• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is some viable proof of Global Warming?

Blackout

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
1,356
MBTI Type
infp
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hi,

basically what the title is; I have just read so many papers and opinions disputing both sides, and I am not really sure of what to make of the idea. Though, I lean very much towards it being of course real.

It seems like most people you talk to, and most things you read are all over the place, and no one really agrees on the idea wholly. I mean, could it be a hoax made up to scare people...?
 

danseen

New member
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
781
MBTI Type
INTP
global waming is a fact. rising sea levels, ice sheet retreating, how is this not warming? only thing is if this is being caused by humans.
 

1010830

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
72
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Compare today's weather reports from those of 10 years ago and see the difference.
The issue is wheter humans hold the most responsability for that or not.
I personally think no, because the sun is continiously growing bigger and getting closer to Earth, naturally we'll feel warmer.
NASA has detected "global warming" in several other planets and moons of the solar system, namely Mars, where its ice poles have also been melting, Saturn, and Europa, where similar phenomena have been also ocurring. Even if we are really destroying Earth, the solar system is very vast and terraformation can be researched in case we need a second home to exploit resources from. So we should't let Green Peace activistis hold down economical and scientifical development.
 

Avocado

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 28, 2013
Messages
3,794
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Compare today's weather reports from those of 10 years ago and see the difference.
The issue is wheter humans hold the most responsability for that or not.
I personally think no, because the sun is continiously growing bigger and getting closer to Earth, naturally we'll feel warmer.
NASA has detected "global warming" in several other planets and moons of the solar system, namely Mars, where its ice poles have also been melting, Saturn, and Europa, where similar phenomena have been also ocurring. Even if we are really destroying Earth, the solar system is very vast and terraformation can be researched in case we need a second home to exploit resources from. So we should't let Green Peace activistis hold down economical and scientifical development.

If that is the case, the sun would be warming at an alarming rate.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Hi,
I have just read so many papers and opinions disputing both sides, and I am not really sure of what to make of the idea.

Obviously you haven't read enough of them because it should be pretty obvious.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

It is considered fact in the literature. Doubt you can find any other issue on earth where there is 97% consensus across 14,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Also came across this today: US town rejects solar farm after residents say it would suck up all the sunlight

Allowing these people to decide on policy that affects everyone is a problem. It's also not that surprising that there's an entire group that is so badly educated if it's the "science teacher" who thinks that installing solar panels sucks the sunlight away and kills plants and causes cancer.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of several books on the subject. A former executive with Greenpeace and an economist, he went about trying to economically justify global warming efforts and came up with the opposite approach.

Here is his website Get the facts straight | Bjorn Lomborg.

He points are whether the data is true or not, or approach to responding to it is entirely wrong. The costs of the anti global warming efforts far outweigh the benefits.

He points at the real truth, that much of this is flawed.

And given that Dr. Mann and colleagues have been caught altering data to support their conclusions, that many official sources have been caught altering official readings, and even with all that, the global temperature is on a declining trend.....

Real problems can have better solutions. Clean water and sanitation could be had for the whole world for less than a fraction spent on global warming..... we can help real people have better lives, instead of this questionable proposals that do little bit further agendas unrelated to the environment.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of several books on the subject. A former executive with Greenpeace and an economist, he went about trying to economically justify global warming efforts and came up with the opposite approach.

Here is his website Get the facts straight | Bjorn Lomborg.

He points are whether the data is true or not, or approach to responding to it is entirely wrong. The costs of the anti global warming efforts far outweigh the benefits.

He points at the real truth, that much of this is flawed.

And given that Dr. Mann and colleagues have been caught altering data to support their conclusions, that many official sources have been caught altering official readings, and even with all that, the global temperature is on a declining trend.....

Real problems can have better solutions. Clean water and sanitation could be had for the whole world for less than a fraction spent on global warming..... we can help real people have better lives, instead of this questionable proposals that do little bit further agendas unrelated to the environment.

The global economic costs from climate change may be worse than expected | Brookings Institution

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Going by Occam's razor, is it not simpler to conclude that there is a serious problem that we must act on, rather than claiming a mass conspiracy theory with thousands of individuals across international government institutions, without any reason to back each other up, altering data in a single direction?
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The global economic costs from climate change may be worse than expected | Brookings Institution

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Going by Occam's razor, is it not simpler to conclude that there is a serious problem that we must act on, rather than claiming a mass conspiracy theory with thousands of individuals across international government institutions, without any reason to back each other up, altering data in a single direction?

