I have a question about CO2

[shadron]

A handful of ridiculous examples don't make the concept itself ridiculous. I can imagine a couple of sinks which would make more sense than dry ice or burying cans of carbonated beverages.

Suppose a process was developed which could split atmospheric CO2 into oxygen and carbon. The O2 could simply be released into the atmosphere, diluting the remaining CO2. The carbon could be used to make fine graphite particles, which could be released in the upper atmosphere to absorb the sun's energy in the "transmission" frequencies, where they would readily radiate most of the heat captured into space. Alternatively, the carbon could be used to make industrial quantities of carbon nanotubes, which could begin to replace wood and steel in construction and manufacturing.

Admittedly, I don't know if it's feasible to make carbon nanotubes in the same quantities as steel girders are manufactured today, or whether the energy to manufacture such quantities could be obtained from alternative (solar, wind, nuclear) sources so that net atmospheric CO2 would be guaranteed to decrease. I don't know if spraying graphite particles into the stratosphere is a bad idea for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming.

I don't see the idea of sinks as wrong. I do, however, see the probability of something useful or cheap, and simultaneously locking up the carbon, being pretty far-fetched. The reason we burn coal is to obtain the energy available from the exothermic reaction for useful purpose, with relatively low efficiency. Inevitably, cracking that gas from the atmosphere will prove to be at least the equal in energy input as was obtained from burning it in the first place. That doesn't count what we do with all that carbon, or the methods by which we extract it from the atmosphere or the ocean in the first place. Perhaps if we can find a cheap way to convert it into diamonds..., ah, but then who needs the surface of earth covered in grit of the highest known hardness? Talk about pollution!

There are only two ways out of that box as far as I can see: one can perhaps sequester CO2 at it's source. That may help the problem of dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, but doesn't address the current over-abundance, and even that is too expensive to implement (witness the recent decision of a coal power plant to drop plans for simultaneous sequestering). The second is the availability of abundant, non-combustion power, from renewables, fission or fusion, or perhaps even more exotic sources. These all face problems, of course, but are the final answer to the AGW problem, as I see it.

As for carbon for carbon nanotubes^WP, they are very useful and will no doubt hold a big place in our future (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3401/02.html for one very interesting application, and data on nanotube manufacturing and characteristics). Watch it, though - there has been speculation that nanotubes, like asbestos fibers, may be a powerful irritative carcinogen. The wiki article mentions that the toxicity of nanotubes is still very much open to investigation. I doubt we will be hurting for a source of material, however, as the earth is about .03% carbon and life is an ideal force with which to concentrate it. We won't soon run out of it, the universe as a whole is .02% carbon, and scientists have noted that the most common material in asteroids is carbonaceous chrondites, so there are likely other, as yet unknown, concentrative forces at work.

But I don't necessarily see the idea of carbon sinks as a bad idea. Suppose an industrial process was developed that would combine atmospheric CO2 with water to create hydrocarbons and release O2. Suppose the industrial process could run on solar power, and became our sole source of gasoline (or other fuels) once fossil fuels became prohibitively expensive. We'd

Well, dang it, neither do I. Love to see sinks implemented. You propose here to use carbon as a medium for energy transfer, much like many people propose hydrogen. Great, but it doesn't solve our current problem. If we have abundant energy available, then AGW is no longer a problem by definition, and we can even contemplate remediation, and then we can pick and choose a way to transport it; that's a minor problem compared to AGW - the kind of problems we can wish for.

 

[Spud1k]

By the way, (since I wasn't talking about IPCC but you are) be advised that when IPCC use words such as 90%, these are not statistical measures but relate in a circular logic fashion to phrases such as "very likely".

While I don't like participating in derails, I couldn't let that statement slip because it is flat out wrong. A lot of work went into generating that statistic. I suggest you read chapter 9 of AR4WG1 (in particular section 9.1.2 and table 9.4).

ETA: I should have said, they also did some guidance notes on how to treat the confidence estimates.

 

[Cuddles]

What is weird is that you have completely missed relevance and meaning of the phrases "feedback", "Logrhythmic response" and "far extreme" in the summary statement I made, thus your response is totally irrelevant as far as I can tell.

