ozone "hole". She and her colleagues have made important contributions to understanding chemistry/climate coupling, including leading research on...

eapsweb.mit.edu

Her email: [email protected]

Actually, no. I am addressing your question in post #14.

But for some odd reason you aren't even willing to acknowledge that relative to water vapor, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas even though the data is staring you in the face.

Do you not understand what this graphic is showing? Do you need for me to explain it to you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, no. I am addressing your question in post #14.

There was no question in post #14.. State your point or assertion. I am not your assistant, sorry.

 

[ding]

Then do so. State your point. I am not your assistant, sorry.

If I recall, I stated in post #37 that I believe that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. So I am not asking you to be my assistant. I am asking you if you agree with my statement that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Well... do you?

It really shouldn't be this tough to have a conversation.

 

[ding]

Show a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect does act to not warm the earth.

There was no question in post #14

Yes... there was.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I recall, I stated in post #37 that I believe that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. So I am not asking you to be my assistant. I am asking you if you agree with my statement that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Well... do you?

It really shouldn't be this tough to have a conversation.

Nor does it matter whether or not I agree with you. Your point should still be the same. So go ahead and make it. Or keep wasting your time. Your call.

 

[ding]

Nor does it matter whether or not I agree with you. Your point should still be the same. So go ahead and make it. Or keep wasting your time. Your call.

Of course it matters if you disagree or agree. It how differences are reconciled. You need to think how this looks. You are unwilling to agree that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas when it's not even a matter of debate. Relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.

Do you seriously want to argue otherwise?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

f course it matters if you disagree or agree. It how differences are reconciled.

Oh,then you must have a difference with climatogists. So use the email I provided, for starters. Thanks.

Or go ahead and make your point. Your call.

 

[ding]

Oh,then you must have a difference with climatogists. So use the email I provided, for starters. Thanks.

Or go ahead and make your point. Your call.

Ok, then I'll just have to assume that you believe that relative to water vapor CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas and quote you on it.

Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 lagged temperature by ~800 years. That's a statement I believe by the way in case you missed it.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

[ding]

For the record... Fort Fun Indiana would not agree that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Even though it is and no one on the planet besides Fort Fun Indiana would disagree with it.

Here's the data...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, then I'll just have to assume that you believe that relative to water vapor CO2 is a dominant greenhouse gas and quote you on it.

Of course, quoting would be a shameless lie on your part. Not good for your credibility. But yes, feel free to assume an answer either way, and proceed to make your point, before we all fall into a deep sleep.

 

[ding]

Of course, quoting would be a shameless lie on your part. Not good for your credibility. But yes, feel free to assume an answer either way, and proceed to make your point, before we all fall into a deep sleep.

I've moved on to another scientific fact that you won't acknowledge. The good news is you aren't denying that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Which is a win for me as I continue to lay the foundation for answering the question you asked in post #14.

Show a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect does act to not warm the earth.

So... I believe and the whole scientific world believes that prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 lagged temperature by ~800 years.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've moved on to another scientific fact that you won't acknowledge. The good news is you aren't denying that relative to water vapor CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Which is a win for me as I continue to lay the foundation for answering the question you asked in post #14.



So... I believe and the whole scientific world believes that prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 lagged temperature by ~800 years.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Just make your point. All in one post, preferably. If not, gotta put ya on iggy and carry on with the thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect does act to not warm the earth. I

This is not a question. It's a challenge to anyone trying to upend current AGW theory.
ding : I need to make a syntax correction to this. Should read:

"Show a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect does not act to warm the Earth. "

 

[ding]

Just make your point. All in one post, preferably. If not, gotta put ya on iggy and carry on with the thread.

The point is that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 served as a proxy for temperature and lagged temperature by approximately 800 years. Hence CO2 has never been shown to drive the climate of the earth throughout the geologic record.

Do you disagree?

 

[ding]

This is not a question. It's a challenge to anyone trying to upend current AGW theory.
ding : I need to make a syntax correction to this. Should read:

"Show a mechanism by which the greenhouse effect does not act to warm the Earth. "

You asked someone to show you something. That's a request; a question so to speak. I'm answering it for you. So far you have not disagreed with anything I have stated. I'm batting a thousand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point is that prior to the industrial revolution CO2 served as a proxy for temperature and lagged temperature by approximately 800 years. Hence CO2 has never been shown to drive the climate of the earth throughout the geologic record.

"Hence CO2 has never been shown to drive the climate of the earth throughout the geologic record"

Oops, wrong.

See? You could have just fallen on your face 2 pages ago instead of dragging it out.

 

[ding]

"Hence CO2 has never been shown to drive the climate of the earth throughout the geologic record"

Oops, wrong.

See? You could have just fallen on your face 2 pages ago instead of dragging it out.

Show me where on this curve?