Bilko

Quite, but I was referring to anthropogenic global warming. So if anthropogeniuc emissions of CO2 do indeed contribute to global warming, then the CO2 molecule's interaction with radiant heat must be the lynch pin of the AGW argument. What other human activity could cause AGW apart from passing wind maybe? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The way I see it is that since CO2 does indeed absorb heat, then surely it will contribute to general GW and with the steady increases of emissions, GW will inevitably increase to the point of catrastophe.

Well if anthropogenic global warming is caused by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and if CO2 is the most common GHG, then without anthropogenic emissions of CO2 or other GHGs then there would be no controversy. So why are the the frequencies not reradiated out into space, in proportion to the ratio of the cube of the absolute temperature? Makes me wonder why they are indeed sceptics at all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So are you as a spectic more or less saying that yes anthropogeniuc emissions of CO2 can cause GW, but not enough to justify being alarmed about?

Hi, this is my first post concerning a subject that I would like more information on and feedback on my opinions. In the arguments between the deniers and those promoting AGW there is much claimed and counter-claimed regarding variations in local temperatures, melting ice caps etc. These arguments or debates are between professional scientists and no conclusion is ever reached between them. Only new sets of data for either claim or counter claim. It just goes on and on. The lynch pin of the anthropogenic global warming controversy concerns the structure of the CO2 molecule (or indeed other 'greenhouse gases') and its atomic interaction with radiant heat. Now if anthropogenic global warming is to be refuted and considering the amounts of anthropogenic CO2 generated over the last 200 years plus that likely to be generated in the future then the lynch pin of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming must surely be questioned? i.e does CO2 actually absorb radiant heat? and if it does then does absorb significant amounts of radiant heat? i.e. significant enough to raise temperatures high enough to cause catastrophe. How many units of radiant heat are absorbed by a quantity of CO2? Has this been confirmed by laboratory experiment and if so why are its results not been brought to general attention of the general public. Surely this would kill off any claims by the deniers?. On the other hand why don't any of the deniers actually attempt to refute the claim that the carbondioxide molecule absorbs radiant heat? The CO2 molecule must either absorb radiant heat or doesn't and if it does, does it absorb suffient amounts of radiant heat to be of concern? If there are any controversies regarding AGW then it is a conspiracy to keep the debate or controversy ongoing. Thus enabling scientists and publishers to make money of literature etc One final point, surely there must be something wrong with the GW controversy when dubious characters such as Al Gore and David Icke represent opposing sides of the debate.