Posted on 11/30/2015 1:38:57 PM PST by Talisker
Read the base citations and you’ll find “assumed”, “estimates”, “60% margin of error”.
In other words, there is enough, more than enough, wiggle room to make any conclusion you’d like.
Man no doubt emits CO2, but to make any claim that it has a climate impact or that it contributes to any demise is without evidence.
Acid rain was a provable cause of man, but claiming CO2 as an Earth killer and man made is the same as the bogus claim that CFC (Freon)was causing the Ozone Hole. We banned CFC use to a massive expense to humanity, with all the certainty by the Luddite liberals and their “scientists” that man and his CFCs causes the Ozone Hole. Yet, that hole is still there 30 years after the ban.
Man didn’t create the hole, and man cannot fix it.
from Wikipedia:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04% (400 parts per million) of the atmosphere.
Note: FOUR HUNDRED PARTS PER MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!
According to Obama and Prince Charles, that is enough to turn the earth into Mars.
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
Well now that manson has spoken, it’s settled, man is to blame- end of story-
Methane definitely is a more powerful greenhouse gas. Water vapor is not. It plays a much larger role than the others solely by virtue of its abundance. As the piece I posted above states, water vapor accounts for something like 95% of the greenhouse effect on Earth.
Yes it is. But he's cynically preaching to the new environmental secular religion that began with Earth Day in the 1960s. The ultimate goal has nothing to do with climate or science. It's all about a U.N.-led push to turn America into a European-style socialist welfare state under the unelected "rule" of bureaucrats in Brussels.
bookmark
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Fair enough. Water vapor on a molecule by molecule basis is not as powerful. Overall it is in aggregate the majority component of the greenhouse effect.
Pull my finger.
Libtards don't care about evidence. It's all about the narrative and their obsession with using climate change to destroy capitalism
It's my understanding that that is the conclusion of this article. In any event, that was the reason I posted this. In short, we agree.
ping
I agree
The proper answer is: who cares? Adapt. Half of the ancient city of Alexandria is underwater. Humanity didn’t go extinct. People just don’t live in that part of town.
We know better. You ripped both times and blamed it on the dog.
He can’t speak for himself so, yeah...
ANTI-AGW reference bump!
The effect of CO2 on heat retention in the atmosphere begins to level off around 220 ppm, IIRC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.