Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Here's info related to temp/co2 levels, and which comes first, cause/effect, etc. Your myth has been debunked thoroughly by numerous scientists.
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
The relevant quotes:
"We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat."
Get that? Basic physics. Not advanced physics. Not timeline-related stuff. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. That's just a fact. There are many ways to test that, and it's been tested many ways. That's what CO2 does, absorb infrared. Is there any argument about that? And if that's true, and it is, and provably so, then infrared trying to go through a higher-CO2 atmosphere will get trapped more readily than infrared trying to go through a lower-CO2 atmosphere.
Think of CO2 as cotton candy, and heat as water. If you toss a droplet of water on a big (high CO2) ball of cotton candy, it will likely not go all the way through. But if you put the droplet on a thin layer of cotton candy (low CO2 levels), the droplet will likely make it all the way through. So too with infrared radiation (e.g. heat). If there's lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, less of the infrared can make it out of the Earth's atmosphere and cool the planet, and vice versa when the levels are high.
Anyway, it really is basic physics, the properties of CO2 as pertains to infrared radiation. That's why it's so hard to understand anyone who would disagree. It's like showing them a ball and dropping it and explaining that what makes the ball fall is gravity, and the other person says no, gravity doesn't cause that, must be something else. Welll....if you say so, then I guess I should just go ahead and ignore physics.
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO<SUB>2</SUB> increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment
The relevant quotes:
"We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat."
Get that? Basic physics. Not advanced physics. Not timeline-related stuff. CO2 does absorb infrared radiation. That's just a fact. There are many ways to test that, and it's been tested many ways. That's what CO2 does, absorb infrared. Is there any argument about that? And if that's true, and it is, and provably so, then infrared trying to go through a higher-CO2 atmosphere will get trapped more readily than infrared trying to go through a lower-CO2 atmosphere.
Think of CO2 as cotton candy, and heat as water. If you toss a droplet of water on a big (high CO2) ball of cotton candy, it will likely not go all the way through. But if you put the droplet on a thin layer of cotton candy (low CO2 levels), the droplet will likely make it all the way through. So too with infrared radiation (e.g. heat). If there's lots of CO2 in the atmosphere, less of the infrared can make it out of the Earth's atmosphere and cool the planet, and vice versa when the levels are high.
Anyway, it really is basic physics, the properties of CO2 as pertains to infrared radiation. That's why it's so hard to understand anyone who would disagree. It's like showing them a ball and dropping it and explaining that what makes the ball fall is gravity, and the other person says no, gravity doesn't cause that, must be something else. Welll....if you say so, then I guess I should just go ahead and ignore physics.
Neither of the top candidates will get my vote.
. 
) is going to get you on quoting a news service rather than a peer reviewed journal If you read the Science article it in now way disputes the current science even if it is 5 years old.
