And I am beginning to think that you are Al Gore. He also refuses to present his actual arguments. In all of your wasted words you have not once provided any reason based on factual evidence as to why you believe that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have a meaningful impact on global temperatures.
I have conceded that as levels of CO2 have risen over the past 100 years from approximately 300 parts per million 00.03% to 400 parts per million 00.04% that it had a measurable impact on the ability of the world's plant life to thrive. This is actually quite amazing considering that at these levels CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. There is 19,500 times more nitrogen in the atmosphere, 5250 times more oxygen, and more than 20 times more argon in the atmosphere. And that is not mentioning water vapor, which is the gas that is responsible for the vast majority of the “greenhouse effect” of the worlds atmosphere.
I am going to give you a few hints so that possibly you can come up with a few meaningful arguments. This is in the hope that this conversation can move to a higher level. Maybe one day you will be able to get past name calling, appeals to authority, and insisting that consensus has any meaningful relationship to good science.
You seem to have no idea that the “theory” that you advocate is based on “positive feedbacks”. The thinking is that if the amount of CO2 increases that the temperature of the planet will increase a small amount and that this will result in an increased amount of water vapor being absorbed into the atmosphere which will result in a larger temperature increase. It sounds reasonable on its face except that the theory does not take into account the negative feedbacks that have been proven to be present in the atmospheric system.
As an example: as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, the planet has become measurably greener because of increased plant life. This increased plant life has a negative impact on temperatures. This is readily apparent if one compares the temperatures of forested areas to developed areas such as cities.
The biggest fail of the “global warming” theory is not that worldwide temperatures have not increased by the amount predicted by computer models over the time that satellite data has been available. The biggest fail is that rising CO2 levels have had no measurable correlation to the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere. When relative humidity measurements begin rising in lock step with rising CO2 levels then maybe I will be willing to take a closer look. That is THE CENTRAL PREMISE of the “theory” that you advocate. And it has NOT been happening.
The only way that a gas that makes up only 400 MILLIONTHS of the atmosphere could have any effect on worldwide temperatures is if it caused an increase in the primary “greenhouse gas” which is water vapor. This has not been happening and in fact the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere has actually been DECREASING. This is the opposite of what had been predicted.
I am a weather nut and have been for many years. This is because in my early twenties I purchased a hang glider. Hang gliding is a sport which relies very heavily on the weather. So I got into the study of the atmosphere as the result of a genuine interest and not just a check box for a major at college.
I also fly both ulralight and general aviation aircraft, also activities which are very weather dependent. And like you I have many years of training in other science related fields most of which have little relationship to the climate. But the training in my case resulted in an acute awareness of scientific method. To me it is very upsetting that many practitioners of “climate science” have largely decided to ignore traditional scientific method. I blame the influence and corruption of politics and big money.
As a side note, Rick Santorum has never been a candidate who was of interest to me. I am glad to hear that he apparently recognizes that the “global warming” agenda is a huge fraud. But this is not a big secret. UN officials from the IPPC have gone on record for years now unapologetically admitting that the true goal of their agenda has always been to redistribute the worlds wealth and has little to do with global temperatures. I guess that they forgot to send you the memo.
Excuse me for the Typo should be: UN officials from the IPCC.
Scientific and legal consensus has been reached. Political consensus always takes longer to achieve.
In the meantime it is a rearguard action to delay the inevitable. You need to try to differentiate between rhetoric and reality.
Its really just a sequence of identifiable events that began in 2001 when George Bush asked the Academy of Sciences for a report.
I don't have a lot of time available to hold your hand and lead you thru it, and I certainly didn't take you to raise.