Perhaps if you used real words instead of making up ones like "logrhythmic" your posts would make more sense. As it is, my post was still entirely relevant. You claimed, as you have repeated again, that:

The unproven hypothesis is that slight increases in the trace gas CO2 have huge effects on the atmosphere's temperature

As I pointed out, that is not the hypothesis. The unarguable fact is that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, as described in my earlier post. While you can debate about the extent of the effect it has, you cannot argue that that effect does not exist without rewriting the laws of physics. Again, as I also pointed out earlier, your argument actually agrees that global warming must be happening. Clearly you disagree with the extent, but the fact that you do not appear to understand what your own words say is rather odd.

But thanks for telling everyone what was and was not open for debate according to your limits of view; re examine the three phrases that I have indicated and offer another analysis that is less weird.

I'll put this as simply as I can for those with difficulty understanding simple concepts:
1. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Indisputable fact.
2. There is significantly more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than a couple of centuries ago, the majority of which is due to human activity. Indisputable fact.
3. Global temperature and climate are not the same as they were before. Indisputable fact.

There are only two places where hypotheses are involved - firstly, the extent of the connection between 1 and 3 due to 2. Secondly, what the effects of 3 will actually be. The fact that you consider simple facts "weird" really says an awful lot about your mentality and your understanding of the matters at hand.

 

[mhaze]

...I'll put this as simply as I can for those with difficulty understanding simple concepts:
1. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Indisputable fact.
2. There is significantly more CO₂ in the atmosphere now than a couple of centuries ago, the majority of which is due to human activity. Indisputable fact.
3. Global temperature and climate are not the same as they were before. Indisputable fact.

There are only two places where hypotheses are involved - firstly, the extent of the connection between 1 and 3 due to 2. Secondly, what the effects of 3 will actually be. The fact that you consider simple facts "weird" really says an awful lot about your mentality and your understanding of the matters at hand.

1. Correct.
2. Wrong. The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not due to human activity. The use of phrases such as "Indisputable fact" doesn't make it right.

I'll repeat again, though that I think you do not understand the implications of a phrase such as "feedback" on a system of this type. Your use of simplified 8th grade physics to "explain" the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is incorrect scientifically. Which is rather easy to demonstrate, isn't it?

 

[CapelDodger]

2. Wrong. The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not due to human activity. The use of phrases such as "Indisputable fact" doesn't make it right.

Cuddles said "significantly more". About a third more, in fact, which is significant. Do try to respond to what people say rather than what you wish they'd say.

 

[Ocelot]

Nonsense, go study a bit and come up with better stuff than silly analogies that don't work, based on poor understanding of the science, and enhanced by inaccurate reading of my statements.

Oh you're hilarious. I never even mentioned science yet you insult my ability to comprehend it. And my reading of your statement was entirely accurate. You ridiculed the argument that "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years" that's your exact words. (My bolding) The trouble is, as I pointed out with wit and whimsy, that no-one is making that argument. By contrast I quoted the current consensus view as published by the IPCC that there's at least 90% certainty that at least 50% of the recent warming is due to human greenhouse gas emissions.

I find it insulting that you would not carefully produce a response that is logical and persuasive.

I doubt it. If I really believed that you'd been insulted or that my posting was illogical then I'd apologise. However there's nothing illogical about pointing out a logical fallacy. Your straw man is a logical fallacy. If anyone's is doing a disservice to logic then I'm afraid it's you my dear fellow. Insulted? More like embarrassed by the flaws in your rhetoric being displayed. For that I make no apologies.

To defend yourself against an accusation of employing a straw man you need only find an example of someone actually making that argument. The more authoritative the arguer the better. Instead you show what the IPCC has been saying as if it actually propped up the straw man argument you've been ridiculing. You really must be losing it.

Does this say "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years?"

1990 IPCC

“the observed (20th century temperature) increase could be largely due to ... natural variability”

So that's a no then.

So when more data came in and the IPCC could make a more confident statement did they say "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years"

IPCC 1995

“the balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate”

Again no...

So what about a later report. Again a more confident statement but does it say "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years?"

IPCC 2001

“there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”

Oh dear, still saying most of the warming, not all.

Only one more IPCC report to quote. Lets see if this one says "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years"

IPCC 2007

“90% probable” that the recent warming is “due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

Well that's strange. I could have sworn that the latest IPCC report used the word "most" which is defined as >50%

Your quote still doesn't prop up your straw man as it doesn't use the word "all" or even imply it beyond the vaguest of measures. But hang on that a peculiar arrangement of quotation marks.

