25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists

submitted by sawboss from (youtube.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

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?

[–]anescient 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

001 and I were having a conversation if you don't mind.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I think you misunderstood my response. But that's fine.

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.

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 - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think your response was passive aggressive. But that's fine.

Is it? where is the evidence?

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 - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting with this statement, but you have failed to answer the a fault basic question.

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 - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Of course not.

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.

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 - 1 fun -  (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/