Hmm? I guess we have a problem? The usual problem with logical analysis? You comment...
Quote:
|
This paragraph doesn't make much sense. If CO2 was trapping heat coming in, then how do you expect it to cool the atmosphere? You've contradicted yourself there and now you're making it out like it was a logical suggestion?
|
Lets start with the IPCC theory of anthropogenic CO2 blocking the heat radiating away from earth. The theory is that CO2 is blocking radiating heat and thereby causing global warming.
If CO2 is dense enough(which it obviously isn't!) to trap/bock some of the heat radiating from the earth and cause warming, is it not logical to ask why wouldn't it trap and block the suns heat coming in? Does that make more sense to you? Or is it your addled theory that somehow it only blocks radiating heat from one direction and not the other?
If it blocked incoming heat the earth would get much cooler, would it not? Thus one could logically conclude that human generated CO2 doesn't have much effect, nor does naturally generated CO2 generated by the oceans temps , etc,(constituting a fraction of 1 % of the atmosphere)
have much effect?
Logical conclusion! Natural causes cause climate change and CO2 has a minimal effect. Sensible course...wait and see? Conduct more studies? Throw Gore out on his ear!