Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But you have no interest in seeing any lab experiments controlling for CO2 at these levels?Two different things, Frank. CO2 lagging temperature is proof that CO2 has never driven climate changes. But that doesn't mean it has no effect on temperature. It's just not much of an effect at these concentrations because of the logarithmic relationship between concentration and associated surface temperature.
Incorrect. 1C per doubling of CO2. That's it. It's not 4.5C or 0 C.
In the real world, a non-linear increase from 280 to 420 ppm CO2 has raised temperatures 1.4C over a period of ~175 years. Are you insisting that an experiment be run with those specific CO2 values for that length of time?The reason we’re never shown any lab experiments demonstrating an irrefutable link between increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm and increases in temperature is because there are no increases in temperature at these levels
No evidence?
View attachment 1001717
View attachment 1001715
Global surface temperature - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 1001716
Earth’s temperature on rise, but steps can be taken to help
Global Warming is becoming an alarming situation for activists, scientists and politicians alike. Every decade since 1880, the average temperature has risen 0.14 F according to NOAA’s 2021 annual Climate Report. That means, since 1880, the world’s temperature has risen a lot. While this number...lhstomtom.org
Climate Change: Global Temperature
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.www.climate.gov
No. No. No! NO!In the real world, a non-linear increase from 280 to 420 ppm CO2 has raised temperatures 1.4C over a period of ~175 years. Are you insisting that an experiment be run with those specific CO2 values for that length of time?
No one puts up millions to buy a property at risk of floods.
I'm happy to accept the theoretical value from physics as the most it can be. It's an instantaneous phenomenon. 1C per doubling of CO2 is insignificant. In reality it is most likely less because of convective currents.But you have no interest in seeing any lab experiments controlling for CO2 at these levels?
The reason we’re never shown any lab experiments demonstrating an irrefutable link between increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm and increases in temperature is because there are no increases in temperature at these levels
We’re supposed to spend $3 Trillion annually for what exactly??
Lower CO2?
Windmill??
Fund more models??
It’s insanity
Then what are you demanding?No. No. No! NO!
There is no point in dealing with you Frank. You've been shown numerous experiments demonstrating that CO2 traps IR. You want a second Earth on which to do a multi-century experiment. I can only conclude that you simply do not want to see the truth. Goodbye Frank.If what you claim is true, that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM raises temperatures, you should have countless lab experiments replicating that result
If what you claim was true, and it isn’t, then the instantaneous, calamitous, horrific increase in CO2 would INSTANTLY cause the described temperature increase
You should also be able to show us how increasing from 280 to 320 increase .4C, etc
But you have zero repeatable experiments replicating that result. Zero. None. Zip. Nada!
It’s insanity that keeps you droning on and attempting to gaslight skeptics
You've been shown numerous experiments demonstrating that CO2 traps IR.
www.nbcnews.com
Get yourself off the internet and seek psychiatric help.Yippee!!
Get yourself off the internet and seek psychiatric help.
Get yourself off the internet and seek psychiatric help.So...
