RE: Physics Disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam

[felipejoys]

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.

Comments

[valued-customer]

What about it? CO2 is one of several gases that together produce ~10% of the greenhouse effect, water vapor producing the rest.

[felipejoys]

an excerpt from one of my other comments:

Nasa says CO2 represents 20% alone, while clouds and water vapor represent 75% combined. Because CO2 traps heat, there's more heat, which means more water vapor, which also means more clouds. This means that an increase in CO2 also leads to an increase in the amount of the rest of GHGs. So more CO2 means more heat across 95% of the GHG board, not just in the CO2 part.

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.