Epic Correction of the Decade

[Tero]

I can do the standard denialist claim: "There are multiple factors that van raise temperature. CO2 is just one of them. We can't be sure what, if any, part of the warming is due to that. Because the models are all rigged to get more funding."

[mistermack]

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

LOL

Does that show that temperatures are sensitive to CO2 levels, or that CO2 levels are sensitive to temperature?

You tell me. Any fool can post a graph. Tell me what it shows.

I was replying to your bald assertion that

The truth is that the Earth is NOT so sensitive to CO2 levels as claimed.

How about you tell me how you worked that one out, and we'll take it from there?

I gave my reasoning perfectly clearly. Read the thread, and then answer the question.

I won't hold my breath.

It might cause an ice-age.

[mistermack]

Your appeal to common sense is misplaced here.

You got that right !!

[Hermit]

I gave my reasoning perfectly clearly.

Your reasoning is faulty. Look at your reasoning, for example that since CO2 only makes up 0.041% of the atmosphere it is questionable that it has much of an effect on temperature. It's entirely lacking supporting facts. Supply them.

I won't hold my breath.

[Tero]

This is actually the point about green house gases missed by nearly all of the general public, no matter which side they support. The fact that 90% of the gases in the atmosphere cannot be warmed directly, but are warmed through the mechanism of the CO2 absorbing light, then passing on this to the 90% simply by contact.

[Hermit]

The fact that 90% of the gases in the atmosphere cannot be warmed directly, but are warmed through the mechanism of the CO2 absorbing light, then passing on this to the 90% simply by contact.

The fact that dry air consists of 78.09% nitrogen and 20.95% oxygen, the percentage of the atmosphere that cannot be warmed directly is closer to 99%.

[Brian Peacock]

I know you said 'dry air' there Hermy, but we shouldn't forget atmospheric water, either as vapour, liquid, or as ice - in fact, the atmosphere is rather wet, particular over Wales! Water is an efficient IR absorber, as are all molecules with three or more atoms, such as the so-called atmospheric trace gases CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), and O3 (ozone) etc.

[Tero]

I was allowing water to be variable, so locally it will be over 1%. Not at all altitudes. The thickness of the atmosphere is something the public knows. They fly in air planes.

But now we got into detail and the public already switched channels.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, what denier wants to learn about science when a pithy aphorism and a spot of OUTRAGE will serve them just as well.

[pErvinalia]

Don't forget personal anecdote too. MM hasn't seen the sea level rising at his local beach, therefore it isn't rising.

[Hermit]

I know you said 'dry air' there Hermy, but we shouldn't forget atmospheric water, either as vapour, liquid, or as ice - in fact, the atmosphere is rather wet, particular over Wales! Water is an efficient IR absorber, as are all molecules with three or more atoms, such as the so-called atmospheric trace gases CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), and O3 (ozone) etc.

Yeah. OK. On average water vapour makes up 1% of the atmosphere at sea level and 0.4% in its entirety. So, 98.5% of the atmosphere consists of Nitrogen and Oxygen.

[JimC]

The other vital fact is that short-wavelength IR radiation from the Sun is not absorbed by any gases in the atmosphere on its way through to the ground, although some is obviously reflected back into space via clouds.

A relatively dry atmosphere, with much less CO2 and methane than present would produce a very cold Earth indeed - a Greenhouse Effect is actually a good thing, with enough long-wavelength radiation trapped on its way out to keep us cosy. What's not good is an enhanced Greenhouse Effect, produced by a sudden and dramatic increase in greenhouse gases, at a rate much faster than previous, natural CO2 cycles.

[mistermack]

I gave my reasoning perfectly clearly.

Your reasoning is faulty. Look at your reasoning, for example that since CO2 only makes up 0.041% of the atmosphere it is questionable that it has much of an effect on temperature. It's entirely lacking supporting facts. Supply them.

I won't hold my breath.

My contempt for your honesty as a debater just got raised another notch.
You try to score points by ignoring my own reasoning, which was about the circular chain reaction that ought to happen when CO2 rises, but doesn't. Instead, you quote any other thing as a desperate distraction.

Nobody on this thread has given an honest answer to that, and I take that as a victory for common sense, against committed indoctrinated alarmists who won't hear a word said against their obsessive closed minded belief in what they've been spoon fed.

It's so like religion, you people can't even see it.

I personally am still wide open to AGW being real and a problem. I just reject the rabid clamour that you are a sinner to disagree, which you lot should be ashamed of.
What I see is weak evidence, big flaws in the facts, and people who get upset and won't even look when the evidence points the other way.
Basically, the same as religion.

But if some real evidence comes out to support it, I'll be happy to follow it.

[JimC]

Your diagram is utterly irrelevant - none of this involves "exothermic reactions", which involve the breaking of chemical bonds. In terms of atmospheric and dissolved CO2, we have a complex relationship - initially, excess atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. This produces a time lag, but eventually (for reasons not associated with "exothermic reactions"), global warming will first reduce, and then reverse the rate of absorption - then the real problems will begin...

I didn't say it did involve exothermic chemical reactions. Nice attempt at diverting attention.

Well, why post an utterly irrelevant diagram showing exothermic chemical reactions?

What we can take from that is a useful pointer to your lack of basic scientific knowledge.

[mistermack]

Your diagram is utterly irrelevant - none of this involves "exothermic reactions", which involve the breaking of chemical bonds. In terms of atmospheric and dissolved CO2, we have a complex relationship - initially, excess atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans. This produces a time lag, but eventually (for reasons not associated with "exothermic reactions"), global warming will first reduce, and then reverse the rate of absorption - then the real problems will begin...

I didn't say it did involve exothermic chemical reactions. Nice attempt at diverting attention.

Well, why post an utterly irrelevant diagram showing exothermic chemical reactions?

What we can take from that is a useful pointer to your lack of basic scientific knowledge.

I'm sure you knew that I was pointing to chain reactions of a circular nature in general, not specific chemical exothermic reactions.
Since nobody was even mentioning chemical exothermic reactions.

I like how everybody likes to dwell on anything, rather than the actual point. Which is that runaway warming should occur, if the planet is so sensitive to CO2 levels.

Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied from as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. Global annual mean CO2 concentration has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for 10,000 years up to the mid-18th century,[2] to 403 ppm as of 2016.[3]

Yes, it was warm in the Cambrian. But we are still here. There was no runaway heating. It was 7 deg hotter.
That's ok. What you spend on cooling, you save on heating.
The Sahara might grow, but Russia and Canada and Alaska might be quite balmy.