When do you not want to see records broken?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks for fixing that.

[liberty]

Correlation is not evidence proof of causality

Fixed. Correlation is evidence of causality.

And in this case we have both correlation and a well studied mechanism (1) combined with a confirming lab experiment (2) ( (1) CO2 absorbs more energy from light converting it into heat and (2) increasing CO2 in a gas mixture in the lab and shining a light on it results in greater heat transfer) which is actually very good proof. And we had all of this more than 15 years ago.


yrs,
rubato

No argument about that, but what happens to the heat in the atmosphere. Heat is part of the electromagnetic spectrum; so, how much of it would radiated into space? I am aware of the conditions on Venus, but that planet is also a lot closer to the sun.

[Econoline]

No argument about that, but what happens to the heat in the atmosphere. Heat is part of the electromagnetic spectrum; so, how much of it would radiated into space? I am aware of the conditions on Venus, but that planet is also a lot closer to the sun.

Actually, the effects of various gasses in the atmosphere are very well known, very well studied, and very predictable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house." Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.

[dgs49]

For another view...

"changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

The rising temperature results in natural phenomena that increase CO2 and other greenhouse gases (e.g., water vapor).

[rubato]

so from this we know that one of three things is true:


1) Your bullshit filter is broken: You learned so little science that you can't tell crap from fact. The causal relationship between greenhouse gasses and atmospheric warming has been known for > 100 years. Long before your idiotic references which, even still, are 30 years old.


2) You don't have a bullshit filter: Hey, sorry dude. You're just dumb.


3) Any bullshit is ok with you as long as it supports your knee-jerk ideology.


I'm voting for number 3. Michael Shermer has shown that for people like you who believe religious twaddle, beliefs come first. "Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic."



yrs,
rubato