Replies

This article is more than deceptive it is looney, with comments like :

“The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.”

Or

“particles In the (atmosphere) have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”

Note they admit the data doesn’t show warming, even though they are arguing the data should show warming, and accuse the film maker as being deceptive, simply for pointing out the truth!

“We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past.”

But in the the same paragraph it is stated

“the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years”

Again they make the accusation that the film claim is deceptive, then they actually agree with the claim, there are 800 year lags between global temperature rise and CO2, which proves that in some cases temp rise could causes Co2 and not the other way around.

“Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun.”

But they also say that the films hypnotists that global warming can be caused by the sun is deceptive

“The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility”

So which is it , does the sun play a role in warming or not? Apparently they are very confused!

But here is the doozy:

” a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance.”

So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about? Laugh, You can’t make this stuff up, too funny, the mass of Co2 gasses which would have to also include those that are added by humans, are irrelevant now, only because it suits the relative goal to repudiate the movie, even thought it refutes their own claims at the same time?

So If the relative masses of CO2 are irrelevant, assuming we can also talk about the additional gasses caused by humans, then what is all the fuss about?

He means the mass of CO2 relative to major constituents like O2 and N2. In the whole atmosphere, there's also very little ozone, but despite the number of molecules in the stratosphere, and in particular the low number of ozone molecules, the UV radiation absorbing properties of ozone are very important up there.