how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[PMZ]

What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things can produce it naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period.

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas.

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere.

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather.

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.

I didn't have to go past the bolded second sentence in your post to know that your scientific information is somewhat lacking. But setting that aside, yes we do know that climate change appears to be cyclical both short term (within a 1000 year or so period) and long term in which we get into the mega millions and billions of years.

But the question has not been answered, to my satisfaction however, whether significant CO2 increases CAUSE global warming or whether they FOLLOW global warming. Strong cases are made for both points of view.

But you did hit one truth. It is likely that humankind will eventually use fossil fuels faster than they are created in the earth and will eventually have to utilize other forms of energy. I have absolutely complete faith in humankind to figure out how to harness and use new forms of energy by the time we will seriously need them.

But until that time, they are and will continue to be used. Modern humans, after all, are a natural result of evolutionary processes as much as any other living things on Earth are, and there is no reason to think human activity is not as natural as activity of any other living organisms. But since humans of all living organisms have the greater ability to intentionally adapt to changing conditions, why not encourage us to be the best we can be?

Time and again we are told that we cannot return to an earlier, more innocent time of human existence re our morals and values. Why should we believe it any more feasible to return to a more primitive way of life re our energy use? Most especially when it is those already doing a good job who are expected to make the greatest sacrifices while the biggest 'polluters' are given a pass?

I for one do not wish to hand over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to government entities who have given me no confidence they care about me in any way and their primary motive is to force my obedience and to possess my assets. And I am simply not willing to agree to consigning huge populations of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied ability to exploit their resources as we have already done.

Monitor global warming yes. But we know from the scientific record that plants, animals, and people flourish much more in warmer climates than they do in cold ones. Let's focus on helping people ADAPT to climate change and exploit it rather than perpetuate the often self serving myth that we must change something that in all probability is unchangeable by us.

Let's start with basics. Fossil fuels were created only during the Carboniferous Period. They aren't being created any more. What we have is what we will have, less what we we use.

Every carbon atom in them is from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, used during that Period, by life, mostly plants and algae, to build themselves. When they died, during that period all of that carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere and held underground, to be transformed from dead plants and algae, by heat and pressure, into fossil fuels.

As those fuels are oxidized, the vast majority of those same carbon atoms are turned into CO2 and re released back into the atmosphere, from wence they came, and resume their prior job of transmitting more solar spectrum radiation to earth, than they allow earth radiation spectrum back out into space, thus elevating the temperature of earth to something higher in order to maintain energy balance.

Are you following so far?

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period.

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas.

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere.

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather.

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.

I didn't have to go past the bolded second sentence in your post to know that your scientific information is somewhat lacking. But setting that aside, yes we do know that climate change appears to be cyclical both short term (within a 1000 year or so period) and long term in which we get into the mega millions and billions of years.

But the question has not been answered, to my satisfaction however, whether significant CO2 increases CAUSE global warming or whether they FOLLOW global warming. Strong cases are made for both points of view.

But you did hit one truth. It is likely that humankind will eventually use fossil fuels faster than they are created in the earth and will eventually have to utilize other forms of energy. I have absolutely complete faith in humankind to figure out how to harness and use new forms of energy by the time we will seriously need them.

But until that time, they are and will continue to be used. Modern humans, after all, are a natural result of evolutionary processes as much as any other living things on Earth are, and there is no reason to think human activity is not as natural as activity of any other living organisms. But since humans of all living organisms have the greater ability to intentionally adapt to changing conditions, why not encourage us to be the best we can be?

Time and again we are told that we cannot return to an earlier, more innocent time of human existence re our morals and values. Why should we believe it any more feasible to return to a more primitive way of life re our energy use? Most especially when it is those already doing a good job who are expected to make the greatest sacrifices while the biggest 'polluters' are given a pass?

I for one do not wish to hand over my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to government entities who have given me no confidence they care about me in any way and their primary motive is to force my obedience and to possess my assets. And I am simply not willing to agree to consigning huge populations of people to more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied ability to exploit their resources as we have already done.

Monitor global warming yes. But we know from the scientific record that plants, animals, and people flourish much more in warmer climates than they do in cold ones. Let's focus on helping people ADAPT to climate change and exploit it rather than perpetuate the often self serving myth that we must change something that in all probability is unchangeable by us.

Let's start with basics. Fossil fuels were created only during the Carboniferous Period. They aren't being created any more. What we have is what we will have, less what we we use.

Every carbon atom in them is from carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, used during that Period, by life, mostly plants and algae, to build themselves. When they died, during that period all of that carbon was sequestered from the atmosphere and held underground, to be transformed from dead plants and algae, by heat and pressure, into fossil fuels.

