These are too different phenomenon

And things

atmospheric greenhouse effect is based on TSI values, yes?

They are called the same just because scientist name things badly

What do you mean based off TSI values

it only calculates based on total solar irradiance

the greenhouse effect is all about radiated heat, yes?

Yes I guess.

well, it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

Why

We can see in small scale experiments the effect co2 has on temperature

In closed environments

sure, but when doing small scale experiments they are concerned with very high CO2 levels

not 0.04%

secondarily

how can 3% (human produced CO2) of the total annual flux of CO2 be more potent than the natural 97%?

(3% of 0.04< 97% of 0.04)

how come temps were so high in the early industrial period (low CO2) and so cold in the late industrial period(high CO2)? (1940 vs 1969)

it isnt mroe potent

they can barely calculate the supposed manmade share in temperature change

Okay first off. Just because there is a small percent change. Doesn’t mean it will have a large effect. Nature can only absorb so much of it and adding more doesn’t get absorbed. That’s why it might seem like a small percent but it’s actually big.

how come NASA and NOAA are having to resort to data modification?

Data modification? We modify all data

its cherrypicked data

only if you want to fit it to a model

data is data

I mean you got to show evidence for this

yes i agree data is data

just dont tell people to trust data

science doesnt work if you politicise the data

this ^

and the science process itself

Show me proof nasa cherry picks data

already did

go look at any Tony Heller yt video, he's been showing the data tampering for years

its on the frontpage of their hockeystick

page

amazing what youu can find when youu take a copy of original data

Oh the supposed data mixing he cries about?

homogenizing is something else that's laughable;; including low quality data does not increase precision

Do you know that you need to use data mixing to compare co2 levels now co2 levels before? Of course you should try to avoid data mixing but it’s impossible in this circumstance.

so they've added thousands of data points.... from airports!! 😂

urban heat islands

yeah, sure, that won't skew the data at all

I’m not sure if I would take tony hellers word on any of this

don't have to

that's the beautiful thing, it's clear in the data itself

Yeah we can’t do ice core data of co2 levels now. So if you want to compared co2 levels now to millions of years ago how do you do this without data mixing

I've looked at both datasets

the later one has been modified

often with no oversight

data mixing isn’t inherently wrong it should be avoided but if you know that one data is accurate and the other data is accurate you can mix them. Nothing is wrong with this

tbqh I don't care about CO2 levels, it's irrelevant to me. I only care about temp records

Why we can observe the green house effect on a small scale that co2 causes

it doesn't matter how accurate the data is, if it's coming from an airport or other urban heat island it is entirely irrelevant, not just low quality

Earth's atmosphere not small scale though

Idk dude co2 levels we calculate aren’t from airports or urban heat islands

the temp data is

Sure but it proves the green house effect carbon has.

only in a container

on a small scale

Okay so why doesn’t this phenomenon scale?

it doesn't account for the multitude of variables in Earth's climate

it doesn't account for anything other than TSI

and even when it does that, climate science tells us that atmospheric CO2 is more powerful at driving our climate than the sun

it doesn't account for high energy particles

it doesn't account for magnetosphere effects

Sure many of these factors are constant

And don’t change

At least

no.

assumption

From the human perspective

milankovitch cycles

Co2 levels thought out history created drastic change in the temperature

no

We can see this after the time period you talked about

it was warm in the 1940s

when CO2 was low

it was cold in the 60's-70's

when CO2 was high

except the evidence of these periods is being changed or removed

Okay so in a couple years In the 1940s it was warm and in the 70s it was slightly colder so that means the green house effect isn’t real.

You are the one cherry picking data

rubbish

go look for yourself

if you can find an untainted source

there are emails between climate scientists talking about how problematic the 70's cold period is

We can see historical records of how much change the co2 levels change from plants and volcanoes see the drastic change in temperature and see how it changed.

and how they can massage the data to better fit the trend they want to show

Okay I don’t care about a couple scientist somewhere massaging data

I do, when they control the political landscape it's dangerous

I mean I don’t care if they with the broader scope of if something is true or not.

you never adequately explained how high CO2 levels didn't lead to ever increasing temps

Carboniferous period had CO2 levels ~1500ppm and yet temp was 3~12 degrees higher

why did the high temps not lead to more CO2 and the runaway effect?

it doesn't matter how much time anything has to adapt, your contention is that CO2 produces a temp increase

why did this not occurr during the carboniferous and other high CO2 periods?

Why didn’t it lead to a runaway effect? Because plants grew because of higher co2 levels and took co2 out of the air

you think plants can grow faster than the sun can input energy into the atmosphere?