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. 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.

This is wrong in so many ways. CO2 absorbs and re-releases IR photons, it doesn't absorb heat. Roughly half of those are directed downward. The absorption of those adds to the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by contact with the surface, not by CO2 absorption. The temperature effect of CO2 on the planet is logarithmic, not linear, because the effect decreases as the CO2 absorption bands are filled.

And if you read my post, I said that there was more water vapor. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. Or maybe you think that clouds mostly form over deserts?  Note also that water vapor absorption bands overlap those of CO2, so the effect of more water vapor is partially negated. 

An A/C manual? Really? As if what effects interior air in a closed room is applicable in any way.

There is actual evidence of negative feedback in the tropics, where it has been measured that clouds form earlier on warm days. But like I said Climastrologists need positive feedback to create scary scenarios that justify the billions in annual funding. Without research funding a scientist will not keep a job, and scientists are not some special breed of humans. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay just like everyone else. Note that you were the one who brought up funding, so you'll have to live with the real world truths about funding and scientists.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

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. 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.

This is wrong in so many ways. CO2 absorbs and re-releases IR photons, it doesn't absorb heat. Roughly half of those are directed downward. The absorption of those adds to the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by contact with the surface, not by CO2 absorption. The temperature effect of CO2 on the planet is logarithmic, not linear, because the effect decreases as the CO2 absorption bands are filled.

And if you read my post, I said that there was more water vapor. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. Or maybe you think that clouds mostly form over deserts?  Note also that water vapor absorption bands overlap those of CO2, so the effect of more water vapor is partially negated. 

An A/C manual? Really? As if what effects interior air in a closed room is applicable in any way.

There is actual evidence of negative feedback in the tropics, where it has been measured that clouds form earlier on warm days. But like I said Climastrologists need positive feedback to create scary scenarios that justify the billions in annual funding. Without research funding a scientist will not keep a job, and scientists are not some special breed of humans. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay just like everyone else. Note that you were the one who brought up funding, so you'll have to live with the real world truths about funding and scientists.

C'mon man, you're arguing with the Arbiter of All Knowledge. We've done this dance a dozen times now on Global Warming; you can't win an argument when their position changes by the minute.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

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. 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.

More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. 

Clouds only form when the air is at saturation.
The saturation pressure of water vapor increases exponentially with temperature.
Therefore, the number of water vapor molecules that need to be in the atmosphere prior to cloud formation increases exponentially as temperature increases.
Clouds will still form.
A slight increase in temperature for any layer of the atmosphere exponentially increases the amount of water vapor that will exist in that layer immediately prior to cloud formation.
The amount of incoming solar radiation that is trapped in the atmosphere immediately prior to cloud formation therefore exponentially increases as the local temperature within that layer of the atmosphere increases.

You're right that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already sufficient for the atmosphere to absorb 100% of solar radiation at a few wavelengths. But not all of them.  Specifically, at about 1.5  to 2 micrometers wavelength, our atmosphere is still transmitting rather than absorbing most solar radiation.  But increasing CO2 concentration will change that, until 100% of that radiation is captured.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least. Implausible.

---

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

Having fake scientist like Bill Nye given exposure by the fake news MSM telling us the world is about to explode doesn't exactly help the authenticity of their cause.

---

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

Grant money is hard to come by, the greater the alarm the greater the response.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

Having fake scientist like Bill Nye given exposure by the fake news MSM telling us the world is about to explode doesn't exactly help the authenticity of their cause.

As a bachelor of mechanical engineering who spent a career presenting science in digestible bits for children, Bill Nye knows plenty about science.

But if you want to say that only people with degrees in the hard sciences, who have careers in hard science, should comment on this topic, that's fine too.  Bill knows a lot, but those people would know more.

Most of those people are also alarmed by man made CO2, just like Bill Nye.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Having fake scientist like Bill Nye given exposure by the fake news MSM telling us the world is about to explode doesn't exactly help the authenticity of their cause.

As a bachelor of mechanical engineering who spent a career presenting science in digestible bits for children, Bill Nye knows plenty about science.

But if you want to say that only people with degrees in the hard sciences, who have careers in hard science, should comment on this topic, that's fine too.  Bill knows a lot, but those people would know more.

Most of those people are also alarmed by man made CO2, just like Bill Nye.

To the denialists on this message board, the only people who have the authority to comment on the matter are people who agree with them.   Every one else is a criminal, engaged in a massive world wide fraud.

---

As a bachelor of mechanical engineering who spent a career presenting science in digestible bits for children, Bill Nye knows plenty about science.

But if you want to say that only people with degrees in the hard sciences, who have careers in hard science, should comment on this topic, that's fine too.  Bill knows a lot, but those people would know more.

Most of those people are also alarmed by man made CO2, just like Bill Nye.

To the denialists on this message board, the only people who have the authority to comment on the matter are people who agree with them.   Every one else is a criminal, engaged in a massive world wide fraud.

Can you please tell the guy I have on ignore that Bill Nye isn't an actual scientist and breaking down scientific concepts for children doesn't actually make him one.

---

This is wrong in so many ways. CO2 absorbs and re-releases IR photons, it doesn't absorb heat. Roughly half of those are directed downward. The absorption of those adds to the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by contact with the surface, not by CO2 absorption. The temperature effect of CO2 on the planet is logarithmic, not linear, because the effect decreases as the CO2 absorption bands are filled.

And if you read my post, I said that there was more water vapor. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. Or maybe you think that clouds mostly form over deserts?  Note also that water vapor absorption bands overlap those of CO2, so the effect of more water vapor is partially negated. 

