Climate Change and Man Made Global Warming. Who's actually saying What?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Considering that radiative forcing of CO2 has been discussed in detail in many of these climate threads, some of which you participated in, it is literally a waste of my time to try to explain it to you(again).

All you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented.......

There is ample evidence of radiative forcing of CO2, it is a scientifically proven concept.

Also, I am in the Florida Keys where we have been under coastal flood advisories do to a full moon and spring tides, this makes think that sea level rise is actually happening. (this flood advisory has been out for the past 6 days before hurricane Joaquin had even formed so that is not the cause of the extreme high tides)

The reason why we as a species have not taken more steps to limit CO2 output is largely because the industries that are responsible for the bulk of the CO2 realize steps to control CO2 will severely hurt their profits, thus they are not only lobbying for favorable laws, they have launched a massive PR campaign to swindle the layperson into think AGW is not a significant issue and distort what the science actually says.

originally posted by: jrod
The reason why we as a species have not taken more steps to limit CO2 output is largely because the industries that are responsible for the bulk of the CO2 realize steps to control CO2 will severely hurt their profits, thus they are not only lobbying for favorable laws, they have launched a massive PR campaign to swindle the layperson into think AGW is not a significant issue and distort what the science actually says.

It's outstanding that the right goes on and on about this supposed agenda from the left involving Climate Change, when it is beyond obvious which side of the debate has the REAL nefarious agenda behind it.

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

A scientist receiving $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry? THAT doesn't sound suspect in the slightest... /sarc

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: amazing

Climate science is probably more about the data but even the data seems to have headed south with new ways of adjusting and crunching the stuff . Climate Audit climateaudit.org... is a site you couldn't really go wrong looking into . Steve McIntyre does a good job at keeping the discussion on topic . He has some really good people contributing to the threads . Whats Up With That wattsupwiththat.com... has a lively comment section but they also have some good contributors and if you are wanting to learn about what is being talked about there you will get a respectful reply . Other then those two there are a good batch of links to other sites that discuss AGAW/Global Warming/climate change on the side bar there ...best of luck ..

It needs to be noted that when someone writes something in support of AGW on those sites, their post is deleted and that user is banned.

They claim to be skeptics of science, yet when someone casts skepticism on their often bunk criticism of AGW, their voice is silenced. That tells me those sites have a clearly biased point of view, one that supports the merchants of doubt and the PR campaign against mainstream science.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Considering that radiative forcing of CO2 has been discussed in detail in many of these climate threads, some of which you participated in, it is literally a waste of my time to try to explain it to you(again).

All you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented.......

There is ample evidence of radiative forcing of CO2, it is a scientifically proven concept.

Also, I am in the Florida Keys where we have been under coastal flood advisories do to a full moon and spring tides, this makes think that sea level rise is actually happening. (this flood advisory has been out for the past 6 days before hurricane Joaquin had even formed so that is not the cause of the extreme high tides)

The reason why we as a species have not taken more steps to limit CO2 output is largely because the industries that are responsible for the bulk of the CO2 realize steps to control CO2 will severely hurt their profits, thus they are not only lobbying for favorable laws, they have launched a massive PR campaign to swindle the layperson into think AGW is not a significant issue and distort what the science actually says.

No one has explained radiative forcing on any posts I've read.

In climate science, radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.

"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has ... "

In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area ...

en.wikipedia.org...

Radiative forcing is a unit of heat change, it is not a process.

What is the process by which man made global warming happens?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It seems like you just want to try to prove I am wrong somehow about trying to argue over the definition of radiative forcing.

www.skepticalscience.com...

news.mit.edu...

That may help explain it better.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It seems like you just want to try to prove I am wrong somehow about trying to argue over the definition of radiative forcing.

www.skepticalscience.com...

news.mit.edu...

That may help explain it better.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the links, I understand Radiative Forcing better now. Radiative Forcing is not a process or mechanism or explaination of warming. It is a measure of warming, not an explaination of warming.

