3 ms·

>If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions. That is useless. People follow it like a relig

>If you're instead trying to convince people of your point of view, please provide evidence for your assertions. That is useless. People follow it like a religion, I am merely trying to have a conversation to few reasonable ones so I can understand their point of view if they have anything interesting to say apart from repeating the same tired tropes. >You don't need a particularly complex model to show that if more energy is absorbed by the earth than is radiated, which is the case due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the temperature will rise until it returns to a steady state at a higher temperature. Do you have reference to a graph that shows the amount of CO2 in the air vs how much heat is absorbed? Has this been isolated? Can't be that difficult to create a green house and study the relation by varying CO2 concentration. Could it be that the temperature rise is an independent phenomena which is the cause for CO2 rise, not the effect of it? None of the political arguments seem to be questioned ever and no scientific studies seem to come out of it. Given that most research findings are false (http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...), there ought to be some research findings that show evidence against climate hysteria, even if they are wrong, but those don't seem to surface. It is as if any questioning of political propaganda is systematically silenced (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8).

tempestn 9y ago
If you're asking for references that CO2 absorbs and radiates IR radiation, I imagine you'd have to look to a textbook or papers from the early 20th century. That's established fact. As far as evidence that increased CO2 in the air reduces the radiation of heat from the earth back into space, yes, there is also plenty of evidence showing that. Here's an article that does a good job of explaining the science and links to several sources: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci... This paper from back in 2001 demonstrates that the changes in spectra radiated from earth as detected by spacecraft match expectations given the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.... It also links to a number of papers around the supporting science. Those are just the first two good examples I found. There are plenty more. I don't agree with your argument (as I understand it) that most research is wrong, and therefore the fact that there's no research supporting your position somehow itself supports it. Rather, while of course not all scientific research is done well, and scientific understanding is always evolving, that does not mean that it is impossible for anything to be known. The great deal of evidence supporting human-caused climate change, and the lack of robust evidence of the contrary, should reasonably lead one to the conclusion that it is a real phenomenon.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >If you're asking for references that CO2 absorbs and radiates IR radiation, I imagine you'd have to look to a textbook or papers from the early 20th century. That's established fact. Hmm... the "established facts" for thousands of years in textbooks and everywhere was that the earth is flat. I guess I should believe in that too. Anyways, I will link you to an article which argues that CO2 acts as a coolant: http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf So, Given that plants grow better at higher CO2 concentrations (as experienced by indoor growers https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/why-and-how-to-supplement-co2-in-indoor-farms https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/why-and-how-to-su...), it seems like it is good to try increase CO2 concentrations higher and see if we can achieve the desired cooling effect while we are at it. Meanwhile, we will also be solving world hunger, preventing deaths due to unclean water, freeing up time used by people of poorer countries in farming, processing food, washing etc. using industrial machines and letting them enjoy the same standard of living as the western countries... all of this can be done by letting them use fossil fuels... taking the taxes and international restrictions away from the industry. > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci.. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci.... I read the article and it seems to be posted on a site for "Union of Concerned Scientists", which it seems is an advocacy group for what they think is "scientific". I think that is a very closed minded way to view science but let's examine their claims: >CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue To back this up, they link this IPCC page: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and I finally found the report after some time: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha..., they could have linked to the report directly, but OK. Anyways, in the report, they compare various chemicals and how much heat they trap. What they don't compare is how much heat 280 ppm of CO2 captures vs how much 1500 would capture. My guess is not much because a 40% rise in CO2 changed the average temperature by a couple of degrees in the last few hundred years. So, it seems like the relation is either very weak or that there is no relation at all. It can't be that hard to create two greenhouses next to each other, fill them with different levels of CO2 and note the difference and it is very surprising that nobody has done it... but given how modern science works, what is much more likely is that the experiment didn't come in their favor and hence it was never published. >that most research is wrong I am not the one claiming that. There have been multiple studies in the fast few years which have shown that most modern scientific publications don't hold up on peer review... and most scientists don't spend their time on peer review. It seems that it is not in their interest to review a study that someone else published. Making new and extraordinary claims with doctored data seems to get all the attention from journalists (and hence more funding), so that is all everyone seems to be interested in doing. >The great deal of evidence supporting human-caused climate change, and the lack of robust evidence of the contrary, should reasonably lead one to the conclusion that it is a real phenomenon. 100% of Nazi scientists believed that Jews were an inferior race. Maybe scientists are biased by politics of the countries they work in, among other things? Can you name one other "scientific fact" that has not been politicized but still "settled"? Let me help you: it doesn't exist. Science doesn't "settle". It's always open to enquiry and new evidence can always change it.

