BeesKnee5 wrote:We have known that CO2 absorbs energy and emmits it in the infra-red spectrum since the 1850s.
Tyndall's experiments even tell us how much temperature will rise based on the levels of CO2. His measurements were pretty damn accurate.
False. Tyndall's experiments only tell us how much temperature WOULD rise based on the levels of CO2 IF there were no other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas about 100 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2, already pretty much saturates the absorption spectrum of CO2. So increased CO2 cannot, repeat, CANNOT have the claimed effects. The causal link between temperature and CO2 is the other way around: higher temperature drives CO2 out of the oceans by reducing its solubility in sea water. That's why CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record.
BeesKnee5 wrote:The tilt of the the earth will always mean a shortened growing season and a long dark winter.
So, you think the carbon was sequestered there when the earth's axial tilt was lower??
Meanwhile global warming will push more areas over 50C on a regular basis, killing soil bacteria and making plant life die off.
That is absurd nonsense with no basis in empirical science.
But this misses the he point, most of the he CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and this takes time, we can help by reducing CO2 emmisions and increasing trees cover.
Tree cover is increasing naturally, thanks to fertilization by increased CO2.
BeesKnee5 wrote:Why do you think temperature records have been falsified?
Because they have been exposed as fraudulent:
https://realclimatescience.com/understa ... ure-fraud/
Satellite record has always been modified to improve results based on understanding.
No, to prevent understanding.
Ship records had to be modified due to changes from moving from measuring the temp in a bucket to using the intake to the engine room.
Now they are using buoys, and falsifying the data by changing the mix.
Land based methodology hasn't changed in a very long time.
False. More and more of the land data is simply made up:
The temperature data we have from the MWP shows a localised warming in the North Atlantic and isn't replicated across the proxy data elsewhere.
That's just false:
The last comment seems odd when the discussion is global climate.
I can't personally check the temperatures reported from other places.
Warm Arctic, Cold continent (WACCy) weather has been quite common in recent years. The temperature differential in the polar vortex has broken down due to the Arctic warming at a greater rate than the rest of the planet. This causes blocking highs that lead to parts of the planet being subjected to persistent warm or cool weather for longer periods.
There's always an explanation for why global warming somehow makes the weather colder....
BeesKnee5 wrote:You do realise I can release CO2 from a fire extinguisher into a sealed container to measure the radiant energy of CO2. I can do the same using steam.
We can also accurately measure the levels of these molecules in our atmosphere and calculate their net effect.
Yes, and the net effect of 400ppm of CO2 on IR absorption in a gas mix similar to tropospheric air is negligible.
BeesKnee5 wrote:As to the CO2 escaping sea water this will only happen if
A. CO2 in the water is at a greater equalibrium concentration than the air.
Which happens when rising temperature reduces its solubility in water.
B. The water reaches saturation level.
No, just disequilibrium.
We know A isn't true and I have run a planted tank and 20C and 25C and measured CO2 levels in water at 3-5ppm when the atmosphere is 400ppm and I have injected CO2 up to 50ppm and the CO2 hasn't reached saturation.
What on earth do you incorrectly imagine that proves?
It's a common theory but the reality is while CO2 in the atmosphere rises then the ocean will absorb it to reach equalibrium, creating carbonic acid and therefore becoming more acidic.
Sea water is not acidic, it is basic, and it will remain basic.