In short, radiative forcing is a direct measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance.
news.mit.edu...

Radiative forcing is a unit of measurement, it is not a process.

Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4).
www.skepticalscience.com...

"Considerable warming" is not a number.

And the considerable warming is not proven.

Warming with increased CO2 is good for plants and reduces heating fuel usage.

ETA still no process for AGW.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Thanks for the links, I understand Radiative Forcing better now. Radiative Forcing is not a process or mechanism or explaination of warming. It is a measure of warming, not an explaination of warming.

Yikes. This paragraph really spells out why the OP should not be concerned with what amateurs and armchair skeptics have to say about the science. On the one side you have PhDs and other experts who devote their lives to understanding all this, on the other you have naysayers who don't even know the difference between science and semantics.

Saying radiative forcing is not a process because it's a measurement is like saying electric current is just a measurement of the flow of charge, and therefore can't electrocute you.

Radiative forcing is a very proven consequence of the very proven greenhouse effect, and it dictates warming - it doesn't "measure" it. We have this other fancy scientific concept for how to measure warming: it's called "temperature".

You clearly do NOT understand radiative forcing better now, you actually understand it much much worse.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It is a measure of warming

That is not what your quote or the article says.
Radiative forcing is a measure the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. It is a measure of energy (watts per square meter), not warming. Temperature change is a measure of warming.

originally posted by: mc_squared

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Thanks for the links, I understand Radiative Forcing better now. Radiative Forcing is not a process or mechanism or explaination of warming. It is a measure of warming, not an explaination of warming.

Yikes. This paragraph really spells out why the OP should not be concerned with what amateurs and armchair skeptics have to say about the science. On the one side you have PhDs and other experts who devote their lives to understanding all this, on the other you have naysayers who don't even know the difference between science and semantics.

Saying radiative forcing is not a process because it's a measurement is like saying electric current is just a measurement of the flow of charge, and therefore can't electrocute you.

Radiative forcing is a very proven consequence of the very proven greenhouse effect, and it dictates warming - it doesn't "measure" it. We have this other fancy scientific concept for how to measure warming: it's called "temperature".

You clearly do NOT understand radiative forcing better now, you actually understand it much much worse.

Forcing sounds like a process. Hard to be more misleading without actually lying, calling "forcing" a unit, and then using it in language like it is a process.

Radiative Forcing is begging the question. Its like saying "global warming is caused by the thermometer".

A bigger digit on the thermometer does not cause warming, the higher temperature is an ascertained result of the warming.

You have shown no actual process of global warming.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Forcing sounds like a process. Hard to be more misleading without actually lying, calling "forcing" a unit, and then using it in language like it is a process.

Because he's right, it's a physical phenomenon, and a net number as commonly used. "Q: What is the radiative forcing from XXX in atmospheric conditions of the Earth?" A: about NNN watts per meter squared". "Q: What is radiative forcing? A: the net addition of heat flux at the surface of the planet at equilibrium from the atmospheric components above the surface."

Radiative Forcing is begging the question. Its like saying "global warming is caused by the thermometer".

A bigger digit on the thermometer does not cause warming, the higher temperature is an ascertained result of the warming.

You have shown no actual process of global warming.

The radiative forcing is the net result of the physics of the radiative transfer in the real atmosphere, which is caused by the interaction of electromagnetism with the varying electromagnetic properties of molecules, taking into account thermodynamics.

As mcsquared said, you don't understand it at all. There is physics, mechanistic causation governed by the eternal laws of physics which have been discovered since the time of Newton, the same understanding responsible for all technological development from the Industrial Revolution. Scientists use these principles to understand everything.

If you really want to learn, start reading some books.

Here's a book, Elementary Climate Physics, F.W. Taylor. It's a level suitable for an undergraduate.

www.researchgate.net...


global.oup.com...

