Agreed.
Actually we don’t know that CO2 has gone up dastrically (historically) but we do know that it remains a trace gas in relation to the total make up of the atmosphere. CO2 is 393 parts per MILLION, no one has ever designed an experiement that shows any kind of “warming” do to reduced outgoing radiation at those levels.
I don’t think he mentioned electric cars…
Together, homes and buildings consume only 40 percent of the energy used in the United States today (homes 22%, buildings 18%). By themselves, air conditioning, space heating, and water heating account for 35% of energy consumption; the average home spends only 6% of its energy bills for lighting. Schools, stores, and businesses use about 38% of their electricity for lighting.
Yes, yes we do know that CO2 has gone up drastically. We know this not only from CO2 level measurements in the last century so that we can see it has risen drastically just in the last hundred years, but we also know this from core samples, ice cores with trapped air bubbles, along with CO2 and methane trapped in fossilized organisms. We can pretty much tangibly see that CO2 levels have risen drastically. Whoever in the world told you that we can’t and that we haven’t done experiments to test this was just plain lying to you.
Too simplistic IMO. It traps only a small portion of solar rays.
All of the minimal absorption bands of methane are completely overlapped by water vapor. Methane has almost no effect on the Earth’s radiative energy balance.
Irrelevant. It traps more than the rest of the air does, therefore there is more heat. It’s really that simple. And NH4 (methane) traps some five times as much as CO2, and its presence in the atmosphere is increasing too. And since more is being trapped now then before, there is more heat. It really is that simple.
I have already explained it in my first post. There are literally dozens of factors, including even the wobble of the rotational axis of the earth that cause fluctuations.
Not a chemist, are you? First let me say that I was in error. Methane is not 5 times more potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. It is 25 times more potent. Second, Methane, unlike water vapor, reacts with and thus destroys the ozone layer that holds back a lot of solar radiation. Water vapor, while perhaps a more effective greenhouse “gas”, doesn’t destroy ozone. Furthermore, water vapor is also a real worry because as CO2 warms up the climate, ice melts, and we get even more water vapor (and methane because there is ridiculous amounts of it trapped in arctic ice) which helps create a sort of feedback loop that will just trap more heat, cause more melting, etc, etc. This is part of the reason ice ages last so long - it takes so much water vapor out of the air that there is less to trap heat, so it stays cold.
How do you think the sun warms the earth? Do you even know what the green house theory is?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand why you feel the need to ask these questions. Obviously, from my posts, I do know.
When people point to the drought the last two years as a sign of global warming they are actually disproving your theory?
Your posts indicate otherwise.
A silly graph. At some 10 thousand years apart, there are dozens of factors that could be effecting the difference in temperature. The x-axis isn’t even labeled properly, so we have no way of knowing from where in the Vostok ice core, which covers a bit less than half a million years, they took this data, so it can’t even be properly scrutinized or confirmed. What is rather noticeable, though, is the obvious correlation between CO2 level and temperature - they rise and fall together.
No. For the third time now, there are dozens of factors that effect temperature. While greenhouse gases may be rising, the temperature can still temporarily drop in places due to other factors. The long term trend is still rising temperature.
Well that wasn’t rude at all.
How about instead of attacking me personally, you try explaining what you mean nicely?Read your question and you’ll understand why I feel the need to ask what you know and don;t know.Well that wasn’t rude at all.
Except the trend isn’t higher temperatures - remember?
I’ve read the question. CO2 is not radioactive. So my question remains important, and you still have not answered it. Maybe instead of rudely assuming that I’m a moron and blatantly insinuating so in your posts, you could assume I misunderstood what you meant or that perhaps I am using a technical definition while you use a colloquial one, and then you can just explain what you mean instead of actually being mean? Just a suggestion.
Yes, in the last few years, it hasn’t been. But as I have pointed out numerous times now, there are dozens of factors that produce fluctuations. The overall trend, over many, many years, however, IS higher temperatures.
And that contradicts your claims. With more CO2, and more water vapor the temperature increases should be even more drastic - especially with increased solar activity. Yet we see the opposite…
Have you even been reading half of my posts? For the UMPTEENTH TIME, (And read this carefully, because there is no reason on God’s temporarily green earth why I should have to repeat myself this much) there are dozens of factors that effect temperature of the earth. Even though greenhouse gases may be on the rise, temperature can still drop TEMPORARILY, due to other factors such as solar flares, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, wobble of the earth’s axis, closeness of the earth to the sun, supernovas, etc, etc. The overall trend, though, is still rising, despite fluctuations due to these other causes.