Lets see if google will help me locate that phrase on the IPCC website.

Indeed it does occur in a session report Here's the full quote to be found on page

Attribution studies show that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20

th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Well that looks more like what I remember from the actual Fourth Assessment Report. For those interested the bit we’re interested in is on Page 10 of the Summary for Policy Makers. It says...

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Oh look, pretty much what I said, and strangely at odds with what you said it said.

Ironic that while you scoff at my comments which were preceded by the words "far extreme", in this very thread simultaneously the discussion is ongoing about carbon sequestration, which is prima facie evidence of a widespread belief that CO2 is in fact the culprit that must be placed under governmental control and regulation in order to save the planet.

OK then I acknowledge that you didn't claim that this argument was the consensus view, you claimed it was an argument being made at the far extreme. Not withstanding your laughable dishonesty in deleting the word "most" from an IPCC statement and replacing it with your own words in an attempt to make it look like the IPCC itself was at this "far extreme" it appears that we agree that this Straw Man of yours is not the consensus view.

However you've yet to demonstrate that this argument IS being made anywhere, even at some "far extreme"

As for discussion of carbon sequestration, being prima facie evidence of a widespread belief that "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years" that's poppycock of the highest order.

Do you not think that it could be evidence instead, of a far more reasonable widespread belief that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations?"

I really don't see why you'd think people wouldn't discuss carbon sequestration if they didn’t believe "CO₂ is responsible for all of the warming of the last 50 years". Do you consider that it might be advisable to do something about murderers and rapists despite them not being responsible for all crime?

By the way, (since I wasn't talking about IPCC but you are) be advised that when IPCC use words such as 90%, these are not statistical measures but relate in a circular logic fashion to phrases such as "very likely".

By the way (since it's clear that little flies from your fingertips on this subject without being riddled with lies) the casual observer might want to check out Spud1K's comment on this and check out the actual derivation of these statistical measures and prove to themselves that mhaze is once again propagating lies.

Mhaze,

Are you aware that the things that you're typing are lies? It occurs to me that you might just be repeating lies that you've heard without being aware that they're lies. I do hope so as now that you've been made aware you'll stop and take a skeptical look at these lies, reveal them for what they are and distance yourself from them.

If on the other hand you're a liar, you'd deny that what you've written are cynically crafted misrepresentations without offering any substantial refutation of the accusations. You'd perhaps throw in a red herring to change the subject or even maximize your spreading of more lies in a pathetic gish gallop. This would be sad as it'd mean that you'd deserve no respect, being an evil force whose intent is to further and exploit ignorance, harming the planet for whatever nasty, selfish ends of your own. Or perhaps you just enjoy lying for it's own sake. If this is the case I can offer you one pieve of advice. You need better lies. These ones are transparrent. If the foundations of your argument are lies then it's very important that you don't get found out. Telling lies where you know you'll get caught is really bad strategy. Stupid for telling lies in the first place and stupid for underestimating the intelligence of the people you expect to be fooled by those lies. Once again you've made yourself look like a stupid liar.

I do hope you're not.

 

[Ocelot]

The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not due to human activity. The use of phrases such as "Indisputable fact" doesn't make it right.

Really?

My goodness you're right. I must rush to tell whoever said that the majority of CO₂ in the atmosphere today is due to human activity, that they're wrong.

Please do tell me where to find this person. Somewhere on the yellow brick road perhaps?

In the mean time perhaps you'd like address Cuddles' point that the majority of the INCREASE of 100 ppm, from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm to the current levels 380 ppm are largely due to human activity.

Is it not an indisputable fact that the majority of this 100 ppm increase is due to human activity?

I do hope that this was a simple case of failed comprehension rather than a deliberate attempt to fool us with yet another Straw Man argument. I'd much rather attribute to you the minimal amount of foolishness required to make such a mistake than the disgusting character traits required to conciously construct such a lie and the enormous stupidity required to assume you'd get away with it after being caught out repeating so many other lies.

 

[Ocelot]

I'll repeat again, though that I think you do not understand the implications of a phrase such as "feedback" on a system of this type. Your use of simplified 8th grade physics to "explain" the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is incorrect scientifically. Which is rather easy to demonstrate, isn't it?