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Forcing sounds like a process. Hard to be more misleading without actually lying, calling "forcing" a unit, and then using it in language like it is a process.

Because he's right, it's a physical phenomenon, and a net number as commonly used. "Q: What is the radiative forcing from XXX in atmospheric conditions of the Earth?" A: about NNN watts per meter squared". "Q: What is radiative forcing? A: the net addition of heat flux at the surface of the planet at equilibrium from the atmospheric components above the surface."

Radiative Forcing is begging the question. Its like saying "global warming is caused by the thermometer".

A bigger digit on the thermometer does not cause warming, the higher temperature is an ascertained result of the warming.

You have shown no actual process of global warming.

The radiative forcing is the net result of the physics of the radiative transfer in the real atmosphere, which is caused by the interaction of electromagnetism with the varying electromagnetic properties of molecules, taking into account thermodynamics.

As mcsquared said, you don't understand it at all. There is physics, mechanistic causation governed by the eternal laws of physics which have been discovered since the time of Newton, the same understanding responsible for all technological development from the Industrial Revolution. Scientists use these principles to understand everything.

If you really want to learn, start reading some books.

Here's a book, Elementary Climate Physics, F.W. Taylor. It's a level suitable for an undergraduate.

www.researchgate.net...


global.oup.com...

If it is a scientific process it has an equation. The equation relates CO2 concentration to temperature for a given luminosity and spectrum.

No equation means no process.

Alarmists never show a process.

a reply to: amazing


I dont care about climate change and dont really believe in it....maybe its true...

BUT i know and like the fact I have a HUGE carbon footprint and love it!!!

a reply to: projectbane

Why? What is so cool about having a big carbon foot print? I don't actively watch mine by any means, but I don't really wear that as a badge of honor.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

If it is a scientific process it has an equation.

What is a "scientific process?"
Science is a process; hypothesis, experiment...and so on.

Other than that, I don't know what a "scientific process" is.

No equation means no process.

What?

Alarmists never show a process.

Actually, the processes of global warming are often shown. On the other hand, deniers don't seem to offer much of anything but...denial.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If it is a scientific process it has an equation.

What is a "scientific process?"
Science is a process; hypothesis, experiment...and so on.

Other than that, I don't know what a "scientific process" is.

No equation means no process.

What?

Alarmists never show a process.

Actually, the processes of global warming are often shown. On the other hand, deniers don't seem to offer much of anything but...denial.

CO2 is less than 1/1000 of the atmosphere.

The effective temperature for all IR emissions is around -20 degrees C radiating at a height h of 5km. Now suppose that we double CO2 concentrations and the effective last radiating level rises to say 6 km. The temperature would now be about -27 degrees C as the decrease is almost linear in the troposphere. However the effective surface area is now also greater by an amount 8*PI*R (where R is radius of the Earth = 6350) making 1.6*10**5 sq km larger than at 5 km height. The IR radiation falls off with temperature as T**4 which gives us a reduction of about 18% relative to before.

However if we just look at the main CO2 emission band and use the measurements from space (taken from Houghton’s book Global Warming – A complete Briefing). It would appear that the effective temperature of CO2 band alone is -53 degrees C which is almost at the tropopause ( -60 degrees). So with all else remaining the same (water vapour, methane etc.) the drop in energy loss is just 3% in that single band.

clivebest.com...

Doubling the CO2 concentration increases energy retention by 3% in the specific CO2 absorption band.



The fraction of the spectrum absorbed by CO2 is about 8% of the total emitted by the Earth.

1/1000 x 3/100 x 8/100 = 0.0000024 more energy retained by doubling the CO2 concentration.

Doubling CO2 raises the temperature less than 1/10,000th of a degree.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

CO2 is less than 1/1000 of the atmosphere.

Yes.

The fraction of the spectrum absorbed by CO2 is about 8% of the total emitted by the Earth.

