Global warming is real

Well, only if they’re conservative virgins. :japanese_ogre:

So what? We here are not a group of scientists testing a hypothesis, we’re just a bunch of anonymous Internet chat room pontificators.

Have you missed the evidence that the global climate went into a phase some 2 million years ago that it had not experienced before? Have you missed the evidence that the cycle of ice ages with brief interglacial periods every 100,000 years or so, is probably due to orbital forcing? What evidence do you want? That a large object capable of slightly changing our orbit did not just miss colliding into us millions of years ago? Why don’t you ask for proof of God while you are at it?

Agreed. But I think we were discussing two distinct possibilities:

  1. Our orbit being effected by a NEO on a non-periodic basis.
  2. Our orbit being effected by a Planetoid whose orbit takes it close to earth every 100,000 years yet sends it out beyond Pluto.

Well, if throwing ■■■■ against a wall is all ya got, you go for it.

No, that’s exactly what Wildrose is proposing. You jumped in and I assumed you were defending his proposal. Now it is clear you aren’t.

  1. That is what I have been talking about.
  2. That seems to be what you and dantes are talking about.

I want any evidence at all.

Without which you can’t call it a hypothesis.

That may be your perception of what WR is talking about; it is not mine. However, the issues of large objects on highly elliptical orbits visiting the inner solar system periodically, and large objects passing near Earth altering its orbit are not necessarily exclusive.

Yep, sorry for the confusion, bud.

What bearing does CO2 being a trace gas have?

No, it’s a completely unfounded and unprovable statement on your part.

image

The eccentricity of Earth’s orbit is very small, so Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. Earth’s orbital eccentricity is less than 0.02. The orbit of Pluto is the most eccentric of any planet in our Solar System. Pluto’s orbital eccentricity is almost 0.25. Many comets have extremely eccentric orbits. [Halley’s Comet] The eccentricity of Earth’s orbit is very small, so Earth’s orbit is nearly circular. Earth’s orbital eccentricity is less than 0.02. The orbit of Pluto is the most eccentric of any planet in our [Solar System]

https://www.windows2universe.org/?page=/physical_science/physics/mechanics/orbit/eccentricity.html

image

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/halley.html

image

You made the statement, it would be up to you to support it.

The amount of CO2 would be directly proportional to it’s ability to affect any change in temperatures.

No one has been able to show experimentally that at any level in which CO2 remains a trace gas that x% increase or decrease can show y% increase or decrease in temperatures. In order to do so you have to raise the levels of CO2 far above 1%.

It seems you need a primer in logic…

You make the claim it’s up to you to support it, not me.

I still don’t fully understand. Does this mean the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere are inhibiting the role of CO2?

Under any conditions CO2 has a limited affect on temperatures. At less than 1% concentration in the atmosphere no one has ever been able to demonstrate experimentally that a given increase in it’s volume can produce a given increase in temperatures.

Wonderful lib definitions. Libs view other people saying the same thing that they are saying as equivalent to empirical observations. Now THAT explains everything.

Is there a certain amount required to have a demonstrable effect? I’ve seen measurement of the CO2 ppm saying the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased something around 30% in the past few decades.