Actually, we know the lies. We know they have been doing it. There is an irrational faith in models. Models are only as good as how they are designed. And we see on Wall Street that similar modeling caused great disaster.

I suspect the models are not good enough, meaning most are not intentionally misleading the public.

But even so, Lomborg's numbers and arguments appear sound. He doesn't even need to address the issue of the truth of warming at all. He merely shows that the approach to deal with it has been severely flawed.

We do know as well that solar impacts are huge, potentially larger than anything else. As such, isn't it premature to radically change society for a 0.5° C reduction in temperature?

I am all in favor off pollution reducing endeavors. But real pollution, not CO2. I think we can make massive changes to improve the environment. Ones that are not merely tools to put money in certain people's pockets....... or grant more control over people's lives....
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
1,941
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
512
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Actually, we know the lies. We know they have been doing it. There is an irrational faith in models. Models are only as good as how they are designed. And we see on Wall Street that similar modeling caused great disaster.
"We"?

And if by "They" you mean 97% of the literature on climate change, that is again a conspiracy theory. On wall street it was not modeling that caused great disaster. It was algorithms written to maximise private profit from speculation, regardless of facts such as unemployment figures. Billions are made out of creating and exploiting market instability, it has nothing to do with models.

I suspect the models are not good enough, meaning most are not intentionally misleading the public.

But even so, Lomborg's numbers and arguments appear sound. He doesn't even need to address the issue of the truth of warming at all. He merely shows that the approach to deal with it has been severely flawed.
Meaning: I don't trust models, I don't think the 97% of published literature is good enough, but I like this guy's numbers and arguments because he says what I want to hear.

We do know as well that solar impacts are huge, potentially larger than anything else. As such, isn't it premature to radically change society for a 0.5° C reduction in temperature?
Solar impact has been accounted for in the vast majority of the literature and the conclusions are the same. In fact we would anticipate this period to be a "cooler" period historically due to solar patterns (if there are no other man-made factors) but global temperatures have been at a historical high. We need to radically change society not "for a 0.5° C reduction in temperature", but because we are already seeing large effects from small changes, and whether we like it nor not, things are going to get worse. Bushfires out of season, extended el ninos, droughts, etc. It's only about limiting damage at this point.

There will always be different weather patterns and natural disasters. The question is one of frequency. Instead of a Cat 5 hurricane occurring once every 5 years, it occurs twice or three times a year in a single country. How many fundraisers can bail people out? How much will it cost to rebuild every time it happens? And I remember people saying "just don't build in areas like New Orleans" when Katrina happened, but "hurricane zones" are moving further and further north - along approximately the same migration lines as vampire bats, which are tropical but are showing up in places that used to be too cold for it, by the way.

It's not about a 0.5° C reduction in global temperature (actually even that is inaccurate, it's limiting the anticipated rise in global temperatures to +1.5° C, 0.5° C below the anticipated +2 ° C "tipping point" where changes become irreversible) . It's about reducing the cost that future generations have to suffer and pay for us to keep living like we do - because like the US budget, their livelihoods are already deep in deficit. This is why I get angry when people drag their feet on this. It's not gonna be the boomers, or gen X who will have to deal with this. It might not even be my generation, but my generation's kids will definitely be living with our mistakes.

This is happening. If we don't take action it is deeply irresponsible and basically suicidal for our species - wait, maybe that's a good thing after all.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
so the argument i've heard is volcanoes put out way more Co2 then humans or livestock. and yes this true but think as the atomosphere like a trash can it can hold only so much with out effecting the earth's temperatures so when we add the amount of CO2 emmisions we put out even though its not as much as the volano the atomosphere gets too full. like when you put one more paper towel in a full trash can you can usually push it down its fine, but if you put much more than that it will over flow. maybe someone with an actual science background can explain it better.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
We do since those emails came out in England with climate scientists discussing massaging the data to fit the ridiculous hockey stick rather than accepting errors.

And here is an article about NOAA changing temperature records to reflect its climate agenda. noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

And contemporary science is about funding, not truth, as you are concerned with from what you have written.

It's about reducing the cost that future generations have to suffer and pay for us to keep living like we do - because like the US budget, their livelihoods are already deep in deficit. This is why I get angry when people drag their feet on this. It's not gonna be the boomers, or gen X who will have to deal with this. It might not even be my generation, but my generation's kids will definitely be living with our mistakes.

This is happening. If we don't take action it is deeply irresponsible and basically suicidal for our species - wait, maybe that's a good thing after all.

Nice emotional appeal there. Scare tactics are just do sweet in the cold area of logic and reason.

