Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

"Pollutants are the contaminants that get introduced into the natural environment, beyond permitted limits, and cause deleterious effects to the inhabitants in a visible way.".

Sure seems like a 40% increase of CO2 checks all the boxes of the definition of a pollutant.

the greening of the planet would disagree with your sentiments .

[GordMay]

What would it take to change your mind?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

A controlled lab experiment that demonstrates indisputably the relationship of CO2 content and heating at atmospheric compositions.
I can hear the bemoaning already from certain quarters.
But, if your science guys in which you bestow such faith can tell us in great detail the dates when trees are going to start growing in Antarctica I'm sure they can come up with what is, in essence, a pretty simple lab experiment.

Unfortunately, our planet is, and has been, undergoing exactly that experiment; and the results (we are seeing that increasing levels of greenhouse gases correlate with rising temperatures) are validating the well established ("greenhouse effect") theory that increasing levels of greenhouse gases cause rising temperatures.

In January 1859, John Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.
“On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.” ~ by John Tyndall
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rstl.1861.0001

Here’s a list of papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties.
➥ https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...on-properties/

If you're really keen to see experimental confirmation that CO2 can still absorb radiation even at atmospheric concentrations, you could take a look at (for example) Taylor and Yates (1957), Yates and Taylor (1960), or Streete (1968), all of which clearly demonstrate that CO2 absorption bands are present in normal atmospheric air.

“Atmospheric Transmission in the Infrared” ~ by J. H. Taylor and H. W. Yates
➥ https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/a...=josa-47-3-223

“Infrared Measurements of Atmospheric Transmission at Sea Level” ~ by John L. Streete
➥https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abs...ri=ao-7-8-1545

[Exile]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

So remember to ask - "What data would it take to change your mind?" This is something climate deniers, Moon landing hoaxers, vaccination idealogues and creationists can't answer. So they do not practise science. They are arguing a type of religion.

No disrespect to your teaching aptitude, but if you equate valid scientific skepticism (from credentialed scientists) with "climate denial," then you're unaware or willfully blind to what constitutes the field of climate science. Either that or naively biased. Until it was co-opted by the climate change "movement," "denialism" was most often associated with hardcore anti-semites and the mullahs in Iran who denied that the Holocaust occurred. So like your equally false comparisons between legitimate skeptics and those who deny the moon landing, etc., etc., such comments only serve to try and deligetimize skeptics rather than respond on the scientific merits.

[GordMay]

Perhaps we should, now, debate what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

Here we go again,

I'll make it easy and just Ban Myself....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Explained by the difference in the datasets being used?

Dr Spencer explains the differences

July 2019 Was Not the Warmest on Record « Roy Spencer, PhD

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Exile

Until it was co-opted by the climate change "movement," "denialism" was most often associated with hardcore anti-semites and the mullahs in Iran who denied that the Holocaust occurred. .

Which is their point exactly....
Make asking questions as to why the Climate Panic models don't work akin to being a Racist, or a Denier and Boom....you silence the people who risk career destruction for speaking out.

Ok...Ban back in place....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Marc1

One of the reasons that CO2 and it's alleged "deleterious" effects are rebaptised "CARBON"
In my conversations with members of the public, in another life when i was conducting personal development courses and folks showed signs of deep depression due to "environmental concerns", I remember people convinced that any more rise in CO2 levels would make the air irrespirable. Only data from submarines would put their mind at easy, only to bring up that CO2 was "dirty" because as you know coal is black and stains your hands so it must be dirty for sure! etc etc.

it is funny how the previous post talks about education and how whoever disagrees with the poster must be uneducated. yet the global warming fraud has done exactly that.
Spreading false information to misdirect and misguide and mislead the public into believing wat is false, using a known and very effective strategy that exploits one very powerful cognitive bias, the bandwagon effect.

Look it up, it is like most cognitive bias, a powerful tool. He is cool and believes it, so it must be true. If I believe it I may become cool like him ...

Or words to that effect.


Not that I am cool ... far from it if you ask my daughters.
The lady next door however ...

If your daughters are anywhere near their teenage years (for girls I think that starts at age 9 if not sooner ), then not only are you not cool, but you're really quite toxic and it's best they not even be seen with you. As for the lady next door . . . .

