Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Bullcrap; it proves no such thing. Venus is closer to the Sun, hence its much higher temps. CO2 is more likely the RESULT of such high temps,as opposed to the cause.

Still waiting for the Big Science Expert Warmists to provide the details of the actual, live chemical test proving the thermal retention properties of .000382 atmospheric CO2....of course, I won't hold my breath....Oooops! more CO2...!!!

 

Limited data + Not fully understood process of how climate works + Those who will profit from misinformation and propoganda = Solid GW theory!

Grant money looks really good when your an unemployed scientist. Just sign here for your free money!!!

 

Amen..the "Concensus of the Paid", as opposed to the Scientific Facts...

 

Do you remember the most famous words by "climate scientist", Albert Gore?



The undeniable proof of global warming ... Albert Gore style. GORE: "In terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot." ... Gosh, Mr. Gore, If the earth were indeed this hot, we would be a star! (Photo source: Associated Press)

 

Will the "warmists" in our group please explain and discuss what lasting effects the tons and tons and tons of carbon that were released to our environment by the massive oil well fires in Kuwait had on our envoronment!

Oil Well Fires in Kuwait after the War

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tXEHT4MjCI"]Oil Well Fires in Kuwait after the War - YouTube[/ame]

 

Bird,

Please provide the reliable sources for these charts.

I would really like to review them.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/234951-does-co2-really-drive-global-warming-11.html

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ly-drive-global-warming-7.html#post1060923439

 

And do you realise we burn roughly 80 million barrels of oil per day?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires

Mind you oil is only one fossil fuel.........

And your point was????

 

I NEVER post to image shack so all you ever have to do to find where I sourced a picture is simply quote me - the url for the original site is always embedded

 

I am starting a new strategy - every time someone beings up Al Gore I will bring up Lord Moncton or one of the more infamous denialists

Let's then see who has least credibility - this should be fun!!

Monckton being PWNED!!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVqRCVc7Q8&feature=related"]'Lord' Viscount Monckton 'admits' to making a mistake! - YouTube[/ame]

 

I would like to know the source from where you obtained these original illustrations.

I would like to read and understand the discussions that accompany these illustrations.

I cannot quote you because you are not the original author. I must quote the original author.

Thank you.

 

We agree!

Albert Gore and Lord Monckton are both certifiable "nut" cases.

You will get no argument from me about these statements!

 

[ in a short period of time] is added by me if you don't mind.


And while you at that please ask "warmists" how many millions of gallons of oil was spilled into the limited area of the gulf of Mexico in order to rejuvenate shrimp and oyster and fish harvest, - if you don’t mind…

 

ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what you think it is.

warmists have proven that ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD is not what you think it is.

If you want to prove anything to warmists

face their response, - "You have not proven anything"

it does not matter what is your proof and reality you are pointing to.They skip it to post the response, - "You have not proven anything"


face the reality.

you're facing fascism.

Your CAPITOL LETTERS is not the way to deal with it.

 

No, ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD is what Sir Isaac Newton says it is, as well as Albert Einstein, etal....

I deal with the Warmist Carbonistas by steadfastly bringing forth the GLARING FACT that then promary tenet of their entire religion is UNPROVEN, by ANY SCIENTIFIC STANDARD.

It is, and remains, pure speculation....

 

Yes you keep posting that - pity it is not correct

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

 

I meant use the quote button - you know the little thingy at the bottom of the page with "quote" on it

As soon as you hit that - there is your URL

Simple copy and paste takes you right to the source

I direct link so that anyone can follow back to find where I got the information from

 

Betcha Monckton wins hands down!

 

I'm not claiming that the earth is warming due to CO2. I'm just claiming that the earth is warming. Maybe the earth is warming due to the the sun moving closer to us (we don't move closer to the sun because we are the center of the universe).

 

Please try to pay attention.

If you quote a post, please try to read it.

Please, pay attention to CAPITOL LETTERS, bolded text, underlined text. They often give a direct idea what the post is about.

Please, try to understand what the post does say, the thoughts and points expressed it and try to address them. Please , try to avoid inserting, making and addressing words, thoughts and points not expressed in the post you quote.

Understanding that a post is an objection to AWG is not enough. Countering not the fact that quoted post contains an objection to AWG, but the objection itself is appreciated.

Countering the fact that quoted post contains an objection(s) to AWG, but not the objection(s) itslef conveys the message that you believe in AWG no matter what are objections, facts or observations the objections can refer to.

The post you quoted points to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. It claims that scientists do not use SCIENTIFIC METHOD and because they do not the SCIENTIFIC METHOD their charts, graphs, reports and everything are pure speculations.

Posting another speculation does not counter the point and claim of the post.

Please, try to read it again and to address points made in it. Otherwise the only message of your replay is that you believe in AWG no matter what are objections, facts or observations the objections can refer to.

 

You keep posting bullcrap speculation, instead of an actual chemical test proving the TRUE, VERIFIABLE thermal retention affects of .000382 CO2....

Made up charts ,based on arbitrarily arrived at speculative parameters, is NOT "Scientific method"; it's just the bullcrap that Warmist pseudo-scientists use to convince the Warmist deluded to keep beating their drum for them, and help bilk more billion$ for their already exposed $cam...

 

And you keep denying what is posted is what you are demanding because you keep goal post shifting

The experiments regarding the absorption spectra of CO2 date back to the late 1800's

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

So, we have known about the effect that long

and you yourself can do an experiment (and I am sure I have posted this before) using KITCHEN chemistry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394168.stm

 

"Suggested"; "might have".

Still having a problem with how CHEMICAL TESTS ARE DONE...?

You need a baro chamber; you would then fill it with a gas mixture equal to the average of the Earth's atmosphere, with a level of CO2 LOWER than .000382, average humidity, 14.7 psi. (sea level)

You would then introduce radiant heat from above, measure what is RETAINED at the bottom of the chamber.

Then, with everything else constant, you would increase the amount of CO2 to .000382 (approx.), and then measure again the heat retention at the bottom of the chamber, AWAY from the heat source.

Try it. There is NO DIFFERENCE in thermal retention at .000382 (approx.) CO2.

That's why Warmists NEVER , EVER publish such a test.

The idea that .03% of CO2 concentrations are CHANGING THE CLIMATE is so idiotic, that REAL CHEMISTS never took AGW seriously....EVER.

However, a trian engineer at the UN's IPCC disagrees....what a joke....

 

Still not reading what is posted? The post I put up referred to the original research back in 1890 - do you not think we have done more since then?

Why? Especially when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.038

In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387% by volume, or 387 parts per million by volume


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

The really sad part is - that is not the first time I have corrected that misplaced decimal point

Didn't look at the BBC vid did you? The scientist was doing exactly what you outlined only she was using soft drink bottles and kitchen chemistry

And if they can do that - what makes you think they have not performed more rigid analysis of the "greenhouse" gas effect?

 

Your math is wrong again, Bird.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not 0.038.

Here is how your perform the calculations correctly,

387 ppm = 387/1,000,000 = 0.000387

0.000387 x 100% = 0.0387%.

Learn to do math correctly, and then you might have some credibility with our group. Until then, you don't!

Also, your link doesn't work. Please provide a link that actually works.