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.
Professor Weart also wrote a textbook on the history of the Discovery of Global Warming. A free web version can be found on the American Institute of Physics website. Good resource if you want to understand how the science developed all the way back from the 1820's with John Tyndall.
Another interesting article by Professor Stephan Lewandowsky about the rejection of climate science and the incoherence of people who reject it. The ability to hold completely contradictory beliefs at the same time is quite fascinating.
for example: "Greenland was green but Greenland ice sheets cannot collapse.", "The climate cannot be predicted but we are heading into an ice age." "Paleo-temperature proxies are unreliable but the middle ages were warmer"
We would die if levels ever got that high, currently it is less than .05%, remember the 78% Nitrogen, 20% oxygen, remainder is various gases.
Is there "Climate change" ? That is without a doubt, how much of it is caused by human activity is the only thing to debate.
Thanks, I did find on Wikipedia they say it's 0.038%. CO2 must be some really, really potent stuff. It's the most powerful/potent greenhouse gas by far, right?
It's a French twit and a link to the JoNova conspiracy blog! Thanks I needed a laugh.
By the way, the phrase "Doubling of Co2 and the sensitivity to the climate" doesn't make sense. But I'd be happy to hear you explain what you think you mean.
Thanks, I did find on Wikipedia they say it's 0.038%. CO2 must be some really, really potent stuff. It's the most powerful/potent greenhouse gas by far, right?
(follow me down the rabbit hole if you dare)
You want to go down the "CO2 is an insignificant trace gas" rabbit hole? Why waste your time when it's just another climate science fake sceptic PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) that can be refuted so easily with textbook physics?
You want to go down the "CO2 is an insignificant trace gas" rabbit hole? Why waste your time when it's just another climate science fake sceptic PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) that can be refuted so easily with textbook physics?
Or did I mess up some little game you wanted to play?
Thanks for the link. Some good information in that article. You would agree that the information given in the article is correct? Despite being a trace gas of only .00038, it is responsible for about 1/3 of the greenhouse effect? That's pretty significant. Yes?
There are three factors to account for what impact a greenhouse gas will have in the atmosphere
1. Quantity
2. Ability to trap heat
3. How long it remains in atmosphere
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.
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.
