re: Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?

not everything thrives in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels. Some fish require colder temperatures to spawn. There will be winners and losers we want some humans to be losers and not reproduce. we want the smart humans to reproduce otherwise we end up with more pollution, overpopulation and 200 foot trashpiles everywhere like in India. We need to breed some kind of animal like a cow that can eat plastic waste then we can eat them. Basically a catfish on land

quote:

---

We know that our Earth is kept warm by greenhouse gases

---

And, in fact, our Earth couldn't support life without greenhouse gases.

quote:

---

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

---

ESPECIALLY CO2. The entertaining thing for me has been this decades long, laser-like focus on CO2 - as though it is the only greenhouse gas and the only variable input in a - clearly, unquestionably "natural" - cycle of warming/cooling that the Earth has undergone countless times since the creation.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas REQUIRED for life as we know it to exist on this planet. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.

So, why the focus? Because since the industrial revolution began, CO2 serves as a proxy for energy production (and therefore a gross measurement of wealth).

The entire, transparent indoctrination and propaganda campaign has been towards a single end - a global form of Marxism in the form of carbon tax, cap and trade, etc., with the added irony that those pushing the agenda are also heavily invested in these schemes (from a financial standpoint) and ancillary industries (such as renewable energy).

So, I remain skeptical about the entire affair. There is significant fudging in the data, the models and the "selling" of the conclusions. That's not science. It's a secular form of religion, bordering on becoming some sort of global cult.

185 years or so of temperature record isn't even a blink of an eye, geologically speaking. And the fix? Going back to stone age living conditions to avoid a few tenths of a degree of warming?

GTFO here.

quote:

---

Insofar as it contributes to atmospheric pressure, GP makes a reasoned argument it contributes substantially.

---

Just think of it in terms of molecular weight. Get your periodic table out and do some addition.

Nitrogen which is in the from of molecular nitrogen is N2 and each atom shares three electrons to stay together. Nitrogen's atomic weight is approximately 14. So N2's molecular weight is 28. Nitrogen makes up about 79% of our atmosphere.

The next molecule is oxygen. It is also a diatomic molecule, O2 with a molecular weight of 32. Oxygen makes up about 20% of the atmosphere.

Then there is Argon and it's molecular weight is approximately 40. It makes up about 0.9% of the atmosphere.

Next is CO2. CO2 molecular weight is 44 and makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Finally you have the rest of the trace gases that fill out to 100%.

What I left out is water vapor. When water vapor is included and measured as "humidity" the percentages above change. But water vapor is very important. The water molecule has a molecular weight of approximately 18.

So lets list the atmospheric gases from lightest to heaviest (ignoring trace gases):

H20 at 18
N2 at 28
O2 at 32
Argon 40
CO2 at 44

Why is this important?

Because if there were no convection currents these gases would naturally stratify from the lightest on top to the heaviest on bottom. In fact that is what they want to do naturally.

This is why clouds form. H2O vapor is lighter than everything else so it rises above the heavier molecules, condenses to form clouds, condenses too much and rains.

Meanwhile as CO2 hugs the ground it provides food to lush vegetation at sea level and at higher elevations CO2 starts to diminish to the point were the environment gets too extreme for vegetation to grown...thus we have tree lines. (Note, I know tree lines are set a various elevations based on other local geographic factors).

I don't necessarily know what my point is here other than to say that the more you stack on top the more pressure you have on the bottom. And in terms of gases the higher the pressure the higher the temperature. So of course the more N2 you stack on top the greater the pressure that increases the temperature.

If we remove H20 and trace gases from the equation and assume the gases are evenly mixed the contribution of each gas to temperature using the IGL is as follows:

N2 - 68.8%
O2 - 19.9%
Ar - 11.25%
CO2 - 0.055%

Of course water cannot be ignored in real life. I just left it out here because water vapor concentrations vary widely.

But I do accept the notion from climate scientist that CO2 does the most efficient job of absorbing IR radiation of all atmospheric gases. What I disagree with is the IPCC's linear model between CO2 concentration and temperature. As I demonstrated in previous post the relationship between CO2 and temperature is logarithmic, not linear.

quote:

---

ESPECIALLY CO2. The entertaining thing for me has been this decades long, laser-like focus on CO2 - as though it is the only greenhouse gas and the only variable input in a - clearly, unquestionably "natural" - cycle of warming/cooling that the Earth has undergone countless times since the creation.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas REQUIRED for life as we know it to exist on this planet. If anything, a little too little CO2 would be a much bigger problem than a little too much.

So, why the focus? Because since the industrial revolution began, CO2 serves as a proxy for energy production (and therefore a gross measurement of wealth).

The entire, transparent indoctrination and propaganda campaign has been towards a single end - a global form of Marxism in the form of carbon tax, cap and trade, etc., with the added irony that those pushing the agenda are also heavily invested in these schemes (from a financial standpoint) and ancillary industries (such as renewable energy).

So, I remain skeptical about the entire affair. There is significant fudging in the data, the models and the "selling" of the conclusions. That's not science. It's a secular form of religion, bordering on becoming some sort of global cult.

185 years or so of temperature record isn't even a blink of an eye, geologically speaking. And the fix? Going back to stone age living conditions to avoid a few tenths of a degree of warming?

GTFO here.

---

100% right, IMO.

quote:

---

So, you KNEW that CO2 contributes to warming our planet,

---

The larger point being made is even if CO2 wasn't a forcing agent, it would contribute to warming. Right?

quote:

---

So, you KNEW that CO2 contributes to warming our planet, but you started your thread with a stupid question just to provide an excuse to post your graph?

---

Honestly I didn't.

It led there? Sure.

But I presented a argument that was consistent with BamaATL's link and contrary to IPCC's modeling. And BamaATL is a climate alarmist. That's why I brought it up.

Yep, still here.

More plants are growing is what I mean when I say the Earth is greening. LINK

This is just one link, but there are a lot of 'em out there about the Earth getting greener.

quote:

---

If you really want to get a kick, google climate models and how they are made. Models are 'tuned' to fit historical data trends when the numbers are not matching up.

---

You don't say

I wonder what you call an iterative process like that..

quote:

---

we want the smart humans to reproduce

---

quote:

---

... is this a jab at asians?

---

nah . . .

As an energy market professional, I felt the need to analyze as much data as I could get my hands on about a year or so ago and really devoted a few months to reviewing as much of it as possible. I’m not a scientist, but that’s not required to analyze data. The science takes place in the collection and synthesis of that data in the first place.

You can find some conflicting data out there, but the conclusion I came to is that it appeared reasonably supported in the data that there’s some correlation between CO2 and warming. So that component of the global warming theory I came to agree with.

It’s everything after that where the science completely breaks down and it becomes the Wild West of alarmism, scare tactics and questionable motives. In other words, I came to feel they’ve gotten the diagnosis right enough to be taken seriously, but they’ve totally exaggerated the symptoms, the necessary treatment and the prognosis. By symptoms, I mean the reckless (even intentional) conflating of weather and climate (to be fair, skeptics do this, too). By necessary treatment, I mean the rapid decarbonization despite any negative economic impacts. And by the prognosis, I mean all of the apocalyptic Hollywood blockbuster type scenarios they’ve painted for a few decades now.