Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

If you mean me, that is a lie.

 

Fair enough, should we also alarm you when you have a heart attack? Or should you take measures to prevent it before it happens?

 

Here is a good discussion by Dr. Curry when Obama was the president.

 

Let's hear from a prominent Meteorologist in England who claims there is no such thing as man made climate change.

 

Professor Ivar Giaever addresses why he pays no attention to "global warming claims"

 

If global warming got your girlfriend'wife to leave you, then you might get harmed.

Science is pushing back against the politicians. Gird thy lions.

 

I see no science from you, only constant carping and insulting.

Even Australia dumped your carbon tax.

Oh, that pedestal you put yourself on is melting.

 

Well they are in submarines which are built to isolate them from the elements which is why they "live well" which isn't an option for us surface dwellers. The negative impact of CO2 is temperature but in an air-conditioned submarine of course you will do fine. But we obviously can't place the entire planet in an air conditioned environment.

Consider also that water temperature works a lot differently than atmospheric temperature, water requires more heat to be warm so water is much colder than the air. So a certain amount of heat will make the air hot but the water will remain cold, so what works in water doesn't necessarily work in air.

Lastly, CO2 heats up the earth because of the greenhouse effect where it forms a blanket in the atmosphere trapping heat. When CO2 is in the water it doesn't have a greenhouse effects its just wandering around with other elements in the water. So just because CO2 isn't harmful in the water doesn't mean its going to be ok in the air.

[/QUOTE]Then add in the professors such as Professor Harper of Princeton that wants higher levels of CO2 than 1000 ppm. Says it would do great things for plants.

Since we know that 10,000 ppm won't hurt you, crank it up a lot more and you get excellent plant life. Green houses have over 3,000 ppm so we know it works well.

Now on with the show.

notice this is a scientific site.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#48





http://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

[/QUOTE]

Ummm, just because things works one way at the bottom of the ocean doesn't mean it works that way up here. Also, while more CO2 can help plants, if they get less water because of warming, they are still going to die, as California has shown.

 

Then add in the professors such as Professor Harper of Princeton that wants higher levels of CO2 than 1000 ppm. Says it would do great things for plants.

Since we know that 10,000 ppm won't hurt you, crank it up a lot more and you get excellent plant life. Green houses have over 3,000 ppm so we know it works well.

Now on with the show.

notice this is a scientific site.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#48





http://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

[/QUOTE]


Ummm, just because things works one way at the bottom of the ocean doesn't mean it works that way up here. Also, while more CO2 can help plants, if they get less water because of warming, they are still going to die, as California has shown.[/QUOTE]

To those living in fear, sweating the petty stuff ... I implore you to study the many many videos I show to you. Watch all of them. They vary. We have nobel laureates who do not think you are in some danger.

Many men make millions into the billions of dollars feeding off your fear.

Be brave. Carbon Dioxide is not harming you.

Ignore the politicians and focus on the climate experts.

 

Who is Professor Harper?

Well they are in submarines which are built to isolate them from the elements which is why they "live well" which isn't an option for us surface dwellers. The negative impact of CO2 is temperature but in an air-conditioned submarine of course you will do fine. But we obviously can't place the entire planet in an air conditioned environment.

Consider also that water temperature works a lot differently than atmospheric temperature, water requires more heat to be warm so water is much colder than the air. So a certain amount of heat will make the air hot but the water will remain cold, so what works in water doesn't necessarily work in air.

Lastly, CO2 heats up the earth because of the greenhouse effect where it forms a blanket in the atmosphere trapping heat. When CO2 is in the water it doesn't have a greenhouse effects its just wandering around with other elements in the water. So just because CO2 isn't harmful in the water doesn't mean its going to be ok in the air.

Just because the current level of greenhouse gasses are ok doesn't mean increasing it won't result in warming.

 

Typo or plain misspelled.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01...othing-to-do-with-more-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

The point about Submarines was not over climate. Frankly I am not one bit concerned about global climate. I don't fear some changes to climate. We went over all of that when I studied weather for a US Government test.

You repeat what appears to be a common myth taught by politicians.

That being that carbon dioxide shows up first followed by heating. Seems as if the evidence refutes that and heating comes first followed by carbon dioxide. This ought to calm your fear over carbon dioxide.

 

All names? Robert Holmes is ONE name.

How do you know if they are experts if you don't look at their credentials?