Hmm, the risk is so big that we must fuck up world economies and disrupt lives today..... Silly. Global cooling was the rage once. A new ice age. And since temps are not rising now, it is about climate change.

But again, are the solutions set forth the best? Or just bureaucratic and technocratic nightmares that will be yet another way to shove money to cronies, like we have seen for decades?

Much better to take less radical change and use a fraction of the money for improving real lives today.

I first became skeptical when I read that Dupont funded the efforts to ban CFCs 30 years ago. Its market share had declined from near monopoly to shut 2/3rds, so they funded environmental groups to lobby for a ban for their own product, and set up production of newer and inferior products.

The climate science field is politicized to no end. Heterodox opinions are isolated and punished. Truth no longer matters. Should Galileo have listened to the 97% of his day?

And the appeal to the idea of the 97% is a political argument, that science should not me decided on facts, but on politics. Might as well have a vote on the viability of space travel....

Politicized science is bad science. Fear tactics and scaremongering is a bad way to decide truth. Having to resort to such demonstrates dishonesty and lack of confidence in the position.

Let's look at politicized science in another area, food. For decades government nutrition guidelines have pushed low fat, high carb diets. Those that dissented from this were attacked. Today the official nutrition position is finally getting away from the false and heavily politicized science of the recent past.

So how did it get screwed up? Bad science, plus the easy way to confuse dietary fat with body fat in mind of many. And why? Because Big Grain and the farm lobby in the US took it and funded it and pushed an idea that became accepted science. Then the institutional effect took over and change is very slow. And people struggle to accept the new truth after being manipulated into a trance like state that struggles to see that the accepted science was wrong.

Eventually, after much political turmoil, I suspect high fructose corn syrup and soy products (which have invaded almost every manufactured food product in America) will also be seen for the bad they have caused. But it will be years in making.

I recently had an enlightening conversation with an expert in the field who confirmed my lay research on the subject of food.

I suspect one day people will look back and say "Wtf? Those people addressed climate change based upon bad science and political scaremongering."

For the OP and others that want to read the dissenting view, here is another website

Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Those scientists that dare speak up with doubt are attacked, creating an atmosphere much like the Spanish Inquisition. Look up Lennart Bengtsson if you doubt it. Michael Mann appears to be nothing more than a propagandist fraud, making money and power off his climate agenda, even suing a columnist for criticizing him, lol. And falsely claiming to be a Nobel laureate because he submitted a paper to b the IPCC.... He did create the hockey stick model....

Again, I am all for reasonable environmental protection that makes economic sense and actually helps people. I would rather money be spent on sanitation and clean water and mosquito nets than politicized science. Cleaner air is a good thing. Clean water is as well. Increased solar use is great. Using more nuclear power makes sense (but too many environmentalists reject that).

But apocalyptic visions of global warming? The models have been wrong for years.....
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This article was fun....

BBC-censures-itself-for-telling-the-truth-about-global-warming.html

Their real offence had been to allow Letts to interview two climate-sceptical MPs. One of them, the former Cabinet minister Peter Lilley, recalled the Met Office’s prediction from 2004 that, over the next decade, global temperatures would rise by some 0.3 degrees C. And what had happened when 2014 arrived, asked Letts? “Nothing,” Lilley replied. “Zilch.” There had been “no global warming”.

This prompted the trust to quote yards of material from such learned authorities as the Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change to show that it was almost universally agreed by scientists that “human activity is the dominant cause of the warming witnessed in the latter half of the 20th century”, and that those responsible had ignored a “decision that the programme should not include challenge [sic] to the prevailing scientific view about climate change.

But here is the central irony of this wondrously po-faced document. Although it repeatedly found the programme guilty of such a “serious breach” of the BBC’s statutory commitment to “accuracy”, Mr Lilley’s playful comment on that 0.3 degree temperature rise predicted by the Met Office computer in 2004 was not wrong.

According to the satellite record, the temperature trend line in those 10 years did not rise at all. Lilley’s real offence in the BBC’s eyes was that what he said was entirely accurate. George Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
The truth and validity of a scientific theory does not depend on consensus; it depends on empirical evidence. At one time, there was consensus that the Pangaea theory of continents was garbage; this was before we learned about plate tectonics.

There was consensus that stomach ulcers was caused by stress. It wasn't; it was caused by bacteria.

There was and is consensus that cancer is caused by mutations (and other genetic changes) in nuclear DNA; that consensus is currently being challenged and will be shattered very soon.

There was consensus that cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you; again, that's been debunked.