So you're bandying about insults suggesting that Cuddles is wrong because he doens't understand "8th grade physics." You're funny. You could make a detailed exposition of the science. Attempt to educate people to your point of view. Instead you insult us.

This gets even funnier for those of us who know what Cuddles does for day job. It's like telling us that Michael Douglass is a virgin because he's shy retiring and repulsive to the opposite sex.

 

[David Rodale]

The next CO2 dogma to fall will be this notion of "well mixed CO2 gases" throughout the atmosphere based on Mauna Loa etc.

Damn those satellite measurements, right Capeldodger?


Cuddles, how does increasing CO2 levels cause oceans to gain heat?

Ocelot, your assertions on what is most responsible for increased warming the last 50 years is based on incorrect assumptions on earth's climate sensitivity. This is verified by NASA satellite data. Please read the latest peer reviewed research.

Further, it is shown in numerous peer reviewed papers that near surface station temperature data is warm biased and unreliable. This is always conveniently ignored by Warmology doctrine.

It is the oceans (where water vapor comes from) that determine earth's climate, and it is the sun that warms the oceans. Remove the water from earth's surface and see how well "greenhouse gases" mediate earth's temperature.

Since it is known ~90% of "global warming" is due to ocean heat content, reduce the oceans ability to store more heat, the earth cools. IPCC conclusions on 'radiative imbalance' (Hansen et al) does not match reality and is falsified. OHC is not increasing and earth is not continuing to warm, please explain how that can be the case.

 

[Ocelot]

Ocelot, your assertions on what is most responsible for increased warming the last 50 years is based on incorrect assumptions on earth's climate sensitivity. This is verified by NASA satellite data. Please read the latest peer reviewed research.

Actually I haven't made any such assertions. I've merely corrected Mhaze on what the AGW argument is, so he can argue against that, rather than his ridiculous straw man. I'm more than happy to consider new evidence. The evidence I've seen favours AGW and the contrary opinions appear to be tainted by the sort of missrepresentations that mhaze is using.

I'm not a climate scientist, just a humble science graduate and IT manager. As such I can only make a limited asemssment of the science. I am however very familiar with denialist rhetoric and when I see such deceit over-represented on one side of an argument it tends to sway me. I'm concious of the bias and so won't allow it to dismiss dissenting opinions due to the association with liars, cheats and other such scum.

It's important that science is scrutinized, that it is tested against opposing opinions. It's a shame that this process is sullied by people who misrepresent science in order to deny unpallettable conclusions. It makes the serious challenges harder to find that a needle in a haystack. Infact more like a needle in a dung heap. Just as hard to find but the stuff you have to pough through is that much more nausiating.

So please direct me to this latest peer reviewed research and I'll give it a fair hearing.

 

[lomiller]

Ocelot, your assertions on what is most responsible for increased warming the last 50 years is based on incorrect assumptions on earth's climate sensitivity. This is verified by NASA satellite data. Please read the latest peer reviewed research.

Presumably you are once again referring to the widely ignored paper by Spencer, since it’s apparently the only one you have ever read. There are other papers out there on the subject.

Spencer’s speculation has two serious problems that doom it to never being referenced by a serious paper. First it’s un-testable because variation in could cover is such that it’s not currently possible to come up with statistically significant measurements.

Second low climate sensitivity means events like ice ages and even smaller warming/cooling periods like the medieval warm period or little ice age are not possible. Without replacing the theory for how ice ages and other climate changes happen there is no way low climate sensitivity will be accepted, because the forcing involved are far to small to explain these without feedback amplification.

It is the oceans (where water vapor comes from) that determine earth's climate, and it is the sun that warms the oceans. Remove the water from earth's surface and see how well "greenhouse gases" mediate earth's temperature.

Water vapor is reasonable for even more, but water vapor is a function of temperature. Since temperature is in part a function of greenhouse gas levels you have a feedback loop that must be considered.

Further, it is shown in numerous peer reviewed papers that near surface station temperature data is warm biased and unreliable. This is always conveniently ignored by Warmology doctrine.

You are confusing blogs with peer review journals. Possibly for the same reason you thought that a paper published in Science was “just an article printed in a magazine”?

