RE: Physics Disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I appreciate you making direct statements disputing the paper, because it enables me to understand your objections so that I can consider them. The specific issue you have seems to be the characterization of CO2 as a 'weak' GHG, not with the ~30 watts/m^2 CO2 actually prevents from being emitted. You ignore the actual quantification of the greenhouse effect exerted by different gases, and decry the particular word used to refer to the reduced ability of CO2 to exert the greenhouse effect after reaching it's saturation point. Lindzen and Happer point out that ~90% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and that effect is vital to Earth's habitability (which you characterize as dangerous rather than utterly essential to life itself). If 90% of work is done by one thing, and 10% of work by several others, clearly one has strong effect and the others weak, but you completely reject that evidence.
"...everything else is in this chapter relies on a nonsensical sentence until we hit that graph, which applies distorted information onto it"
You yourself point out that CO2 reaches saturation, and then has reduced effect as a greenhouse gas - but you characterize their calculation of that effect as 'nonsensical', and then claim they use 'distorted information'. What calculation should be used to correctly gauge the post-saturation level of greenhouse effect by CO2? What is your source for these claims?
"now this was unbearable:
"B. The EPA's MAGICC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures
"they never explain why they are saying this!?!??? I mean... it doesn't confirm? even if they think it does, they never explain it."
The very next paragraphs state:
"The Environmental Protection Agency uses the Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), as does the IPCC, many government agencies and climate policy analysts to predict temperatures and sea level rise from the level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.
"The MAGICC model confirms that the U.S. achieving Net Zero CO2 and other GHG
emissions to Net Zero by 2100 would cause negligible changes in Earth's surface temperature. Reducing them to Net Zero would reduce global temperatures by less than 1° C (1.8°F) by 2100."
This is indeed confirmation by this model that Net Zero by 2050 (or even 2100) will not avert a climate catastrophe, because <1 degree Celsius is not a catastrophic 'global boiling'. This MAGICC model is used by the IPCC itself and it does not support their claims of catastrophic global warming from CO2 impending.
"Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause [...] less than 1° C (2° F)."
To which you reply:
"this would only be true if there were no feedback effects like more water vapor and clouds..."
You attempt to refute the statement regarding the inability of CO2 at saturation to substantially exert more greenhouse effect by stating that water vapor and clouds will instead, that they will be somehow caused by increased CO2. No one has ever asserted evidence of that to my knowledge, certainly it isn't mentioned in the paper, and you offer no mechanism by which CO2 might somehow increase water vapor and clouds. What is this 'feedback effect' of increasing CO2 that causes more water vapor and clouds?
"...adding one extra flame won't make the fire significantly worse, which renders existing flames completely harmless!"
You are certainly aware that is a false characterization, because I've cited the actual numbers the authors provided several times. The titular image for my post, taken from the linked paper, shows that CO2 reduces radiation by ~30w/m^2, at specific frequencies, which isn't of null effect at all. It is what makes life possible on Earth, and, as the authors point out, more of it will increase the fecundity of life on Earth, as it has at 10x - 20x times the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The fact that CO2 reaches saturation doesn't cause CO2 to stop exerting it's greenhouse effect. It just doesn't exert more of it. When you are dissolving something, like salt or sugar, into water, it dissolves fine until it reaches saturation. Then no more of it will dissolve into the water, and it just accumulates as a slurry. It doesn't slow down or reduce the percentage being dissolved. Neither does it eject all the solute from solution. Just so CO2 absorbs heat at certain frequencies, until it reaches saturation in the atmosphere, and then it can't absorb anymore. It still feeds plants though, which is why greenhouse growers use it to increase the productivity of their operations.
IMG source - Lindzen and Happer (2025)
There seems to be nothing behind your dissension but desperation to justify your faith in AGW. You intend to remain amongst the faithful in your AGW religion, and no heretical facts or evidence will cause you to renounce your faith. That is my takeaway of your refutation of my post, and Lindzen and Happer's paper.
Thanks!
this is too convoluted for me. can we try this?
first, I want to talk about how the paper characterizes CO2 as a weak GHG. can we talk about that without bringing other stuff up?
if you say "you can't because it's necessary" then at least try to bring the bare minimum of other subjects when talking about something specific. rotate around one argument. I'm not saying you will, I'm just handling this preemptively. please.
I would like to talk about "the ~30 watts/m^2 CO2 actually prevents from being emitted" after we conclude the characterization of CO2 as a weak GHG.