More or less, yes. 8% of a lot of energy is, guess what? A lot of energy. I'd be happy with 8% of a million dollars, wouldn't you? The Earth emits about 3 watts/m2, that's a total of about 1,530 terawatts.

But part of the spectrum which is not absorbed doesn't really matter does it? Radiation which passes through the atmosphere does just that. It passes through, it has no effect. It's the part that is trapped that counts.

Doubling CO2 raises the temperature less than 1/10,000th of a degree.

Your calculation is meaningless. You have shown once again, that you do not understand the concept of radiative forcing.

First, there is a logarithmic (not linear) relationship between CO2 levels and forcing. Doubling CO2 levels does not double forcing. It increases it by about 50%.

Second, while there is a linear relationship between forcing and temperature change on paper, in the real world there are many factors which affect it.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Forcing sounds like a process. Hard to be more misleading without actually lying, calling "forcing" a unit, and then using it in language like it is a process.

Because he's right, it's a physical phenomenon, and a net number as commonly used. "Q: What is the radiative forcing from XXX in atmospheric conditions of the Earth?" A: about NNN watts per meter squared". "Q: What is radiative forcing? A: the net addition of heat flux at the surface of the planet at equilibrium from the atmospheric components above the surface."

Radiative Forcing is begging the question. Its like saying "global warming is caused by the thermometer".

A bigger digit on the thermometer does not cause warming, the higher temperature is an ascertained result of the warming.

You have shown no actual process of global warming.

The radiative forcing is the net result of the physics of the radiative transfer in the real atmosphere, which is caused by the interaction of electromagnetism with the varying electromagnetic properties of molecules, taking into account thermodynamics.

As mcsquared said, you don't understand it at all. There is physics, mechanistic causation governed by the eternal laws of physics which have been discovered since the time of Newton, the same understanding responsible for all technological development from the Industrial Revolution. Scientists use these principles to understand everything.

If you really want to learn, start reading some books.

Here's a book, Elementary Climate Physics, F.W. Taylor. It's a level suitable for an undergraduate.

www.researchgate.net...


global.oup.com...

If it is a scientific process it has an equation. The equation relates CO2 concentration to temperature for a given luminosity and spectrum.

No equation means no process.

Alarmists never show a process.

You're asserting things which are deeply scientifically untrue, and don't know the degree of your ignorance.

Of course there is mechanistic physical law and deep theory and experimental background behind radiative forcing; it was studied intensively in the 1950's and 1960's for the USAF and others. It's actually much more complicated to do correctly than can be explained in detail to a layman and is the product of hundreds to thousands of people's work over decades.

Here is a classic textbook. It's first edition was from 1964.
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291124372&sr=1-3


There have been computerized computations which take into account the many layers of the atmosphere and the various chemical computations and their very complex infrared spectral behavior to give calibrated and experimentally verified predictions. And there are large experimental programs to determine these things independent of the particular model and computation.


One example:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

If it is a scientific process it has an equation. The equation relates CO2 concentration to temperature for a given luminosity and spectrum.

Oh, it's far far more complicated than that, but roughly the radiative forcing models give the input change from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (assuming a distribution expected by the mixing & climate) and these are very accurate.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[5] LBLRTM is an accurate, efficient and highly flexible line-by-line radiative transfer model that continues to be extensively validated with measured atmospheric radiance spectra from the submillimeter to the ultraviolet [Clough et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2004]. LBLRTM includes all significant molecular absorbers and represents the effects of self-broadening and foreign-broadening from water vapor with the MT_CKD_v1.4 continuum model. It uses all parameters on the HITRAN 2004 database, and it includes the continua of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, ozone as well as Rayleigh scattering extinction. The algorithmic accuracy of LBLRTM is 0.5%, and the limiting errors are generally attributable to the input line parameters and line shape. Integrated fluxes and heating rates are derived from LBLRTM radiance spectra with an independent program (RADSUM), which is also available at the AER radiative transfer web site. For the RTMIP calculations presented, LBLRTM/RADSUM utilizes three angles (six streams) for flux integration.