If global warming is real, let's see the evidence. The best available evidence that exists today (satellite data) shows no warming in 18 years.

If global warming poses a threat, let's see the evidence. The medieval warming period was warmer than today and that period was marked by an abundance of crops.

If global warming causes more hurricanes or kills polar bears, let's see the evidence. There is no such evidence.

To quote Harold Lewis, physics professor at UC Santa Barbara:
"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." Harold Lewis, UC Santa Barbara, Emeritus Professor of Physics"

There is consensus among climate scientists because:

1) They've gotten over $100 billion in the last decade to push this nonsense; and
2) The believers are in charge of deciding what gets published. If a climate scientist decides what goes into a journal, do you think he'd allow a skeptical challenge?
3) Climate scientists are the bottom of the barrel in the scientific community; these are the folks who couldn't hack physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, or sociology.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Obviously you haven't read enough of them because it should be pretty obvious.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

It is considered fact in the literature. Doubt you can find any other issue on earth where there is 97% consensus across 14,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Also came across this today: US town rejects solar farm after residents say it would suck up all the sunlight

Allowing these people to decide on policy that affects everyone is a problem. It's also not that surprising that there's an entire group that is so badly educated if it's the "science teacher" who thinks that installing solar panels sucks the sunlight away and kills plants and causes cancer.

This.

At the risk of sounding haughty, the vast majority of the population is not well equip to engage in the scientific process, and these individuals need to keep their noses out of it. Meaning, trying to "interpret" the data. Having gone through rigorous scientific training, I can safely say that in the absence of this, you can only go so far on your own, and the level to which you can go so far is frequently below the threshold of what is needed to accurately interpret the information. Further, a significant portion of this requires training within the field. As such, I don't delude myself into thinking I can fully interpret climate studies; it's too far out of my realm of expertise. I can do a little, but not much. What do I do in light of this? Listen to the experts and concensus of the scientific community, and further not buy into bite-sized headlines. Which is what everyone should be doing.

This is precisely why I skoff at lay-men trying to push "studies" that aren't valid, or try to argue something this is out of their depth. They lack the ability or credentials to do so. So many people are guilty of this within the anti-climate change, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccine (or more generally anti-medicine) camps. This is further why I get so foaming at the mouth when politicans try to shoot down, or choke off scientists and studies based on their "interpretation" of material that is beyond their ability to understand.

I honestly see laymen and politicans doing this kind of bullshit as some of the most harmful people on the planet, and is why I am so nasty to them. Reason won't work, so all I can think of doing is head-bonking.

I'm starting to think one of the biggest scorges on the planet is people thinking they know more they do, or thinking they can learn more than they actually can. It's nauseating.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
This.

At the risk of sounding haughty, the vast majority of the population is not well equip to engage in the scientific process, and these individuals need to keep their noses out of it. Meaning, trying to "interpret" the data. Having gone through rigorous scientific training, I can safely say that in the absence of this, you can only go so far on your own, and the level to which you can go so far is frequently below the threshold of what is needed to accurately interpret the information. Further, a significant portion of this requires training within the field. As such, I don't delude myself into thinking I can fully interpret climate studies; it's too far out of my realm of expertise. I can do a little, but not much. What do I do in light of this? Listen to the experts and concensus of the scientific community, and further not buy into bite-sized headlines. Which is what everyone should be doing.

This is precisely why I skoff at lay-men trying to push "studies" that aren't valid, or try to argue something this is out of their depth. They lack the ability or credentials to do so. So many people are guilty of this within the anti-climate change, anti-GMO, and anti-vaccine (or more generally anti-medicine) camps. This is further why I get so foaming at the mouth when politicans try to shoot down, or choke off scientists and studies based on their "interpretation" of material that is beyond their ability to understand.

I honestly see laymen and politicans doing this kind of bullshit as some of the most harmful people on the planet, and is why I am so nasty to them. Reason won't work, so all I can think of doing is head-bonking.

I'm starting to think one of the biggest scorges on the planet is people thinking they know more they do, or thinking they can learn more than they actually can. It's nauseating.

to be fair what i posted was basically what my geology professor said and she has a ph.d and is a hydrogeologist. of course it's not perfect and i did say someone sciency to explain it better. I'm not sciencey the only reason i know what i do is my mom is in research not about global warming she would be useless because it's not her area. but how complicated data actually is she is biostatitcian and a epidemiologist so she deals more with the human body than the earth, but the point is. I guess because of her i don't automatically believe every "science" headline i read. she was telling me for her study it takes a year to train someone to properly analyze the data and these are people who went to school to learn how to do such a thing and may have even had jobs dealing with scientific data in other studies, but because the data is unique to the study. basically these people have ph.ds or at least masters in a science field and have been taught how to do research and even with that it takes a year to train a data analyst properly in her study. and i mean the person who takes the raw data that they get from the various tests and make it make sense for everyone else involved in the study not to the point where it make sense to me.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year (Update1)

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest year on record in the U.S., ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming.

