Are you trying to say you don't know why you asked me why I started this thread?
You must realize by now I'm playing with you.
This thread has an issue beyond telling us something most informed people already know?
We already have done our own digging. Which is why we know you are full of shit. You trot out this Marxist propagandist, that has absolutely no science background whatsoever, and pretend that what was posted was credible. Yet when called out on your complete bullshit, you complain that we should do our own digging because you are unable to support the bullshit you posted. Then have the audacity to claim that you were trying to be "helpful" when in fact you are intentionally spewing Marxist propaganda and misinformation.
Potato potato. Trying to make this thread about me is also a form of trolling.
Most != All. Some may not have been aware of this, or the predicted year it will happen.
Nice rant!
Yes, China has already overtaken the US in annual emissions.
This is really the biggest issue of the world.
Actually the biggest issues facing Humanity are sustainable energy and fresh water.
All tied together. And all pointing at one cause. Overpopulation. We wouldn't be having such dire issues if we could only learn to control our population levels.
Again we do not have enough energy and fresh water for everyone currently alive to live a first would lifestyle
I know what the point is. My claim is he is clearly underestimating China's growth.
No problem. Everyone in the world cannot live a first world lifestyle because greed is glorified by power-monger conservatives and greed keeps the poor poor by oppression.
Yes, are you glad that I taught you about emissivity?
Ah. I see. Good point. There's not a lot of CO2 left in the atmosphere from WWII, or even the 1970's. America's share is going down while China's is going up. And up some more after that.
China may already produce more CO2 than the US. Who cares? The planet could certainly use more CO2 in the atmosphere. However, all the CO2 that humanity produces world-wide still only amounts to 1.2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. When you have 3 trillion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere, what is another 36 billion tons?
Yes... the planet becomes a more efficient radiator because the temperature is increasing and it emits more LW radiation. Now... whether or not this is the entire reason that CO2 has a decreasing effect, I don't know. You certainly have never backed this claim up with any published science that I can remember.
Yes, I am. You actually backed up something you claimed and I didn't have to go and do the research myself like I almost always have to do with the unsupported claims you make.
Oh please... this is not simple science.
I am constantly telling you why you are wrong. And I prove it quite frequently. That's why I can and do provide numerous examples. You are the one making yourself look foolish when you constantly claim I don't.
This is a debate forum where you are expected to back up what you claim. If you think that you should never have to back up what you claim then maybe you should start a blog where you can claim whatever you want without ever having to back it up.
I have shown on numerous occasions that I know more about climate science than you do. But I have never claimed to know everything.
Damn... there you go again breaking forum rule #4. I am not ignorant of climate science.
I know the science better than you do. At least I am willing to read AR6. You still refuse to.
Now, wait a minute here... You were the one who brought up emissivity. Why should I have to do all the fact-checking? I already do almost all of the fact-checking in our debates as it is.
Yes, it is simple science. With your claim you know more about the climate science than I do, you should already know it.
Maybe you think so, but you are wrong in that.
I get the idea, but debating means understanding science. If you do not understand common underlying principles, then you have no business debating it at the level I do.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You only know what you read from agenda driven material. You don't understand enough about the underlying science to understand why things like emissivity matters, until you are shown.
What am I to do? You are persistent in claiming I am wrong without telling evereyone I am aledgedly wrong. Worse yet, you do not say why I'm wrong. You just want me to find some reference that isn't readily easy to find on the internet. I went ahead and showed you the emissivity definiion and coefficients for different materials, because I knew the information was readily available. The fact that you question such things says little for you.
The AR6 is not finalized, and you would be good not to learn something that may be revised.
If you understood the basic scienecs behind the climate science, you would have already known what it is, along with how RE is calculated. But you fail every turn.
Typical.
The forcing formula already accounts for a warmer planet radiating more, which is why the
If this is such simple science then why can't anyone definitively prove or disprove AGW? It is because this is NOT simple science.
I acknowledge that I don't know everything. But I definitely know more than you do.
Too bad for you that you can't back up that statement with any proof.
Nope... you don't get to put the burden of proof on others. Either back up what you claim or go away.
This is just another of your lies.
You have yet to show what different amounts of emissivity from different surfaces have to do with this particular discussion.
OMG!! What Bullshit. I have told you why you are wrong again and again. That is why I keep citing all those examples of me proving you wrong. When are you going to quit repeating this lie?
Yet you easily found it on the internet.
Again... you still haven't stated why the emissivity of different surfaces is relevant to this discussion.
Wrong!! Go and download any part of AR6 and you will see that none of them state that it is not finalized anymore or that it may be revised. It has been that way for months now.
Why should I explain something that you brought up and doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand?
Almost all blogs I cite are written by scientists. And almost everything in the IPCC reports is backed up by peer-reviewed and published studies. If you think any of it is wrong then PROVE IT or shut up.
Really?
Much of it is simple science. And there you go again LYING! Nobody here is trying to "disprove" AGW. AGW is real. How can you be so blind as to think we don't believe in it?
Bullshit.
Why should I when you go in endless loops because you don't understand my explanations? Most the stuff you ask me to prove is stuff you should understand if you actually understood the prerequisite sciences.
I will not spend the time to teach you semesters of collage classes. Your lack of understanding the principles involved means I have no way to continue in your education.
This is all I see. I see no indication you understand the sciences needed.
This is exactly my point. I gave you a definition and data, and you don't grasp it. You are beyond my help. You refuse to learn.
A list of things that you don't understand, and think you are correct. How many times are you going keep linking old material? Shouldn't you show I'm wrong if you are going to challenge my knowledge?
Definitions and data are easy. Explanations of how things work, not so easy, and you are not worth my time. You need to do your own homework should you wish to understand thin complex field.
Buzz, the forcing formula cannot support a position where the outgoing longwave radiation increases as the CO2 level increases.
