This sharp rise of global CO2 level, combined with the small rise in global temperature of 1 degree F over the past 100 years [1], is evidence against the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Here is a simple experiment you can do at home (designed for children, it's that easy). Just do it and come back to me with what you find. If you are smart enough to be on HN, you are smart enough to do this experiment in your kitchen. No need to read research papers, or 'trust conspiring climate scientists'. Just go prove it to yourself.
This is completely pointless. No one questions the greenhouse effect (it is used to grow food all over the world). The question is whether or not additional CO2 that was put in the atmosphere by human activity over the last ~100 years is the primary cause of the ~1°C average surface temp increase in that time period.
An experiment for children isn't going o add anything of value here.
Labor or in this case kitchen experiment do not model the real wold.
And Correlation does not imply causation.
And finally when you establish a correlation, it does not have to be linear i.e. more of X does not mean it must case more of Y. Complex systems that are in some kind of balance often produce their own counter effect to change. This is the primary reason why such a stable balance could even form over long periods of time. The self correction properties of the whole system is very much a requirement for the balance to exists in a complex system like the climate.
I'm not sure if you read the same one. The guy asking for "data that supports your claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas" because he won't accept it without an alternate CO2-less Earth for comparison? Seems the experiment was convincing enough for him.
>ozone is considered pollution on grown level and its UV radiation shield high up
Shortly after the lowest average temp in the last 10k years the temp goes up a tiny bit and that is bad?
Maybe it is bad, who knows, but it sure seems better than if the interglacial would have ended and the temp would drop 10°C in the next few hundred years then another 10°C in thousand years and then a 90k year long ice age or something.
You may or may not remember the warnings about the coming ice age.
Overall the chance that human caused CO2 will case some kind of mass extinction due to warming is about as high as that a random ice age that should have started already but didn't (and we dont know why), causes a mass extinction.
> Shortly after the lowest average temp in the last 10k years the temp goes up a tiny bit and that is bad?
A degree in 20 years is not “a tiny bit” in this aggregated form. That’s why the ice age scenario you suggest is also bad. There is little evidence that scenario is happening right now though.
It seems to be much more than 20 years, but does it even matter? We have no clue about the climate of the future, even if all the warming we attribute to our pollution is 100% correct, we still do not know if this will cause problems for future generation or help them cope with an ice age. Both is at best equality likely, the ice age is probably more likely because whatever causes it, is a much much bigger force than human pollution, there is probably not enough human accessible fossil CO2 to prevent an ice age.
CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas for hundreds of years. Without it, earth would be freezing. Also, you didn't say how much the temperature should have risen instead of the 1 degree which you believe to be wrong.
You didn't make a point, so there is no argument to be made here.
It's basic quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. All molecules with three atoms are greenhouse gases. The information is readily available, I'm not going to repeat it here. Pick up some textbooks.
Wait, what? Why does three atoms make it a greenhouse gas?
Not saying you're wrong, but from the quantum I know (senior level undergrad), that's not "basic". Could you explain the "three atom" bit at an undergrad level?
Molecules with three atoms that are not considered greenhouse gases include:
Ozone (O3): While ozone does absorb some solar radiation, it's primarily involved in blocking ultraviolet light from the Sun, rather than acting as a greenhouse gas in the way that CO2, CH4, or N2O do.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Although it's a significant air pollutant and plays a role in smog formation, it is not primarily considered a greenhouse gas.
Nitric Oxide (NO): Like NO2, nitric oxide is more involved in air pollution and is not considered a greenhouse gas.
Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2): This compound is more known for its reactive properties and is not considered a greenhouse gas.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): While carbon monoxide can have indirect effects on global warming by reacting with other substances in the atmosphere, it is not itself considered a significant greenhouse gas.
Iodine Trichloride (ICl3): This is a more exotic example and not commonly found in the atmosphere. It is not a greenhouse gas.
GPT is not a reliable source. Note that 4 out of 6 of these "molecules with three atoms" it offers do not have three atoms. (Carbon monoxide and nitric oxide have two; iodine trichloride and hydrogen peroxide have 4.)
The GP's somewhat cryptic statement about 3 atoms is explained better here:
Monatomic gases and diatomic molecules made of identical atoms (e.g. O2, N2) are not "active" with regard to infrared radiation. They are transparent to it. Almost all other molecules are "IR active," meaning that they can absorb IR radiation in ways that are characteristic of their vibrational modes. This includes the well known greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Greenhouse gases are those IR active molecules that have a significant residence time in the atmosphere and can thus partially trap IR radiation emitted from the Earth's surface.
Some substances are IR active but are not usually classified as greenhouse gases because they quickly break down in the environment. Other substances are IR active but not counted among greenhouse gases because they have a low vapor pressure and do not significantly make it into the atmosphere.
Tropospheric ozone (O3) is the third most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Ozone absorbs infrared radiation (heat) from the Earth's surface, reducing the amount of radiation that escapes to space.
Nitrogen dioxide is infrared active and absorbs IR re-radiated from the Earth, as seen in the spectral plots available here:
However, its short atmospheric residence time means that its emissions have little heat-trapping ability, so it is rarely considered as a greenhouse gas:
Add the fact that more or less sophisticated measurement of temperatures started some 150 years ago and approximately 200-400 years ago we reached the coldest temp in the last 10k years.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+has+the+global+temp...