What about it? CO2 is one of several gases that together produce ~10% of the greenhouse effect, water vapor producing the rest.
an excerpt from one of my other comments:
this means CO2 is not a "weak gas"/"unimportant to climate change matters gas" as the study tries to make us believe. it is a "strong gas"/"important to climage change matters gas"
however, the paper classifies it as "weak" and justifies this by falsely affirming that it is weak "because increasing it is harmless"
then the study goes on to use data in its explanations using numbers that can only be justified if CO2 never affected the amount of water vapor/ clouds in the atmosphere. hell, if that was true, if CO2 did not mess with water vapor and clouds, then I'd probably validate the study. it would make sense.
That page is dated:
NASA is one of the leading AGW propaganda institutions.
However, the numbers you are citing above are vastly different than those published by Lindzen and Happer. Lindzen and Happer say that water vapor provides ~90% of the GH effect, and CO2 and the several other GH gases combined provide the other ~10%.
I will make the following observation: On the NASA page you linked is published:
While this seems reasonable - and alarming, because we know CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising - a cursory glance at Earth's past reveals it is a false statement.
IMG source - Lindzen and Happer (2025) Pg. 13
During most of the existence of Earth CO2 has been much higher than it is now, as you can see from the provided chart. After the Cambrian ~500Mya, life produced an explosion of diversity of species, and CO2 was ~10x what it is today. Obviously, at no time during the existence of Earth did the runaway 'vicious cycle' NASA said would happen occur. Temperature rose and fell, CO2 rose and fell, and it even appears from the chart that when one rose the other fell, and vice versa, most of the time.
However, let's bring this discussion much closer to today, and note mention of the Vikings colonization of Greenland after ~850 AD in the above image. Global temperatures were high enough then for pasture to raise sheep in Greenland, however by ~1250 AD, the colonies collapsed because temperatures cooled and pasture could no longer sustain sheep in Greenland. There are myriad sources and historical documents confirming this occurred. It is not a theoretical or speculative claim by the authors of the linked paper. I do not know of any source at all that denies that historical event, much less any credible source denying it.
That is not what NASA said would happen. They said when the atmosphere warmed, there would be more evaporation, which would warm the atmosphere more, and this cycle would continue to increase temperatures. That is not what happened, and the Greenland colonies failed.
So, we observe that the claim that higher temperatures will create a vicious cycle of increasing warming is false. We observe that NASA makes false claims, and presumably is actually well informed of Earth's climatic history, so they knowingly make false claims: NASA lied. That's what scammers do.
The first time someone lies to you should be the last time you believe them. Since NASA's claims are disproved by the climate history of the Earth, you will have to cite some other source for CO2 ratios and saturation points differing from Lindzen and Happer because NASA is without evidentiary value, being proved liars.
why exactly do you have literal FAITH in Lidzen and Happer? you sound like they're priests of your church. let's doubt nasa, but not these guys? okay, but why? why should I trust them? what's so special about them? if they suddenly posted a study stating that climate change is real, would you also follow them and change your entire worldview because of this? your praise is unreal. they're just two humans. why would you decide to never question them...?
do you understand why consensus is important? it happens so the world doesn't just take your word for granted. it's so you can't forge results. you publish your paper, other people verify through experiment to see if what you're doing is replicable, and if it is replicable, then the fact that it is replicable will be published. if it is not replicable, then the fact that it is not replicable will be published.
I'm going to have to start asking for sources of authors who don't show up in the website you've referenced before
You're projecting. They're disproving lies, which I support.
When did I recommend trusting anyone? They're not proved to be liars, yet, as NASA is. Prove them wrong and I'll agree with you. You tried, but instead proved NASA wrong. When an honest man learns he is wrong, he either ceases to be wrong, or ceases to be honest. Liars just keep on lying, which is why you should not believe anything a liar says.
You're making shit up and putting words in my mouth. Have you so little self esteem you have to malign others to feel good about yourself?
Consensus is the antithesis of science.
No. The scientific method prevents forging results, because independent replication of research, critical reading of papers, and earnest discussion enables such fraud to be discovered. Consensus can be - and is - bought, and buys exactly that fraud. This is why we discuss evidence and data in actual scientific debate, not what everyone says is such and so. Replication and refutation isn't consensus. It's the opposite of consensus, because it's actually reproducing the experiment to check the results and proving them wrong when you do. Consensus is just taking everybody at their word, without checking to see if they're telling the truth, and today there are $275T reasons for corruption of scientific research.
But you're not discussing evidence and data, you're searching for ways (and making them up when you can't find any) to malign me, the authors of the linked paper, in fact anything besides the linked paper and the disproof of the AGW scam. I feel you're acting in bad faith.