I think this "education" both children & adults are getting these days explains why the reactions to valid skepticism are more in the nature of incredulity & anger, as opposed to actual knowledge that could be used to try and respond to it rationally and effectively. Because of the often misleading manner in which the issue has been communicated, I honestly believe far too many people accept it unquestioningly. Not because they're uneducated, ignorant or generally oblivious about the issues of the day, but because all they've heard from mainstream media, politicians, and yes, even their teachers is that "the science is "settled, the debate is over." Or perhaps how "viable" renewable energy is "right now," and so it's only fossil fuel interests and their conservative allies who are preventing us from saving the world. This, and a host of other shaming techniques, have been and continue to be used to effectively "end the debate." Meanwhile, all of the valid concerns raised about the consequences of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels are ignored or shunned. I agree with you that this seems to be the way mostly the new Left prefers to resolve complex issues, but I also thinks it reflects an inability of many, many more moderate & rational people to engage in critical thinking. This latter part suggests a real failure of the educational system, possibly exacerbated by an over-reliance by younger generations on the superficial, unrealistic world of cyberspace.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I'll make it easy and just Ban Myself....

Make it easy on the mods.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Which is their point exactly....
Make asking questions as to why the Climate Panic models don't work akin to being a Racist, or a Denier and Boom....you silence the people who risk career destruction for speaking out.

Ok...Ban back in place....

How are the tacos today?

Frankly Third Day, I'm no longer convinced many otherwise educated people who routinely cart out the "denier" slur are even aware of its connotations with the Holocaust (or Spanish Inquisition). What's even stranger, as you well know, is that these sorts of slurs are most enthusiastically raised by so-called "liberals" and "progressives," you know the same ones who profess such altruistic & high-minded "values." Apparently only until you disagree with them that is, then all bets are off.

[GordMay]

Perhaps, in the interests of a balanced & equal opportunity to defend a viewpoint, Reefmagnet (or anyone) would offer an example of a controlled lab experiment that refutes indisputably the relationship of CO2 content and heating at atmospheric compositions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Unfortunately, our planet is, and has been, undergoing exactly that experiment; and the results (we are seeing that increasing levels of greenhouse gases correlate with rising temperatures) are validating the well established ("greenhouse effect") theory that increasing levels of greenhouse gases cause rising temperatures.

In January 1859, John Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.
Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.
“On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction.” ~ by John Tyndall
➥ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rstl.1861.0001

Here’s a list of papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties.
➥ https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...on-properties/

If you're really keen to see experimental confirmation that CO2 can still absorb radiation even at atmospheric concentrations, you could take a look at (for example) Taylor and Yates (1957), Yates and Taylor (1960), or Streete (1968), all of which clearly demonstrate that CO2 absorption bands are present in normal atmospheric air.

“Atmospheric Transmission in the Infrared” ~ by J. H. Taylor and H. W. Yates
➥ https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/a...=josa-47-3-223

“Infrared Measurements of Atmospheric Transmission at Sea Level” ~ by John L. Streete
➥https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abs...ri=ao-7-8-1545

You're trying to persuade people of what is a long accepted scientific truth. This is why most if not all skeptics within the science accept that human-added CO2 is likely contributing to at least a portion of the warming. The controversy is not over "whether" but "how much." The earth's atmosphere is not a closed greenhouse. We've been over this many, MANY times before. I'm pretty sure Spencer et al., along with his fellow subversives in other fields, accept these well-settled scientific concepts. Yet they remain skeptical.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Perhaps, in the interests of a balanced & equal opportunity to defend a viewpoint, Reefmagnet (or anyone) would offer an example of a controlled lab experiment that refutes indisputably the relationship of CO2 content and heating at atmospheric compositions.

That's a dodge and you know it


The object is quantification. Not proof of concept.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

"Pollutants are the contaminants that get introduced into the natural environment, beyond permitted limits, and cause deleterious effects to the inhabitants in a visible way.".

Sure seems like a 40% increase of CO2 checks all the boxes of the definition of a pollutant.

Nonsense you carbon based biped.

If it was not for CO2 you would not be around. By burning coal and hydrocarbons we are just doing a bit of recycling and since nature, in reducing atmospheric CO2 from about 7,000 ppm to the 300 or so ppm it is today created an incredible biosphere I think we are only being a bit responsible to give it an second chance at it.

Pollutant my but, if anything it's natures enhancer.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Mate, you are most certainly a nice guy or you wouldn't be a teacher ... the problem with your post is that it exposes a big level of gullibility and belief in the status quo, and an obvious disregard for alternative views and what many label conspiracies.

I suggest to stick to the scientific method and use a valuable tool that is being misrepresented and discredited, namely skepticism. Don't be so quick in considering those who don't agree with you as uneducated. I for starters am probably (please correct me if I'm wrong) the only person here who has ever studied formally climatology in a university degree.

Yet despite this formal studies, or rather thanks to them, i consider the present global warming scare campaign a fraud of gargantuan proportions, mounted for political and economic reasons that are far removed from the environment cause as a butcher can be from being Vegan.

Given that you studied climate science at a university, I assume you also took physics and chemistry. Below is a link to an article which is well written and short, nothing more complicated than what is covered in one year intro to physics and chemistry. Please read it and explain where the author has the science wrong, please be specific.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf