Its not clear how one can distinguish between natural and anthropogenic emissions. Animal agriculture, deforestation, desertification are all contributing to rising CO2 and are caused by humans. There is almost no part of the globe that is not affected by human activities. Fossil fuels are a relatively small component. The website you link to questions the level of climate sensitivity. This is exactly the point I made earlier in this thread. The debate is all about λ not the actual equation itself. The basic science is not in question.
We don't need to question the basic science to question whether man made co2 causes warming. CO2 can warm... CO2 also cool per NASA. see... https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ The question is does adding man made co2 cause warming. we don't know... inter alia... a. atmospheric co2 levels follow change in ocean temps. So the excess that added by man might be off gassed or absorbed b. As you add more co2 to the atmosphere is loses its impact as a blanket logarithmically. So at some point adding co2 and its start moving up in the atmosphere it may start acting as more of a shield than a blanket. Finally I agree man could be causing warming. Either by agriculture and bunching up in cities and eating meat or by changin the instrument readings. There is also a slight chance adding co2 might cause a very small amount of warming. I suspect sun the tides and the earth itself do most of the warming and cooling. CO2 is probably part of a feedback system.
If CO2 is a coolant then I would have to agree that anthropogenic global warming makes no sense. And, as you say, that article in NASA does say exactly that. The best way to determine this is to do the experiment I suggested earlier in the thread with plastic bottles. I have to confess that I've never bothered to do it, but I will try it right now. Maybe you can do the same for independent verification.
How are you measuring the amount of CO2 in your bottle- to make sure you get roughly 400 parts /million only ? (0.04%)
At the following, you can find a well documented similar experiment. https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate...ll-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You still seem to not understand what that means. Or you do and you are just a deranged fucking POS liar. I'm going with the latter.
@jem @yabz this article does a good job at explaining CO2's role at different levels in the atmosphere. The article jem posted was about CO2 in the thermosphere, not the troposphere. The important takeaway is that CO2's properties have different affects on the atmosphere at different altitudes.
jerm knows that. He is not interested in the truth. No reason to be respectful of him. He's a fucking liar. The kind that defended big tobacco. The kind that will cost this earth dearly.