That is the full spectrum, longwave and shortwave, CO2 as a greenhouse gas can only alter the longwave spectrum, and the longwave spectrum is loosing energy.
You do not understand the difference of CO2 in a bottle, compared to a small percentage and a small change in the whole of the atmosphere.
They never speak of the heat exchange and sequestration of photosynthesis.
Yep.
And what if some of that is the drift in the calibrations? What is much more instead is being sequestered by photosynthesis? Now some of it will be the energy exchange in the melting of ice. But as long as this planet has life, there will always be an energy imbalance as the heat keeps the biological processes of the earth functioning.
No the Earth is an inorganic entity, entirely composed of minerals. It is not alive, it makes no decisions. It does not resemble in any way bugs or any other form of life.
And you base this conclusion on what?
It’s true that we will all die someday. But I still would not recommend standing in the middle of a busy highway.
OK, bring us one of those videos, and I will explain how it is not a correct experiment.
You're the one claiming that all the science on this subject, for the last century and a half, is wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely there is something out there, more than a handful of articles from maybe 30 years ago, that has led you to such shocking conclusions about a massive conspiracy theory about the entire scientific community, colluding from all around the world, and across so much time.
Actually you are the one claiming that experimental evidence exists, LOP is saying that the experiments all have fatal flaws.
The overwhelming majority of all experiments and observations from the last century and a half.
So pick one, any one, that shows experimental evidence that added CO2 causes atmospheric warming?
Experiments that you do not understand, do not read papers on, and allow the lying pundits to deceive you on.
LOL... Are you admitting how foreign this topic is to you?
Explained? How?
Actually you are the one making the extraordinary claim, because no empirical evidence exists that shows added CO2 causes warming!
Nope. The misunderstanding is all yours. Your only avenue is to tell us how there are things in the bodies of papers that only you have access to which directly contradicts what their abstract plainly says. And the only reason they are allowed to contradict themselves that way is that both the authors AND the reviewers are all engaged in some giant conspiracy theory.
So why can’t you cite a single experiment that shows added CO2 causes warming?
No you haven't. CO2 in a bottle does not represent the complexity of the atmosphere.
You are in no position to judge me. If you were, you would explain scientifically why I am wrong.
Yes, because that's all climate change science in the last century and a half.
No but they also do not have any empirical evidence supporting the assumption that added CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere!
Wow. It is so much more complicated than a bottle.
Other than claiming that there are secret things in the bodies of all scientific papers that directly contradict their abstracts, you have provided no scientific evidence to dispute. Provide it, and we can talk.