Since it is known ~90% of "global warming" is due to ocean heat content, reduce the oceans ability to store more heat, the earth cools.

The oceans ability to store heat depends on the specific heat of seawater and their mass. Neither is about to change significantly any time in the near future.

Both the oceans and the atmosphere been gaining large amounts of heat over the last 30 years, something condervation of energy says is impossible without a imballance between energy in and energy out. We know energy in hasn't changed...

 

[CapelDodger]

The next CO2 dogma to fall will be this notion of "well mixed CO2 gases" throughout the atmosphere based on Mauna Loa etc.

Damn those satellite measurements, right Capeldodger?

I'm all for the satellite measurements; I wish we had more. (There's a moth-balled satellite that would be most informative; perhaps that's why it was mothballed.) They show that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere.

Cuddles, how does increasing CO2 levels cause oceans to gain heat?

Not wishing to pre-emot Cuddles, I can answer that : the greenhouse effect. A proportion of the infra-red radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases is re-radiated towards the oceans, and is abosrbed by them, thus warming the oceans.

Ocelot, your assertions on what is most responsible for increased warming the last 50 years is based on incorrect assumptions on earth's climate sensitivity. This is verified by NASA satellite data. Please read the latest peer reviewed research.

Would I be right in assuming you mean by that "a paper by Spencer"? Just a guess, but an informed one.

Further, it is shown in numerous peer reviewed papers that near surface station temperature data is warm biased and unreliable. This is always conveniently ignored by Warmology doctrine.

That's why the satellite data is preferrable - nobody can make such a argument against them, bollocks though it is.

It is the oceans (where water vapor comes from) that determine earth's climate, and it is the sun that warms the oceans. Remove the water from earth's surface and see how well "greenhouse gases" mediate earth's temperature.

The oceans are also warmed by re-radiated infra-red from greenhouse gases. Remove the oceans and we're all dead anyway (see Mars), so your point there is less than obvious.

Since it is known ~90% of "global warming" is due to ocean heat content, reduce the oceans ability to store more heat, the earth cools. IPCC conclusions on 'radiative imbalance' (Hansen et al) does not match reality and is falsified. OHC is not increasing and earth is not continuing to warm, please explain how that can be the case.

Gibberish. No surprises there; reading too much Spencer is known to cause atrophy of the brain.

By the way, I'm still waiting on the evidence for Lindzen's Iris that you claimed to have available and offerred to produce on request. I dis so request, remember?

 

[CapelDodger]

Your quote still doesn't prop up your straw man as it doesn't use the word "all" or even imply it beyond the vaguest of measures. But hang on that a peculiar arrangement of quotation marks.

That's the smoking gun, isn't it? And it's lying [sic] there right out in the open.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Mhaze,

Are you aware that the things that you're typing are lies? It occurs to me that you might just be repeating lies that you've heard without being aware that they're lies. I do hope so as now that you've been made aware you'll stop and take a skeptical look at these lies, reveal them for what they are and distance yourself from them.

If on the other hand you're a liar, you'd deny that what you've written are cynically crafted misrepresentations without offering any substantial refutation of the accusations. You'd perhaps throw in a red herring to change the subject or even maximize your spreading of more lies in a pathetic gish gallop. This would be sad as it'd mean that you'd deserve no respect, being an evil force whose intent is to further and exploit ignorance, harming the planet for whatever nasty, selfish ends of your own. Or perhaps you just enjoy lying for it's own sake. If this is the case I can offer you one pieve of advice. You need better lies. These ones are transparrent. If the foundations of your argument are lies then it's very important that you don't get found out. Telling lies where you know you'll get caught is really bad strategy. Stupid for telling lies in the first place and stupid for underestimating the intelligence of the people you expect to be fooled by those lies. Once again you've made yourself look like a stupid liar.

I do hope you're not.

Just for laughs, guess who wrote this:-

We've put more CO2 in the air and the air should warm up a bit because of that. Relatively affluent, say Western, lifestyles, cause 10-20 tons of CO2 per person to be released. Western lifestyles are a form of behavior, so yes, global warming is real and is at least partially driven by human behavior.