As those fuels are oxidized, the vast majority of those same carbon atoms are turned into CO2 and re released back into the atmosphere, from wence they came, and resume their prior job of transmitting more solar spectrum radiation to earth, than they allow earth radiation spectrum back out into space, thus elevating the temperature of earth to something higher in order to maintain energy balance.

Are you following so far?

I'm really not interested in a detailed geology/chemistry discussion, but thanks anyway.

I am more concerned on whether the most compassionate and constructive approach to the issue of global warming is:
1. Nothing because we cannot affect it in any significant way
2. Adapt to inevitable climate change
3. Reverse climate change

 

[gslack]

The sentient AGW point is that the burning of fossil fuels is recreating what existed before the carbon dioxide that they were created from, was sequestered in them, in the ground.

We know what happened the previous time that all of that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere rather than locked up underground.

Why would anyone expect this time to be any different?

What ?

Wait....

You're telling me that we are going to revert geologically and atmospherically/climatologically, back to a previous state, because CO2 wasn't in the ground but in the air and so it will return??

Well as colorful as that is, it would show a cycle wouldn't it. And so far no one on the AGW side is willing to concede that there is a pattern so I don't think that's the case here..

Also, Co2 isn't just from the breakdown of bio-matter as we know it. it also comes from the earth itself volcanoes produce a great deal of it. No dead bio-matter needed, lots of things can produce it naturally with or without carbon-based life forms.

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Fossil fuels are made from biological waste trapped under ground which is made from carbon dioxide.

We know during the years that fossil fuels were sequestered from the atmosphere that atmospheric CO2 concentrations predictably went down, and so did global average temperature. (The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago). Look at the graph that you referenced for that Period. Look at what happened to CO2 concentrations and global temps.

Cause and effect predictable from energy balance. Animal life could not flourish at the start of that period. It did after that period.

For the last 100 years we've been steadily returning to the CO2 concentrations of that period by releasing all of that sequestered greenhouse gas.

Now, we could do nothing and hope that something that we don't know about will save us from what we do know about. But, we know that we will run out of fossil fuels anyway.

So, despite what you wish, private industry is investing in sustainable energy, and the transportation industry is working hard on getting more good, and less waste out of each pound of greenhouse gas we dump into the atmosphere.

We already spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year recovering from AGW enhanced extreme weather.

It's pretty certain that the lowest cost path, based on what we know, goes through fixing, rather than ignoring, AGW.

Got a problem there with that bolded and reposted part below...

Here's what is indisputable. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That means it's transmissivity is higher for the spectrum of radiant energy from the sun, than it is for the spectrum reflected back from earth. Energy is trapped on earth.

Afraid you have something backwards there. According to GH theory, The sun's rays pass through the GH gases pretty much unhindered, react with the surface and there get radiated up as IR, that IR interacts with GH gases which according to theory warms the surface more. Its reflected or radiated heat from the surface that GH gases interact with.

Sorry, but your premise is already backwards from the start.. Ask any body you like,look it up if you want but you have it backwards...

Also, CO2 isn't an element dude. Carbon is, so is Oxygen, but CO2 is a naturally occurring gas made from 2 oxygen atoms bonded to one carbon atom. hence the term C =carbon, O2 = x2 oxygen , CO2.. it wasn't sucked in from the atmosphere, it was created naturally from any number of natural actions within the planets interior or from decomposed bio-matter. Don't take my word for it.. here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.[1]

As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product.[2] However, photosynthesis cannot occur in darkness and at night some carbon dioxide is produced by plants during respiration.[3] Carbon dioxide is produced by combustion of coal or hydrocarbons, the fermentation of sugars in beer and winemaking and by respiration of all living organisms. It is exhaled in the breath of humans and land animals. It is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and other places where the earth's crust is thin and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution. CO2 is also found in lakes at depth under the sea, and commingled with oil and gas deposits.[4]

There are many ways both natural and man made that can create this gas. it's not a base element..

 

[Saigon]

Fox-

I am more concerned on whether the most compassionate and constructive approach to the issue of global warming is:
1. Nothing because we cannot affect it in any significant way
2. Adapt to inevitable climate change
3. Reverse climate change

Why do you feel mankind needs to choose one of those options, whilst ignoring the others?

1.We know that we can influence conditions to some extent, because mankind created the ozone hole, and is now some way along the path to repairing it. We could definitely reduce carbon emissions - at considerable benefit to humanity in many areas of life - and then see what impact that has on climate.

