Re: no bias nor inflamatory tone, move along
(re: demonstrating no man-made climate change, that such claims are a HOAX)
"No you haven't and, no you can't!"
Sure I can, and have done so already, and I'll do it AGAIN.
The CO2 mechanism is just on example of the HOAX of man-made global temperature whatever. It's there because it ties in directly with fossil fuels, which the left HATES anyway [they empower average people, making us more mobile and having affordable luxuries]. And the use of fossil fuels ties to human activity, and ANY connection they can make, is a method by which they can CONTROL people through manipulation and outright lies.
Consider this: If CO2 concentration increases, and if it were causing warming, it would result in a HIGHLY UNSTABLE condition, like thermal runaway in a semiconductor (which we are NOT seeing, by the way). Why? It's because when you heat ocean water, it RELEASES CO2! That's why.
The projection would be that, when the planet warms, more CO2 is released from the ocean, causing a warmer planet, EVEN MORE CO2, and so on. Thermal runaway. Yes, that's NOT happening. And it WON"T happen, because of the OBSERVABLE property in chemistry known as EQUILIBRIUM.
So what we DO see is a CO2 + H2O equlibrium reaction in the atmosphere due to RAIN. It ends up depleting atmospheric CO2 into waterways and the ocean, and it precipitates out as carbonates. [volcanos underwater can stir these carbonates up and cause CO2 to bubble up to the surface - and if you measure CO2 NEAR a thermal anomoly like that, you'll get the skewed figures that warmists need in order to "prove" their hoax - but I digress]
Now, ANYONE studying chemistry knows about equilibrium reactions, which CO2 and water have most definitely been observed as having, including the affinity of CO2 for being hydrolyzed in water, and so on. So the laws of physics COMPLETELY go against the claims that CO2 levels are rising, rising, rising, and temperatures are going with it. Besides, isn't it OBVIOUS, RIGHT NOW, that world-wide temperatures are starting to COOL DOWN??? That they've come off of a CYCLIC PEAK, and are heading back the OTHER way? What data is being IGNORED again???
The "inconvenient truth" here, aside from CO2 maintaining an equlibrium level, is that CO2 does NOT have a significant infrared absorption spectrum above VERY COLD temperatures (something close to -50C as I recall). So atmospheric CO2 will do a FINE JOB of helping to keep temperatures from going BELOW -50C, by blanketing IR emissions at those temperatures, keeping the heat in etc.. OK it's not perfect because occasionally, in Antarctica, it can get a bit colder than that. But not by much. Thank CO2 for THAT!
For temperatures in the NORMAL range, WATER has a significantly greater effect. NOT surprisingly, WATER absorbs infrared energy in the "normal daily temperature" range. So when it's cloudy during the day, it's cold. When it's cloudy at night, it's warmer than it would be on a clear night.
And some time ago, I calculated that "Water, the OTHER greenhouse gas" has something in the order of 100 TIMES THE EFFECT OF CO2 on world-wide temperatures. But you won't see gummints or enviro-wackies trying to make the claim that we have to stop putting WATER into the atmosphere. This planet is effectively FLOODED being 3/4 covered with the stuff. It would be a LUDICROUS claim, even to the most uneducated observer.
Then you have to look at ACTUAL TEMPERATURE CYCLES. It's actually been warmer in the past, around the end of the last ice age, even. No humans were burning fossil fuels, either.
As yet ANOTHER example, THIS guy extrapolates a modified "linear line" corresponding to the last 120 or so years of temperature data, in addition to a cyclic component.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/temperature-history
however, if he treated that 120 or so year "bent linear line" like the SINE WAVE THAT IT IS, you would see the longer, 500 year (or so) trend, and it's on the upswing at the moment. We knew that.
What's not so obvious [when you consider the combination of 2 or more long cycles], when you don't measure ENOUGH data for LONG enough, is that you get a 'hockey stick' if you start at a low point (1970's) and end up at a high point (2010'ish), and think OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD and project ridiculous increases in temperature and THEN blame CO2 for it.
(note: the guy on THAT web site believes that SOME warming is due to human activity. I don't accept CO2 as a mechanism, because chemistry/physics/science, and THEREFORE if you can't come up with something ELSE to model a 'human blame' after, I say it's NOT human activity at ALL!)
In any case, believe what you want. Calling people "denier" because they USE THEIR BRAINS instead of SWALLOW THE KOOLAID is just "yet another lefty trick" to SILENCE those who simply DISAGREE with you!
'nuff. I grow weary of repeating myself.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
