Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're missing one other basic science issue. The water vapor is a direct function of temperature and thus not an independent variable. CO2 is one of several green house gasses that we know affect the planets energy balance. The CO2 level on Venue and the resulting temperature is an interesting comparison.
BTW science is never "settled". Law can be settled, but not science.
1) I was making a joke, directed at the AGW crowd.
2) do you have a more correct reason about lunar "climate" versus earth climate?
3) I'm pretty sure that gravity is "settled" So is radioactive decay. So is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. So is a LOT of other stuff. AGW is NOT settled, no matter how much the AGW crowd whines that it is. Hell, they cant even answer a simple question about what happens when an ice age ends.
An ice age (no matter how little in the grand scheme of things) ended 150 years ago. It has warmed ever since.
Yes, but the real question (on city-data, not in reality) is why it has warmed more than solar activity alone can explain.
The answer to this question is CO2 emissions from human activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
The massive CO2 releases of the last 60 years have NOT led to the catastrophes that the AGW crow have screamed about for the last 20 years
What catastrophes?
Is this where you claim that anyone (no matter what their credentials) who made a prediction that failed to pass is suddenly at the forefront of climatology, and that it therefore follows that all predictions are totally useless?
There is currently no scientific evidence that disputes the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Saying the Sun influences climate is certainly true. So do green house gases. The two assertions are not in conflict.
As with most things the devil is in the details. Increases in CO2 are favorable to plant growth which in turn regulates CO2 and increases O2.
The earth has a system which regulates atmospheric gasses, it can do nothing about changes in solar activity.
Climate is also being changed by the fact that the poles are migrating some 25 to 40 miles a year.
Yet none of this helps build the case for taxes and the monopolization of industry.
The climate of the Earth is effected by the solar output. The sun is not constant? I am shocked. I thought it was only related to the amount of smoke mankind makes by burning coal and weed.
Yes, but the real question (on city-data, not in reality) is why it has warmed more than solar activity alone can explain.
The answer to this question is CO2 emissions from human activity.
Says who?
[quote=Spatula City;37599909]What catastrophes?
Oh yez, I get it. When backed into a corner you peope DENY you ever made those catastrophic predictions. Never said we would get more and more extreme whether/
Damn, arguing with you people is like playing whack a mole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Is this where you claim that anyone (no matter what their credentials) who made a prediction that failed to pass is suddenly at the forefront of climatology, and that it therefore follows that all predictions are totally useless?
So you DENY that the AGW crowd has NEVER predicted catastrophe and that all this talk about carbon exchanges and taxation is what? Amazing. I have been arguing with AGW bots since 2004. They all change their story very time they are caught fibbing, or every time their climate models are shown to be nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.