2. Here in Europe we are already learning to adapt to warmer temperatures, desertification and in some area smore rain & snow, but at the moment Denialism makes it very difficult for Americans to do so. This is a long process.

3. We don't know if we can do that or not. What we do know is that we canmassively reduce emissions quite easily, and enjoy less pollution as a result.

What we can also consider are the economic benefits of developing new technologies. Thousands of people now work in private sector companies all over the world building tidal turbines etc - but right now the US does not seem to want those jobs.

 

[PMZ]

People who refuse to learn, remain ignorant. Their choice. That renders them irrelevant.

While they are wandering around deciding what other ignorant people to follow, people who know act accordingly.

The largest project mankind has ever taken on, the move to sustainable energy, has begun.

That's where all new investment is going.

For the transportation industry, what has always been hypothesized as the force which would even move the ignorant, has come true. Expensive gasoline. If you love your fossil fuels, fine. Buy them. Smarter people are spending their money on more important things.

Several times a year Mother Nature destroys a few thousand homes, takes a few hundred lives, makes homeless a few thousand people, and the ignorant blame bad luck.

Pretty soon, as we find that we've built our farms where there's no longer water, and our cities where there's no longer land, the big bills will come due and the ignorant will blame politicians.

Ignorance is the most expensive human limitation.

Yet those who preach it get fabulously wealthy.

Go figure.

 

[Old Rocks]

The capitalistic enterprises in the best position to know the cost of the present warming, the people who insure the insurance companies unequivacal position is that there are now more extreme weather events worldwide by a factor of at least 2 and maybe as much as 4. Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs-Insurance Networking News

The politics of global warming have typically involved much debate as to the role climate change plays in growing weather-related risk. Yesterday, however, at a Capital Hill a press conference on the cost of climate change, debate was not on the agenda. Pointing to a year of history-making, $1 billion-plus natural disasters, representatives of Tier 1 insurance companies took a definitive stance with members of the U.S. Senate to confirm that costs to taxpayers and businesses from extreme weather will continue to soar because of climate change.

Representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re and Willis Re and Ceres, a nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address a variety of sustainability challenges, joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) yesterday to discuss the growing financial impact of global warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.

 

[PMZ]

Everything with some transparency to electromagnetic radiation exhibits changes in the degree of that depending on wavelength. If you measure the transmissivity over a range of wavelengths, some will be transmitted more, and some less.

Greenhouse Gasses are those that transmit more at the wavelengths coming from the sun, than they do of those reflected by the earth.

The temperature of earth is what is necessary to maintain energy equilibrium. At that temperature, energy in equals energy out.

When more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere, the first impact is energy imbalance with, relatively, the same coming in and less going out. The earth's reaction to that is gradual warming. At some elevated temperature, enough energy is forced through the greenhouse gasses to balance what is coming from the sun, and temperature restabilizes.

100% pure unarguable radiation thermodynamics.

 

[Foxfyre]

And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.

Here ya go Old Rocks. WattsUpWithThat has put together ALL the charts and graphs re arctic and antartic sea ice all in one place. But if you study them with an open mind, they really are disturbing for the dedicated pro-AGW religionist who bases his fears on sea ice:
Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

And I will remind everybody that we have had satellite imagery for less than 34 years. For anybody to seriously think that 34 years provides even a hint of conclusive evidence of the behavior of an ice pack that spans millions of years. . . well. . . .anybody want to buy a bridge?

 

[PMZ]

And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.

Here ya go Old Rocks. WattsUpWithThat has put together ALL the charts and graphs re arctic and antartic sea ice all in one place. But if you study them with an open mind, they really are disturbing for the dedicated pro-AGW religionist who bases his fears on sea ice:
Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

And I will remind everybody that we have had satellite imagery for less than 34 years. For anybody to seriously think that 34 years provides even a hint of conclusive evidence of the behavior of an ice pack that spans millions of years. . . well. . . .anybody want to buy a bridge?

A couple of points.

Sea ice has little do do with tundra.

Fortunately science has other ways to measure than satellites.

 

[PMZ]

An experiment that you can do at home.

Hold your hand about one foot from an incandescent light bulb, a great radiator. Observe the effects. Your hand will warm up to whatever temperature is necessary to radiate exactly as much energy back into the room as it is receiving from the bulb.

Move it a little closer. More energy received by your hand from the bulb. Energy imbalance again. It has to find a new higher temperature to re-establish equilibrium.

So, the impact of higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere could be demonstrated by moving the earth closer to the sun.

Anybody's want to try that?

