Lol...that actually was funny I will say the progress would be even more dramatic if you or anyone could present a convincing argument that a natural process or set of natural processes can explain the warming we observe today. Bonus points are in order if can then show how the laws of quantum mechanics which explain CO2's greenhouse properties work everywhere except here on Earth in the atmosphere.
Wow, hard to come close to discussing anything with such childish behavior. When you make up conversations you are only talking to yourself. Let us know when you get back to reality.
You are speaking of local weather. Don't worry, i get told this all the time too. First, I do not care that climate changes. There is nothing at all I can do to change that. And I enjoy the benefits of Carbon Dioxide. It keeps plants so lovely and green.
Warming does not bother me at all. I enjoy what Carbon Dioxide does for our gardens. Did you know that nurseries deliberately pump in Carbon Dioxide to the green houses to gain benefits to their plants? It is so good your soft drink factories make sure to include it in your soft drinks.
Your understanding of this subject seems almost infantile. Water is also a wonderful thing, I love the rain but not so much drowning. CO2 is also quite good in measure, plant life requires it and we require plant life. However you exhale it and if there is too much you die. Was a time on Earth (before a certain algae appeared) when the entire atmosphere was pretty much Carbon Dioxide and things breathed it. Once that mean Algae showed up though it exhaled Oxygen which was poison....things died and other things evolved to breath the poison, those new things cant breath the CO2 anymore. There is also the little heat issue that CO2 makes, ya see it stops it from leaving once it gets here and another nasty gas is even worse (Methane). As the CO2 heats things up the permafrost and deep ocean ice where the methane is sequestered melts and methane joins the CO2...its called a positive feedback loop and cannot be stopped. That feedback loop has begun.
This is just an alert. POSTERS Confine your remarks to the topic. End this habit of making me your topic. I know it is my words, but you confront not my words, you make it about ME. As to the argument above, I shall note it as one more such forms of argument. Most forgot or ignored my study of Carbon Dioxide posted within the past two years. i learned of the true damage done by too much Carbon Dioxide and found that we humans live in minute amount, not the enormous amount needed to damage things. Submarines as i also pointed out thrive with much higher amounts of the gas than we all deal with.
Actually I was talking about WV mixing ratio over large spatial and regional scales (climate). WV mixing ratios actually do jump above and below the equilibrium level on shorter scales (weather).
my nephew's engineering firm does contract work for the US government and military, his specialty SBS(SICK BUILDING SYNDROME) how to rid enclosed work spaces of toxic gas, balance humidity etc...of the toxic gases CO2 is the prime one causes fatigue and lack of mental focus...that over used submarine anecdote is tiresome, if CO2 wasn't an issue they wouldn't be concerned with it would they? but they are because it affects crew performance...
i do not have an issue with a nephew's firm. I have an issue with posters that call me out and taunt or insult me rather than sticking to the topic. Notice the above commentary did not do this, but did reply to my comments over the direct poster taunts. All I know is my findings that Submarines routinely operate with far higher levels of Carbon Dioxide than we here on this planet experience. It is not tired. If you reply, please submit proof that Submarines do not operate as I claim and that they feel the men are in danger. Don't ask me to repeat my research since it is on this forum and you may get it using search features. As I stated, people all over drink soft drinks loaded with carbon dioxide too. You would think were it dangerous, it would be a banned substance. https://www.livescience.com/32492-why-does-soda-fizz.html The fizz that bubbles up when you crack open a can of soda is carbon dioxide gas (CO2). Soft drink manufacturers add this tingling froth by forcing carbon dioxide and water into your soda at high pressures—up to 1,200 pounds per square inch. The "fssst" you hear is millions of carbon dioxide molecules bursting out of their sweet, watery prisons, where they have been held against their will. An unopened soda can is virtually bubble-free because the pressure inside the can keeps the carbon dioxide dissolved in the liquid. When you crack open the can, you release the pressure and allow the gas bubbles to wiggle free from the liquid and rise to the surface. This requires energy because in order for the gas to break free from the liquid it has to overcome the force holding the liquid together.
You mean make the poison ivy grow at insane rates? If people out there don't remember the poison ivy being so bad when they were a kid, they are remembering correctly. Poison ivy grows explosively with more CO2, and has more concentrated urushiol toxin in it. In general, vines do much better with increased CO2. That's bad news for the trees. The slight increase in growth rate from CO2 is nullified by more strangling vines. Weeds also tend to do better with increased CO2 than food plants. Bad news for food crops. Food crops also tend to be less nutritious with elevated CO2. Again, bad news for food craps.
Drop the butt hurt fragile Ice Crystal garbage...I made a one sentence comment concerning your understanding of this issue (accurate by the way) followed by paragraphs of data which you ignored in order to whine and warn us all to not say anything about you, Perhaps you should not do this kind of thing if it hewts yer feewings.
When you make such claims, not that you must install the link, but can you actually cite something we might believe?
In other words, you don't know what how your CERN buzzword applied to the science. You saw it on a conspiracy blog, and thought it sounded cool. What, you think that's not obvious? The non-cultists do know what the conspiracy blogs were trying to say. CERN did an experiment where they showed cosmic rays could form cloud nucleation particles, a result that surprised nobody. Also not really relevant to climate, being how there's no shortage of natural cloud nucleation particles, so a few extra ones made by cosmic rays makes no difference. It's a subset of the failed cosmoclimatology theory pushed by Svensmark and Shaviv. That theory has been debunked, being that climate went in the opposite way of what the theory predicted. No matter, the denier cult still pushes the theory. They literally don't care if any science has been disproved, they only care if it backs their politics.
Why? That's a serious question. Every time we provide evidence, you run from the point by whining about how everyone is picking on you. So why bother? However, I'll give you another chance. http://www.ecology.uga.edu/cmsAdmin/uploads/Mohan_et_al_2006.pdf
Nah, But nice try. It just shows how obstinate folks like you actually are. I suppose that unless i actually spoon feed you, you won't find the gumption to actually do your own research.
Or you could have just pointed out that CERN did research on galactic cosmic rays instead of being vague about it. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about.
A lot of it is in German. I can't tell if much of it has been translated. So, I don't know who might be able to consume it. Suffice to say that CERN are very much involved in atmospheric studies.
And what did CERN's CLOUD experiment say about GCR's ability to influence the climate? And what does the GCR theory predict should be happening with the global mean temperature currently?
Anyway, back to the topic of this thread. The fridge elements of science and deniers alike have been predicting cooling for decades and it never happens. Those that have predicted cooling have been wrong. Those that have predicted warming have been right. Why should I believe yet another cooling prediction?
Because there are major volcano eruptions. But, it would take considerably more of them. Be the first one on your block to fear an epidemic of volcano eruptions hopefully in Indonesia and that area of the globe, again. The cool down is coming. Is food production prepared for it? Why not believe in a different catastrophe. Dare to be unique How's that for "why"? Moi
Tell me - why are you accepting the science on this but rejecting the science of Global Warming? It is the SAME science. Have you ever heard though, of the saying "A little knowledge is dangerous". A lot of people think that is an excuse for outright ignorance but in fact it really means - learn the WHOLE thing and maybe you will not end with foot in post syndrome In this case A) Depends on the amount and type of particulate matter ejected B) Depends on how far into the stratosphere those particles are projected C) Depends on the amount of Sulphur Dioxide emitted D) Depends on the patterns of circulating wind E) Depends on whether the volcanoes are near the tropics or located north or south
