Well maybe it was someone else who wrote "Don't look at IPCC and NASA. All the look after are grants financed from your taxes. I understand them. The more they scare you the more money they will get from you." If you're genuinely European, you need to move west -- there's an entire national party based on fear, paranoia and ignorance which will welcome you with open arms.
Maybe it has something to do with the carbon-oxygen bonds stretching or flexing at a frequency that allows them to absorb an infrared photon. There are a number of ways in which the molecule can oscillate. One type involves the bonds stretching and contracting like springs. The molecule can absorb an IR photon when this stretching is asymmetric. The alternative is for the bonds to flex. The flexing movement allows absorption at a longer wavelength. Because the CO2 molecule can vibrate in different ways it can absorb different frequencies of IR. This means that the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide shows two main peaks. Perhaps the molecule vibrating at the resonant frequence of IR? Just a thought. What are your thoughts?
Yes, what are your beliefs. So far they are your beliefs that you did not support with any logical argumentation or calculations. I have presented you with basic knowledge (history, physics, biloogy, geopgraphy) that you have had since you were 10 years old. Let me qoute my points again: 1. History: Vikings arrived in a green island 1000 years ago, grew apples there, called the island Greenland. From history you know that there was NO INDUSTRY on Earth at that time to pollute the atmosphere to cause the green-house effect. Ergo, humans did not cause the greenhouse effect 1000 years ago. What makes you believe (not know, only believe) that humans caused the greenhouse effect these days? 2. Physics: the simple experiment that you didn't do would prove idiosyncratic water abilities to absorb the ice. 3 Biology: photosynthesis; the more CO2, the better for the planet. 4 Geography: water cycle. The hotter, the more humidity (more water absorbed in the atmosphere), the more precipitation (also on the poles, thus retaining H20 as ice) = stable oceans / sea / lake water reserves. The above points can be used by a ten year old child to debate the CO2 scam. The above points do not contradict. You did not prove these points wrong. If you did, this would mean that elementary school books need to be written from scratch. I had also posted links to wikipedia where you could see with your eyes that CO2 levels had nothing to do with sea level increase / decrease in geological past. If this is not suffiecient we can move to more advanced concepts, e.g. different saltness level vs ability of water to freeze. Regards
Maybe? Perhaps? Show the results of your research. And answer the question: why in times when CO2 level in the atmosphere was 16 x higher than today your vibrant molecules did not cause the climate warming
Well I haven't really posted many "beliefs." I've just been tearing your points apart like a dog with a bone. For example, your next one: I'm not sure which part of Greenland grew apples, but contrary to your theories it wasn't named because it was green. To give you a little history Greenland was named by Eric the Red who felt that if he gave it an attractive name people would be more likely to settle there. Yes, some parts were warmer than they are now -- but here's the funny part -- the Norse changed the climate via deforestation and changing the vegetation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum So now do you understand how there are ancient ice cores in an area you thought was fully lush and green? Know. Unless you have some explanation of how CO2 molecules are not absorbing infra-red, or there isn't more CO2 and the Keeling curve is incorrect. I did the experiment. I filled a glass of water and dumped a bunch of ice on the table, since most ice is on land. I then had a mess. You know, it doesn't take a genius to google any of this. Please define the word "deforestation" for us. Do you understand what it means? First you'll have to get the entire antarctic to not be a desert. So, it's not happening, humans haven't caused it anyway, and even if it is everything will be just fine. You may wish to stick to one incorrect argument or people will accuse you of denialism. Is that where you got them from? You jump around from point to point and it only takes one sentence, or two sentences to blow your points out of the water. For example, your glass experiment when most ice is on land. "A layer of ice up to two miles thick covers a continent as big as the United States and Mexico combined. Antarctic ice contains 70% of the world's fresh water (90% of the world's ice). If it were divided up, every person on Earth could have a chunk of ice larger than the Great Pyramid. Although 98% of Antarctica is ice, there is land underneath the ice cover, unlike the Arctic where the ice floats on top of the ocean." http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html Please, either give up or change your mind, but stop humiliating yourself.
Results of my research? Are you kidding? Go rent a spectrograph. Take it home. Shove a bunch of CO2 in it. Look at the screen and see the two peaks where energy is absorbed and see this: http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif Is the machine lying to you? Do you have some way around this information? Can you stop the CO2 molecules from vibrating? You'll have to be specific and explain to what year(s) you're referring. Only then can I gut it like a fresh fish and throw it back into the water.
It should frighten you, that you think you know more than all the world's scientists. You will be on ignore before you read this. It is painful to read your miscalculations About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet, a sheet of ice averaging at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) thick. The continent has about 90% of the world's ice (and thereby about 70% of the world's fresh water). If all of this ice were melted, sea levels would rise about 60 metres (200 ft) The total area of Greenland measures 2,166,086 km² (836,109 sq mi), of which the Greenland ice sheet covers 1,755,637 km² (677,676 sq mi) (81%) and has a volume of approximately 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (680,000 cu mi). If the Greenland ice sheet were to completely melt away, sea level would rise by more than 7 m (23 ft)[24]and Greenland would most likely become an archipelago.