Quote:
Find ONE American scientist (preferably in the area of climate, earth sciences, or a related field) who denies global warming, and who has does not have direct ties to ExxonMobil. Or find ONE publication or organization that has publicly denied global warming that has no such ties. Just one. Post it here. Drewmandan showed that a "quick google search" fails miserably, so I implore you to put a little thought into it.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to your own thread if you think no such scientists has been mentioned.
Also, your repulsion of any skeptic of this hypothesis shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. Politics should have no place at all in a scientific debate, and skepticism is the holy grail.
Quote:
You're contradicting yourself. You keep saying that the solubility of CO2 decreasing is increasing global warming by released CO2 from the ocean (which is true) I'm confused how Venus got involved in this. Yes, CO2 is the major reason Venus' atmosphere is so hot, but it's got 90x as much atmosphere as Earth. Earth can never get like Venus even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.
Well apparently you've just completely lost the thread then. The thread was this; there will never be a scenario in which Earth's climate spirals uncontrollably due to our influence. A small CO2 increase will cause a small temperature increase; there's no exponential feedback at play here or anything like that.
And no, what I've been saying is that CO2 sol./temperature is an explanation of the correlation between the two, with temperature as the causal factor; except this explanation actually has empirical evidence and is proper science, quite unlike anthropic global warming.
Quote:
Watch the damn Youtube. No one knows solar activity from 1000 years ago, but Galeglio started recording them in the 1600 and they've been watched constantly since the 1800s.
So when you said that solar activity hasn't changed you were actually making stuff up. Again.
Quote:
All oxygen breathing life gives off CO2, but it wouldn't increase it dramatically like it's been doing. You know that graph of the CO2 levels over the last 50 years? Those cyclical ups and downs every year are because of animals.
Animals can only shape an atmosphere over very long periods of time. The only thing that can change it abruptly like we're seeing is the sun, volcanos, or man.
You realise that there wouldn't be any oxygen in the atmosphere if it werent for life?
But anyway, you've lost the thread again. I wasn't saying that animals are responsible for the recent rise in CO2, if I remember rightly that is down to our burning fossil fuels. We were talking about how, during the history of the Earth, other factors have affected the temperature, such as solar activity (which you said does not change, although you've now said you have no evidence at all for that), and biological processes.
Quote:
It is science. Cold air doesn't hold water vapor as well. Fact. Less CO2 in the atmosphere means cooler temperatures. Fact. I can do calculations, they aren't hard. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to get, removing CO2 brings down temperature, which brings down humidity, which further decreases temperature.
100% (all greenhouse components) - 35% (CO2 + methane) = 65%
65% * 1 (constant heat from the sun) = .65 (amount of heat held by the atmosphere)
Graph of water capacity vs temperature
Take any point on the graph, take 65% of it and you get the drop in water vapor temperature. Now add the loss of water vapor to the CO2 + methane portion and repeat until the change is negligible.
Well done, those two things are facts! However, your calculations show an incredible ignorance. Have you studied mathematics or any physical science to a high level?
1. Why did you remove the methane when we were talking about CO2?
2. You've made a massive assumption about a proportionality between temperature of the planet and the amount of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere. According to your logic a planet with no greenhouse gas would be absolute zero.
3. Why the hell would you take 65% of a temperature in Celsius? Do you have any basic understanding of thermodynamics or what temperature actually is??
4. You realise that if you actually apply your iterative process, the temperature will always fall to absolute zero?? You think that's correct?