According to the figures released last week, four of America's 10 warmest years are now in the 1930s, during the Dust Bowl era. Just three years from the past decade remain among the top 10, with 2001 having fallen out entirely.

The 1930s were hotter --- at least for now, lol :D

NASA might change its mind later and "revise" the data once more.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
NASA Fixes Data; 1934 Ousts 1998 as Hottest U.S. Year (Update1)



The 1930s were hotter --- at least for now, lol :D

NASA might change its mind later and "revise" the data once more.
But the hockey stick?!?!? The Holy Hockey Stick of St. Mann?!?!?
But, but science is settled?!?! And industrialization?!?!?! They lacked catalytic converters?!? And had fewer cars??!!?? And less people ?!?!

How could the 30s be worse????? Oh, the humanity?!!!!!!???!!!! And the settled science........

Oh, well, PARIS!!!!! KYOTO!!!! RIO!!!! Cap and trade!!!! And all the unnecessary legislation!!! Oh, and a bunch of folks got rich off this....hmmmmm

But we are too stupid to follow the studies, we are told. Let's worship the high priests of climate change..... They have hidden knowledge that we must obey or we will all die!!!!!!! And we just need faith in them..... burn the heretics at the stake, it is too important to doubt......
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
The most damning evidence against CO2's contribution to global warming are the studies of infrared absorption by CO2 done in the 1950s. The US Government measured the amount of total radiation in the frequency range that was absorbed by CO2. It was 100%. We were already at saturation levels of CO2 back in the 1950s so anymore CO2 added to the atmosphere would've had zero effect.

A reference book published by the Office of Naval Research, a department of the U.S. Navy, titled The Infrared Handbook was published in 1978 and is used as a bible by everyone I know in the IR community. Atmospheric transmission data at sea level is contained in this book based on measurements that were taken in the 1950 time frame, much before any recent increases in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. These particular measurements are over a path length of 300 meters, and cover the IR spectrum from short-wave infrared out to beyond 20 microns in the LWIR (see “Field Measurements of Atmospheric Transmission”). In the LWIR absorption band of CO2 (center wavelength of 15 microns) the transmission measured is 0.0 due to CO2 absorption. That is, total 100% absorption over 300 meters at sea level in the spectral absorption band of CO2 that would capture the most energy, or “heat”, being radiated by the earth’s surface.

Source: Global Warming and Settled Science

The very premise of Global Warming due to CO2 levels is wrong. The premise being: CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere absorbs IR radiation that warms the planet, so higher CO2 levels would absorb increased amounts of IR radiation, but as the article points out....you can't go higher than 100% absorption. All of the IR radiation that can be absorbed is being absorbed and has been since the 1950s.
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
The most damning evidence against CO2's contribution to global warming are the studies of infrared absorption by CO2 done in the 1950s. The US Government measured the amount of total radiation in the frequency range that was absorbed by CO2. It was 100%. We were already at saturation levels of CO2 back in the 1950s so anymore CO2 added to the atmosphere would've had zero effect.




Source: Global Warming and Settled Science

The very premise of Global Warming due to CO2 levels is wrong. The premise being: CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere absorbs IR radiation that warms the planet, so higher CO2 levels would absorb increased amounts of IR radiation, but as the article points out....you can't go higher than 100% absorption. All of the IR radiation that can be absorbed is being absorbed and has been since the 1950s.
Didn't read the data so wom't comment on that directly but: assuming it's true - wouldn't higher temperatures mean
More co2 can be absorbed in the atmosphere

Edit: actually. Scanning through your quote and based on it... I think i've spotted your mistake.
Its co2 absoption at SEA level.

So the more co2 u add the "higher" it goes trapping
More and more heat in the amosphere and the "leaking out" of heat into space happens over less and less "volume" of air up to the higher atmosphere.

It's not "co2 saturation at sea level" its co2 saturation in the atmosphere as a whole that matters. To simplify.

So.. Debunked. Sorry.
Please learn to interpret data correctly before stating everyone else is wrong. You'll avoid
Embarassing yourself in the future. :coffee:
 
Top