Thread: Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Originally Posted by MannieD

Was that a point that just went over your head?

No, it was a reiteration of the exect question I posed, and the complete failure of the respiknse to address it.

It isn't my head that this is going over, by any means. I just chalk it up to the fract that Leftninnies are absolutely ignorant of actual scientific procedures, tests, and establishing scientifric FACT, as opposed to just blowing smoke out of their rear ends, pretending that it's "science".

I requested the record of a relatively SIMPLE chemical test, that NOT ONE WARMIST, ANYWHERE, can produce, as it involves ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is a bit more involved than made up computer models....obviously...

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

No, it was a reiteration of the exect question I posed, and the complete failure of the respiknse to address it.

It isn't my head that this is going over, by any means. I just chalk it up to the fract that Leftninnies are absolutely ignorant of actual scientific procedures, tests, and establishing scientifric FACT, as opposed to just blowing smoke out of their rear ends, pretending that it's "science".

I requested the record of a relatively SIMPLE chemical test, that NOT ONE WARMIST, ANYWHERE, can produce, as it involves ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is a bit more involved than made up computer models....obviously...

There it goes again.

Originally Posted by MannieD

There it goes again.

Once again, in the midst of nonending failure, the Warmist Deluded pretend that they have "proved something", while lacking the simplest understanding of what they presume to be talking about.

That H2O is the greatest GHG is well known to ALL warmist skeptics; what we also know is that it has yet to be proven what level of CO2 asorption causes what rate of thermo retention, or if it even DOES cause thermo retention, as opposed to thermo CONDUCTION, in a pressurized gas mixture.

This remains unproven. Got it, yet?

Didn't think so...

Originally Posted by livefree

Another amazingly meaningless comment from you, as usual.

I see you did not answer my question. So you are totally off fossil fuels now, correct???

Originally Posted by MannieD

You cannot meet my challenge because the 95% figure is incorrect, and it is you who does not understand the science.
So I ask again "prove" that water vapor accounts for 95% of the radiative absorption.
And do not worry about me understanding it; I have taken and passed junior college level physics courses from a Big 8 (now Big 12) university.

Ha-Ha!

Actually, many scientists now believe the earth's gradual global heating phase has stopped, and now it is entering a global cooling phase for the next 50-75 years.

Much like the Medieval Warm Period followed immediately later by the Little Ice Age.

By the way, Mannie, was “anthropogenic" global warming responsible for when we entered the Medieval Warm Period, and later, when we began to warm after the Little Ice Age?

The global "alarmists" will not answer these questions! However, with your new background in physics, this question should be very easy for you to answer!

Originally Posted by James Cessna

Many people today are under the incorrect assumption that carbon dioxide is the principal absorbing gas in the earth's atmosphere, and that it alone is responsible for global warming.

They further assume the prinicpal source of trace amounts (350-400 ppm) of carbon dioxde we find in our atmosphere is principally from the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources.

If you examine the science both rationally and objectively, you will discover that these assumptions are not only misleasing, but they are actually
incorrect.

From the discussions referenced below, if you measure and study the molar chemistry and physical composition of our atmosphere, you will discover the molar concentration of CO2 is most always in a range of 350–400 ppm. "Water vapor, on the other hand, is much more abundant and has a very large variation in comparison to the concentrations of carbon dioxide. For example, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air almost all regions of the lower atmosphere is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. "Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can sometimes range during very dry or very humid occasions from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1."

What many people today do not realize is water is a very strongly absorbing greenhouse gas, even more so than carbon dioxide. This scientific fact can easily be summarized by saying that "water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done."

The next question is does the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources contribute substantially to the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?

Quoting from the report below, "In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3).

The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. "Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels".

Conclusion: These facts means that carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion is very small when compared to the exchange between the sea and atmosphere, and between vegetation and atmosphere. Furthermore, because of its small (trace) concentrations in our atmosphere, CO2 cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the global warming we have experienced from causes that are purely natural in their origin.

No. Politics and the science of bovine scatology are what drives AGW.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects of .000382 atmospheric CO2 , peformed using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Once again, in the midst of nonending failure, the Warmist Deluded pretend that they have "proved something", while lacking the simplest understanding of what they presume to be talking about.

That H2O is the greatest GHG is well known to ALL warmist skeptics; what we also know is that it has yet to be proven what level of CO2 asorption causes what rate of thermo retention, or if it even DOES cause thermo retention, as opposed to thermo CONDUCTION, in a pressurized gas mixture.

This remains unproven. Got it, yet?

Didn't think so...

Let us see if you can catch the point this time:
"Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects of water vapor , peformed (sic) using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test ."

Originally Posted by James Cessna

Ha-Ha!

Actually, many scientists now believe the earth's gradual global heating phase has stopped, and now it is entering a global cooling phase for the next 50-75 years.

Much like the Medieval Warm Period followed immediately later by the Little Ice Age.

By the way, Mannie, was “anthropogenic" global warming responsible for when we entered the Medieval Warm Period, and later, when we began to warm after the Little Ice Age?

The global "alarmists" will not answer these questions! However, with your new background in physics, this question should be very easy for you to answer!

how many? Name some and their peer-reviewed papers.

Strawman argument.

Originally Posted by Radio Refugee

This is the foundational beauty of this 'science'. There exists no definitive work where the null hypothesis that CO2 DOES NOT drive global temperature has been rejected in a rigorous fashion.

It's built on rent seekers and totalitarians looking to increase their power and influence, not honest and conclusive science.

Argument after argument about minutia but the big gaping hole is never addressed.

And for good reason.

Originally Posted by Radio Refugee

Argument after argument about minutia but the big gaping hole is never addressed. And for good reason.

Please elaborate.