Yes, the photos may have been taken by Mr. Holmes. However, you falsely implied that he said "The next ice age has begun . . . and we don’t even know it."

Well, actually you just cut and pasted an article that implied it. That was all you need though, someone saying "The next ice age has begun". Hurrah!

Calling you out for posting BS is never off topic.

 

This is what I mean about googling before you post - we dumped the tax yes but have a different system in place

You want science READ the IPCC instead of reading junk scien ce and faux scientists who have no real idea of what it is about

 

Ummm, just because things works one way at the bottom of the ocean doesn't mean it works that way up here. Also, while more CO2 can help plants, if they get less water because of warming, they are still going to die, as California has shown.[/QUOTE]

To those living in fear, sweating the petty stuff ... I implore you to study the many many videos I show to you. Watch all of them. They vary. We have nobel laureates who do not think you are in some danger.

Many men make millions into the billions of dollars feeding off your fear.

Be brave. Carbon Dioxide is not harming you.

Ignore the politicians and focus on the climate experts.[/QUOTE]

Well, for a start you got the name wrong - it is Happer not harper

Secondly you tube is nowhere near a scientific journal such as "nature"

Thirdly Happer is not a climate scientist

Fourthly seems he is for hire

Over the course of their investigation, Greenpeace posed as the representative of a Middle Eastern oil and gas company and an Indonesian coal company. In the guise of a Beirut-based business consultant they asked William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett professor of physics at Princeton University, to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions, according to email exchanges between the professor and the fake company.

Happer is one of the most prominent climate sceptics in the US and on Tuesday was called to testify at a congressional hearing into climate “dogma” convened by Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate and chair of the Senate science committee. He is also chairman of the George Marshal Institute in the US and an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK.

Reacting to the sting at the UN climate talks in Paris, US secretary of state John Kerry was dismissive of the impact of such paid-for work. “One professor or one scientist is not going to negate peer-reviewed scientists by the thousands over many years and 97% of the scientists on the planet,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...e-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

 

Apparently you see the IPCC as a real science body. It is as much science as the British Parliament is.

 

No it is not but the SCIENCE it quotes is very real = try it sometime you might learn something

 

I use honest climate science experts. Why not join me. I think you would learn a lot.

 

I put Happer through Google scholar (try it sometime it is how you find science articles in journals) and guess what??

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=20&q=happer&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

NO CLIMATOLOGY PAPERS

 

No you don't - the people you are quoting have been in the pay packet of big oil for quite some time

https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
Either that or they are fringe believers our of step and out of touch
https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

 

Piers Corbyn

Here you go again, trotting out another expert qualified in the field.
(my emphases)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

Corbyn's predictions are based on what is called "The Solar Weather Technique".[23] The technique "combines statistical analysis of over a century of historical weather patterns with clues derived from solar observations."[1] He considers past weather patterns and solar observations and sun-earth magnetic connectivity. Conventional meteorology claims that such influences cause minimal impact on the Earth's atmosphere.

Corbyn asserts that earthquakes can be triggered by solar activity, and hence that he can to some extent predict them.

In an article in the technology magazine Wired entitled "The Fraudulent Business of Earthquake and Eruption Prediction",[36] Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, accused Corbyn of "cherry picking" and said people who claimed to be able to forecast earthquakes were "faith healers of the geologic community and should be seen as such".

He featured in a Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle in 2007; a scientifically-reviewed complaint to Ofcom noted that he was introduced as 'Dr Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster' despite not having a doctorate nor any qualification specifically in climate science or environmental science.​

Oops, sorry. I should have said "trotting out another fraud". You said you don't check the credentials of your experts. That is obvious.

 

What I love is the reliance on you tube - if that is the level of understanding then

 

Dr Richard Lindzen has written hundreds of such papers.

Check this paper out.

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8335.full

 

This might help

 

Look, with youtube, at least you see more than words, you get advantages one might expect you would understand.

 

Finally !!! A science paper!!!

Congratulations!!!

Unfortunately finding ONE paper is not the end of it because that paper has to be accepted into a journal and before that it must be peer reviewed - even then it has to survive the criticism of peers who may or may not accept the findings

Here is one such critique of Linzdens assertions

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/cl...nion pieces/Critique of Lindzen's lecture.pdf

And did you notice the DATE on that paper?? It is 20 years old!!