An A/C manual? Really? As if what effects interior air in a closed room is applicable in any way.

There is actual evidence of negative feedback in the tropics, where it has been measured that clouds form earlier on warm days. But like I said Climastrologists need positive feedback to create scary scenarios that justify the billions in annual funding. Without research funding a scientist will not keep a job, and scientists are not some special breed of humans. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay just like everyone else. Note that you were the one who brought up funding, so you'll have to live with the real world truths about funding and scientists.

C'mon man, you're arguing with the Arbiter of All Knowledge. We've done this dance a dozen times now on Global Warming; you can't win an argument when their position changes by the minute.

I never claimed to be the Arbiter of All Knowledge.
In fact, I'll come out and say it: If you contradict me, I'm wrong, and you're right, because you are older and crabbier than me.  Between the two of us, I humbly acknowledge you as the Arbiter of All Knowledge.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

Grant money is hard to come by, the greater the alarm the greater the response.

Grant money is hard to come by.
But proposals are ranked by how interesting they are.
Things that are alarming are interesting.
But things that could plausibly overturn or clarify a long held opinion are interesting too.
And governments are not the only source of grant money.
Private universities give out grants.
So do for-profit companies.  Including oil companies, airplane companies, car companies, etc.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

C'mon man, you're arguing with the Arbiter of All Knowledge. We've done this dance a dozen times now on Global Warming; you can't win an argument when their position changes by the minute.

I never claimed to be the Arbiter of All Knowledge.
In fact, I'll come out and say it: If you contradict me, I'm wrong, and you're right, because you are older and crabbier than me.  Between the two of us, I humbly acknowledge you as the Arbiter of All Knowledge.

I'm the Arbiter of All Snark, you'd know this by now if you listened half as much as you yap on.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

There is no worldwide conspiracy. It's just scientists each looking out for their own interests. Note that the skeptics are heavily weighted to senior or retired scientists, where the need to bring in grant money in order to advance (or in many cases continue) their career is no longer a factor.

I might add here that you can't be a holy man unless you believe in the tenets of that religion. Likewise, in order to get a degree in Climastrology you have to agree with the prevailing dogma. Global Warming skeptics are weeded out early, and research results contrary to the dogma are not allowed to be published in refereed journals. Even daring to try can get you defrocked. So there's a strong selection effect at work.

But if you are still doubtful, you too can look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov and see how the claim of an acceleration in sea level rise is a lie. Or you can just hold your hands over your ears while shouting "la la la" and ignore it like Mikey.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

One of the problems the left has, generally speaking, is looking at systems ideally. Scientists, bureaucrats, politicians, voters, capitalists, etc., all pursue their best interests. One of the safeguards in science was peer review, but that obstacle has been removed in our system. This doesn't mean all science is bad, but it is wise to scrutinize both collection methods and interpretation of data. Until the US puts emphasis on peer review and demands replication, there is going to be a lot of skewed science being peddled for political gain.

---

I think this idea that there is a world wide conspiracy in the scientific community to promote global warming theory as a way to get government grants is... pretty thin, to say the least.  Implausible.

But if you are still doubtful, you too can look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov and see how the claim of an acceleration in sea level rise is a lie. Or you can just hold your hands over your ears while shouting "la la la" and ignore it like Mikey.

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

But if you are still doubtful, you too can look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov and see how the claim of an acceleration in sea level rise is a lie. Or you can just hold your hands over your ears while shouting "la la la" and ignore it like Mikey.

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

This subject on this message board is a tar pit.   We've been through it before, and it never ends, and no one changes their mind.

---

But if you are still doubtful, you too can look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov and see how the claim of an acceleration in sea level rise is a lie. Or you can just hold your hands over your ears while shouting "la la la" and ignore it like Mikey.

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

No kidding? Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Oh wait. We know why, as the article explains. Pretty well too, right up until the last 3 paragraphs where the researcher puts his need to conform to the Narrative (and keep eating) over the need for scientific truth.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-...firms.html

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But if you are still doubtful, you too can look at the tide gauge data at NOAA.gov and see how the claim of an acceleration in sea level rise is a lie. Or you can just hold your hands over your ears while shouting "la la la" and ignore it like Mikey.

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

The point of sea level rise is that the "scientists" that you are using in your appeal to authority are proven liars. If they lie about one aspect of the debate, why should anyone treat any of their statements as definitive? I also showed you where Bill Nye (the Lying Guy) faked an experiment. Of course he's not someone anyone should use as an authority figure, but I don't remember a single Climastrologer calling him out for it.

And "the hottest years in recorded history" is pure spin. 1) We only have accurate global measurements since 1979, so "recorded history" is a very limited time span. And 2) "the hottest" is a temperature difference of less than 1/10th a degree. Big whup! The Vikings farmed(!) Greenland for over 100 years circa 1000 AD. Greenland is not warm enough for farms in 2019 AD. We don't have temperature measurements from back then, but there is lots of historical evidence  that it was warmer then.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

No kidding? Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

Oh wait. We know why, as the article explains. Pretty well too, right up until the last 3 paragraphs where the researcher puts his need to conform to the Narrative (and keep eating) over the need for scientific truth.

https://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-...firms.html

The frequency of activity such as sun spots or flares does not indicate much about total solar radiation.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sea level rise is just one issue.
The main issue is atmospheric temperature, and that will determine everything else.
Atmospheric temperature is definitely rising, as a disproportionate number of the hottest years ever in recorded history took place in the last decade.

This subject on this message board is a tar pit.   We've been through it before, and it never ends, and no one changes their mind.

You changed your mind about this at some point.  I did too.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.