(06-18-2019, 10:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(06-18-2019, 05:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: But did the article say that fossil fuels are insignificant?
Apply the same rule you would use for a sci-fi or fantasy series. Don't jump back and forth between the rules of your world and the rules of this world.
Apply the internal logic of the world you are considering only.
in the world where people actually use small experiments to predict the heat-absorbing properties of gases in the atmosphere, CO2 from fossil fuels is a huge problem.
In the world where people avoid making any prediction until a billionaire-funded private think tank hands them some some money, or until a republican candidate for office needs some favorable press, CO2 from fossil fuels is a joke, maybe it's actually making the world healthier by making plants grow faster.
You can trust whichever group you want.
Some people trust the people who do experiments.
some people just trust whoever has the money in the slick marketing behind them.
Some people just trust whoever asks them to do the least. 
You do you.

I'm not exactly sure of your point in this rambling screed, but let me set you straight.

There is no "experiment." In theory, the doubling of CO2 concentration will result in a planetary (not laboratory) temperature increase of 1.1 kelvins. That's the temperature difference between a bedroom and living room. This is not a problem.

The temperature change for a doubling of CO2 concentration in the real world is not even theoretically possible, since there are many confounding factors. The Climastrologists (who receive much more money per year than the skeptics have since the founding of Global Warming) have chosen to claim that there is a net positive feedback from those confounding factors (mostly from more water vapor) that triples the warming. Note that this number was chosen to be the maximum possible positive feedback without a runaway warming. Common sense says that the planet doesn't do positive feedbacks. Common sense says that more water vapor creates more clouds which means more sunlight is reflected, creating a negative feedback. But common sense doesn't rake in billions of research dollars year after year.

As far as the slick marketing goes, that's completely on the side of the Climastrologists. They have the political backing of the left wing press (95% of the mainstream media) and don't need to spend a cent for the massive marketing they receive gratis. The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scheme is a means (with by far the strongest likelihood of success) to setting up a global socialist government. Some advocates have actually admitted that this is their goal.



You can choose to believe the Climastrology priests. But you should at least admit that you are a religious believer in this case. Their claim that sea level rise is accelerating is a verified lie. I've shown you the proof many times (NOAA.gov tide gauge data). You still choose to believe the liars.

the amount of heat that CO2 absorbs rises linearly with the concentration of CO2.
The temperature of the atmosphere rises linearly with the amount of heat it absorbs.
However, the tendency of water molecules to be in vapor form (the vapor form is invisible to the human eye and absorbs solar radiation, while clouds are liquid water and reflect it) rises exponentially with increasing temperature. This means that exponentially more solar heat will be absorbed before the cloud forms. Consult an ASHRAE manual, look up the Buck equations... or, hey, don't. You do you.  The ASHRAE manuals could have been written to help design air conditioning systems, or they could be part of a vast conspiracy to help scientists topple limited governments and institute their form of communism. Next time you enjoy an air-conditioned or heated interior space, you can smugly think to yourself how much better it would work if the designers were using real math instead of conspiracy math.

---