 

[Foxfyre]

And there is a real kicker waiting in the wings. Should the Arctic Clathrates begin to outgas in a major way, we are just along for the ride. This group of scientists think that is a certainty;

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

Don't know how close to right they are, but only 13 years ago, scientists that predicted the total melt of the arctic ice for part of the summer by 2100 were called 'alarmist'. Now it looks as if that may happen by 2020.

Here ya go Old Rocks. WattsUpWithThat has put together ALL the charts and graphs re arctic and antartic sea ice all in one place. But if you study them with an open mind, they really are disturbing for the dedicated pro-AGW religionist who bases his fears on sea ice:
Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

And I will remind everybody that we have had satellite imagery for less than 34 years. For anybody to seriously think that 34 years provides even a hint of conclusive evidence of the behavior of an ice pack that spans millions of years. . . well. . . .anybody want to buy a bridge?

A couple of points.

Sea ice has little do do with tundra.

Fortunately science has other ways to measure than satellites.

It has had no other ways to measure the behavior of arctic sea ice before satellites. And our AGW religionists won't accept notations from ship logs, arctic fishermen and hunters, etc. who report the absence of sea ice exceeding current history way back when. But you find a whole lot of religionists who get all excited when the very VERY short period of satelitte imaging shows a decrease in sea ice. And they don't even want to discuss that if the ice never melts and just continues to expand, we will all be up to our hoo has in ice no matter where we live. Or that it is unreasonable to expect the climate in the Arctic tp be static and unchanging when no other place on the planet has a completely stable climate that never varies.

 

[PMZ]

Here ya go Old Rocks. WattsUpWithThat has put together ALL the charts and graphs re arctic and antartic sea ice all in one place. But if you study them with an open mind, they really are disturbing for the dedicated pro-AGW religionist who bases his fears on sea ice:
Sea Ice Page | Watts Up With That?

And I will remind everybody that we have had satellite imagery for less than 34 years. For anybody to seriously think that 34 years provides even a hint of conclusive evidence of the behavior of an ice pack that spans millions of years. . . well. . . .anybody want to buy a bridge?

A couple of points.

Sea ice has little do do with tundra.

Fortunately science has other ways to measure than satellites.

It has had no other ways to measure the behavior of arctic sea ice before satellites. And our AGW religionists won't accept notations from ship logs, arctic fishermen and hunters, etc. who report the absence of sea ice exceeding current history way back when. But you find a whole lot of religionists who get all excited when the very VERY short period of satelitte imaging shows a decrease in sea ice. And they don't even want to discuss that if the ice never melts and just continues to expand, we will all be up to our hoo has in ice no matter where we live. Or that it is unreasonable to expect the climate in the Arctic tp be static and unchanging when no other place on the planet has a completely stable climate that never varies.

I don't enjoy your gambling with humanity's future hoping that something that we don't know about will miraculously appear to counter what we do know about.

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere require the earth to get warmer. Why should we ignore simple science to hope for miracles?

It's simple economics. The real price of fossil fuels is unaffordable. Civilization has been built based on yesterday's climate. Not changing the climate is cheaper than adapting civilization to a new one.

 

[Foxfyre]

A couple of points.

Sea ice has little do do with tundra.

Fortunately science has other ways to measure than satellites.

It has had no other ways to measure the behavior of arctic sea ice before satellites. And our AGW religionists won't accept notations from ship logs, arctic fishermen and hunters, etc. who report the absence of sea ice exceeding current history way back when. But you find a whole lot of religionists who get all excited when the very VERY short period of satelitte imaging shows a decrease in sea ice. And they don't even want to discuss that if the ice never melts and just continues to expand, we will all be up to our hoo has in ice no matter where we live. Or that it is unreasonable to expect the climate in the Arctic tp be static and unchanging when no other place on the planet has a completely stable climate that never varies.

I don't enjoy your gambling with humanity's future hoping that something that we don't know about will miraculously appear to counter what we do know about.

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere require the earth to get warmer. Why should we ignore simple science to hope for miracles?

It's simple economics. The real price of fossil fuels is unaffordable. Civilization has been built based on yesterday's climate. Not changing the climate is cheaper than adapting civilization to a new one.

I don't enjoy your approval of foreign entities, most of which dislike us and absolutely do not have our best interests at heart, pushing legislation and powers that will take away my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. Most especially when there is reason to believe that their justification is based on what may be flawed or even bogus science.

Helping civilization to adapt to inevitable climate change is a hell of a lot more productive and affordable than pretending we have the power to change our climate when we don't.