 

[lenny]

Cuddles said "significantly more". About a third more, in fact, which is significant. Do try to respond to what people say rather than what you wish they'd say.

i do not understand how this kind of simple misrepresentation can be thought effective on a forum when the original is just sitting there waiting to be checked. can you explain this to me mhaze ? i'd understand if this was just a simple misreading... surely repeated transparent misrepresentation works against valid attempts to clarify the true limits of climate science?

 

[CapelDodger]

i do not understand how this kind of simple misrepresentation can be thought effective on a forum when the original is just sitting there waiting to be checked. can you explain this to me mhaze ? i'd understand if this was just a simple misreading... surely repeated transparent misrepresentation works against valid attempts to clarify the true limits of climate science?

Just as an exercise (and an amusement) consider these two hypotheses :

A. mhaze is a real human being.

B. mhaze is a sophisticated Turing Test Candidate.

Given the evidence (and there's no shortage of it), which seems to you more likely to be correct?

Myself, I'd go for Hypothesis B.

 

[TrueSceptic]

i do not understand how this kind of simple misrepresentation can be thought effective on a forum when the original is just sitting there waiting to be checked. can you explain this to me mhaze ? i'd understand if this was just a simple misreading... surely repeated transparent misrepresentation works against valid attempts to clarify the true limits of climate science?

Hazy Mikey did a similar thing to me a while ago. It was no mistake. I demanded an apology, or at least an admission, and he refused, despite his mendacity being clear to all. Nothing he says can be trusted. He is one of the most despicable pieces of slime I've come across.

 

[Old Bob]

The oceans look green at night and on over cast days because the algae plankton what ever raises, up in the water to take in CO2, more carbon more creatures eating it so it balances out. Carbon is food, be happy. The sun is in a quiet time now, no sun spots and we are cooling. This is a great big con the reason that arctic ice is melting is volcanic, a huge chain of volcano's are and have been erupting under the ice for years now, might be haarp. Chicken little syndrome, and if you can't see this huge con you are gullibull.

 

[Cuddles]

1. Correct.

Good, so you agree that more CO₂ in the atmosphere means less energy leaves the Earth than reaches it from the Sun, at least until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The amount is irrelevant for the moment, just want to make sure you agree on this point.

2. Wrong. The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere today is not due to human activity. The use of phrases such as "Indisputable fact" doesn't make it right.

As others have pointed out to you, lying about my words is not going to work when my posts are clearly visible to everyone else on the forum. Especially when you've just quoted it in your own post.

I'll repeat again, though that I think you do not understand the implications of a phrase such as "feedback" on a system of this type.

"Think" is a bit of a strong word for whatever you're doing, but in any case, the fact that you "think" that does not make it true. Feedbacks are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since even a negative feedback cannot reduce something below the original level. Apparently you agree that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and therefore if there is more in the atmosphere, more heat will be trapped. Exactly where that heat goes and what effects it can have, feedback or otherwise, is not relevant to establishing that CO₂ has increased, and that this increased amount must result in warming.

Once you have explicitly stated whether you agree with these indisputable facts, we can move on to what the likely effects will be. I am not going to take part in any discussion with you that goes off at random tangents and derails all the time. We will either discuss one point at a time and agree on a conclusion or there will be no discussion. Once the fundamentals are established, we can move on to see where your disagreements actually lie. If you cannot agree on the very basics, there is no point even trying to take this any further.

Your use of simplified 8th grade physics to "explain" the mechanism of the greenhouse effect is incorrect scientifically. Which is rather easy to demonstrate, isn't it?

Yes, damn my masters degree in 8th grade physics. If it were easy to demonstrate, I would assume that you would have been able to do so. I would also assume you would let those nice people at the IPCC, among others, know about it, since I'm sure they'd be very interested to know that you've proved the basic physics behind climate science wrong. Since you have already agreed, in this post no less, that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, I can only assume that you are hoping people read and understand your posts as little as you read and understand theirs.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The oceans look green at night and on over cast days because the algae plankton what ever raises, up in the water to take in CO2, more carbon more creatures eating it so it balances out. Carbon is food, be happy. The sun is in a quiet time now, no sun spots and we are cooling. This is a great big con the reason that arctic ice is melting is volcanic, a huge chain of volcano's are and have been erupting under the ice for years now, might be haarp. Chicken little syndrome, and if you can't see this huge con you are gullibull.

"Gullibull".

Spoof alert!