tempestn 9y ago

If you're asking for references that CO2 absorbs and radiates IR radiation, I imagine you'd have to look to a textbook or papers from the early 20th century. That's established fact. As far as evidence that increased CO2 in the air reduces the radiation of heat from the earth back into space, yes, there is also plenty of evidence showing that. Here's an article that does a good job of explaining the science and links to several sources: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci... This paper from back in 2001 demonstrates that the changes in spectra radiated from earth as detected by spacecraft match expectations given the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.... It also links to a number of papers around the supporting science. Those are just the first two good examples I found. There are plenty more. I don't agree with your argument (as I understand it) that most research is wrong, and therefore the fact that there's no research supporting your position somehow itself supports it. Rather, while of course not all scientific research is done well, and scientific understanding is always evolving, that does not mean that it is impossible for anything to be known. The great deal of evidence supporting human-caused climate change, and the lack of robust evidence of the contrary, should reasonably lead one to the conclusion that it is a real phenomenon.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>If you're asking for references that CO2 absorbs and radiates IR radiation, I imagine you'd have to look to a textbook or papers from the early 20th century. That's established fact. Hmm... the "established facts" for thousands of years in textbooks and everywhere was that the earth is flat. I guess I should believe in that too. Anyways, I will link you to an article which argues that CO2 acts as a coolant: http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf So, Given that plants grow better at higher CO2 concentrations (as experienced by indoor growers https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/why-and-how-to-supplement-co2-in-indoor-farms https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/why-and-how-to-su...), it seems like it is good to try increase CO2 concentrations higher and see if we can achieve the desired cooling effect while we are at it. Meanwhile, we will also be solving world hunger, preventing deaths due to unclean water, freeing up time used by people of poorer countries in farming, processing food, washing etc. using industrial machines and letting them enjoy the same standard of living as the western countries... all of this can be done by letting them use fossil fuels... taking the taxes and international restrictions away from the industry. > http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci.. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci.... I read the article and it seems to be posted on a site for "Union of Concerned Scientists", which it seems is an advocacy group for what they think is "scientific". I think that is a very closed minded way to view science but let's examine their claims: >CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue To back this up, they link this IPCC page: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and I finally found the report after some time: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha..., they could have linked to the report directly, but OK. Anyways, in the report, they compare various chemicals and how much heat they trap. What they don't compare is how much heat 280 ppm of CO2 captures vs how much 1500 would capture. My guess is not much because a 40% rise in CO2 changed the average temperature by a couple of degrees in the last few hundred years. So, it seems like the relation is either very weak or that there is no relation at all. It can't be that hard to create two greenhouses next to each other, fill them with different levels of CO2 and note the difference and it is very surprising that nobody has done it... but given how modern science works, what is much more likely is that the experiment didn't come in their favor and hence it was never published. >that most research is wrong I am not the one claiming that. There have been multiple studies in the fast few years which have shown that most modern scientific publications don't hold up on peer review... and most scientists don't spend their time on peer review. It seems that it is not in their interest to review a study that someone else published. Making new and extraordinary claims with doctored data seems to get all the attention from journalists (and hence more funding), so that is all everyone seems to be interested in doing. >The great deal of evidence supporting human-caused climate change, and the lack of robust evidence of the contrary, should reasonably lead one to the conclusion that it is a real phenomenon. 100% of Nazi scientists believed that Jews were an inferior race. Maybe scientists are biased by politics of the countries they work in, among other things? Can you name one other "scientific fact" that has not been politicized but still "settled"? Let me help you: it doesn't exist. Science doesn't "settle". It's always open to enquiry and new evidence can always change it.