 

[PMZ]

It has had no other ways to measure the behavior of arctic sea ice before satellites. And our AGW religionists won't accept notations from ship logs, arctic fishermen and hunters, etc. who report the absence of sea ice exceeding current history way back when. But you find a whole lot of religionists who get all excited when the very VERY short period of satelitte imaging shows a decrease in sea ice. And they don't even want to discuss that if the ice never melts and just continues to expand, we will all be up to our hoo has in ice no matter where we live. Or that it is unreasonable to expect the climate in the Arctic tp be static and unchanging when no other place on the planet has a completely stable climate that never varies.

I don't enjoy your gambling with humanity's future hoping that something that we don't know about will miraculously appear to counter what we do know about.

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere require the earth to get warmer. Why should we ignore simple science to hope for miracles?

It's simple economics. The real price of fossil fuels is unaffordable. Civilization has been built based on yesterday's climate. Not changing the climate is cheaper than adapting civilization to a new one.

I don't enjoy your approval of foreign entities, most of which dislike us and absolutely do not have our best interests at heart, pushing legislation and powers that will take away my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. Most especially when there is reason to believe that their justification is based on what may be flawed or even bogus science.

Helping civilization to adapt to inevitable climate change is a hell of a lot more productive and affordable than pretending we have the power to change our climate when we don't.

What you want to be true is insignificant to the universe. Science is dealing with the workings of the universe. The facts behind AGW may well be disturbing to you, but that has no impact on how the universe works.

What you are choosing is to not be part of what must be done. Your choice. We usually label such choices as irresponsible.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't enjoy your gambling with humanity's future hoping that something that we don't know about will miraculously appear to counter what we do know about.

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere require the earth to get warmer. Why should we ignore simple science to hope for miracles?

It's simple economics. The real price of fossil fuels is unaffordable. Civilization has been built based on yesterday's climate. Not changing the climate is cheaper than adapting civilization to a new one.

I don't enjoy your approval of foreign entities, most of which dislike us and absolutely do not have our best interests at heart, pushing legislation and powers that will take away my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. Most especially when there is reason to believe that their justification is based on what may be flawed or even bogus science.

Helping civilization to adapt to inevitable climate change is a hell of a lot more productive and affordable than pretending we have the power to change our climate when we don't.

What you want to be true is insignificant to the universe. Science is dealing with the workings of the universe. The facts behind AGW may well be disturbing to you, but that has no impact on how the universe works.

What you are choosing is to not be part of what must be done. Your choice. We usually label such choices as irresponsible.

And I label irresponsible people who cut and paste opinion even as they demonstrate they don't understand what they are cutting and pasting. Most especially when they presume the righteous arrogance to assign words, thought, actions to other people that they have to manufacture because they can't support them with anything somebody else said. And most especially when they use non sequitur to do it.

 

[Desperado]

Upon Further review:
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

 

[Foxfyre]

Upon Further review:
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

Very interesting. I think it at least merits looking for other support for the theory.

 

[PMZ]

Upon Further review:
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere.

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.
Principia Scientific Intl | New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere[/

Certainly “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun." is true in direction, if not necessarily, in magnitude. Nothing in our atmosphere is perfectly transmissible of the sun's entire spectrum. Sunlight is reflected by all components of the atmosphere. Good thing or life would have never started here.

But the fact remains that, by definition, greenhouse gasses reflect more of earth's radiation out than the sun's radiation in. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses, the warmer earth must be to maintain energy balance.

 

[PMZ]

I don't enjoy your approval of foreign entities, most of which dislike us and absolutely do not have our best interests at heart, pushing legislation and powers that will take away my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities. Most especially when there is reason to believe that their justification is based on what may be flawed or even bogus science.

Helping civilization to adapt to inevitable climate change is a hell of a lot more productive and affordable than pretending we have the power to change our climate when we don't.

What you want to be true is insignificant to the universe. Science is dealing with the workings of the universe. The facts behind AGW may well be disturbing to you, but that has no impact on how the universe works.

What you are choosing is to not be part of what must be done. Your choice. We usually label such choices as irresponsible.

And I label irresponsible people who cut and paste opinion even as they demonstrate they don't understand what they are cutting and pasting. Most especially when they presume the righteous arrogance to assign words, thought, actions to other people that they have to manufacture because they can't support them with anything somebody else said. And most especially when they use non sequitur to do it.

Here's the thing. What I post is what I know because I've invested the time to learn from credible sources. If you bothered to check and learn from credible sources you could know it too, I presume. You don't. You repeat what big oil wants you to believe in order for them to follow business's one rule. Make more money regardless of the cost to others.

That's all your choice. People who take action on solving the problem are used to people like you and simply regard them as irrelevent to the solution.

Lots of people have trouble distinguishing between what they know to be true and what they wish was true. Don't take it personally, you among massive company.