25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists
submitted 5 years ago by sawboss from (youtube.com)
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (10 children)
It's not that I mind. This is a public forum.
I apologise if I overlooked some indication that you were having a private conversation.
In the future, please use the personal message system if you are engaging in private discourse.
Please explain what I overlooked, so I can respect your privacy in the future.
Moving on: Now that you and I are conversing:
anescient, do you believe that the environment is so fragile that adding a total of 0.01% CO2 (over the course of 120 years) would throw the environmental system into chaos?
Can you provide any similar examples in the real world? Thanks. :-D
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (9 children)
Me-ow. I shot you some sass because I was talking about saidit, not this particular post, and you came out swinging with a non-sequitur loaded question.
As for this thread, now...
CO2 accounts for about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and it's a top contributor to the greenhouse effect, so 0.01% is actually pretty major.
I don't know if I'd call it "fragile", but kinda, yea. I know about chaos; I've used it as a tool many times. Complex systems are a bitch, see: stock markets.
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (8 children)
I think you misunderstood my response. But that's fine.
Is it? where is the evidence?
If the "top contributor to the green house gas effect" CO2 increased by 33% (0.01%/0.03%), then why haven't we seen comparable increases in temperature?
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (7 children)
I think your response was passive aggressive. But that's fine.
Is what? Is the composition?
You can certainly get there via separating the air, something we've got going on at an industrial scale. You can get there with absorption spectroscopy, too.
... or, is a top contributor? (a top contributor not the top contributor)
Spectroscopy, again, and some math: we know how this molecule reacts to different frequencies of light, and we know how much of it is up there. To corroborate, satellites observing the planet find a conspicuous drop in radiation right at CO2's favorite color. The planet seems to be hoarding infrared.
why haven't we seen comparable increases in temperature?
We... have. I'm not even going to bother with the CO2/Temperature history plot because there's no chance you haven't seen it, and there's no chance you trust it.
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (6 children)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting with this statement, but you have failed to answer the a fault basic question.
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (5 children)
Surely you don't mean, "why haven't we seen a 33% increase in temperature"?
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (4 children)
Of course not.
This is your claim, not mine. If CO2 is a top contributor, as you claim, then why haven't temperatures increased by some significant margin, or relavent ratio?
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (3 children)
I'm sorry, I was sure you'd be familiar with this data. The correlation of CO2 and temperature goes way, way back:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
... and more specifically on anthropogenic:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/category/climate-human-impact/
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (2 children)
You may recall that man made climate change was once called man made global warming.
They changed the name to climate change, because the warming trend was bogus, and indefensible.
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 5 years ago (1 child)
In other words.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~2 users here now
Videos with blood or gore should be marked as NSFW
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (10 children)
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (9 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (8 children)
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (7 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (6 children)
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (5 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]anescient 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)