That's but one of the models they use.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Abstract

The radiative transfer models developed at AER are being used extensively for a wide range of applications in the atmospheric sciences. This communication is intended to provide a coherent summary of the various radiative transfer models and associated databases publicly available from AER (www.rtweb.aer.com...). Among the communities using the models are the remote sensing community (e.g. TES, IASI), the numerical weather prediction community (e.g. ECMWF, NCEP GFS, WRF, MM5), and the climate community (e.g. ECHAM5). Included in this communication is a description of the central features and recent updates for the following models: the line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM); the line file creation program (LNFL); the longwave and shortwave rapid radiative transfer models, RRTM_LW and RRTM_SW; the Monochromatic Radiative Transfer Model (MonoRTM); the MT_CKD Continuum; and the Kurucz Solar Source Function. LBLRTM and the associated line parameter database (e.g. HITRAN 2000 with 2001 updates) play a central role in the suite of models. The physics adopted for LBLRTM has been extensively analyzed in the context of closure experiments involving the evaluation of the model inputs (e.g. atmospheric state), spectral radiative measurements and the spectral model output. The rapid radiative transfer models are then developed and evaluated using the validated LBLRTM model.
Keywords

AER radiative transfer models; Line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM); LNFL; RRTM; Monochromatic radiative transfer model (MonoRTM); Continuum (MT_CKD); Kurucz solar source function

And that's just 5 minutes of Googling.

No equation means no process.

Alarmists never show a process.

Other than the tens of thousands of research papers and hundreds of major experimental programs?

Did you check out the textbook I mentioned? Elementary Climate Physics? You'll see plenty of process, just like the physics of chemical plants or rockets or any other major known field of applied physics & engineering we deal with.

The text is a very simplified introduction to the basics of what the professional researchers work on.

Do you think the climate community came up with "CO2 is harmful" out of their posterior? Without any physics or experimental confirmation? This is a deep and decades long subject. The greenhouse effect and CO2 issue is over a hundred years old.

I'm feeling generous, I'll provide another even easier link explaining the mechanistic physics (the 'process') of the greenhouse effect (again 3 minutes of googling)

www.realclimate.org...

Please read it. For real.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

CO2 is less than 1/1000 of the atmosphere.

Yes.

The fraction of the spectrum absorbed by CO2 is about 8% of the total emitted by the Earth.

More or less, yes. 8% of a lot of energy is, guess what? A lot of energy. I'd be happy with 8% of a million dollars, wouldn't you? The Earth emits about 3 watts/m2, that's a total of about 1,530 terawatts.

Any amount of "acceptable" CO2 already absorbs that. The Alarmist claim is that more CO2 will cause more warming.

CO2 is less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere. Increasing its energy by 3% (at 600 ppm) is not going to cause atmospheric heating.

But part of the spectrum which is not absorbed doesn't really matter does it? Radiation which passes through the atmosphere does just that. It passes through, it has no effect. It's the part that is trapped that counts.

The increase in the trapped part is very small. 1/1000 x 3/100 = 0.00003 increase in the energy level of the atmosphere.

Doubling CO2 raises the temperature less than 1/10,000th of a degree.

Your calculation is meaningless. You have shown once again, that you do not understand the concept of radiative forcing.

Radiative forcing is a unit, and only a unit. It measures the difference between the energy released from Earth to the energy absorbed from the Sun.

The IPCC

...define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) ...
www.ipcc.ch...

Radiative forcing is not a process, it is only a unit like ounces or inches.

First, there is a logarithmic (not linear) relationship between CO2 levels and forcing. Doubling CO2 levels does not double forcing. It increases it by about 50%.

If that number is true, it assumes all other things staying the same, which they don't.

Second, while there is a linear relationship between forcing and temperature change on paper, in the real world there are many factors which affect it.

The total amount of CO2 is absorbing the same amount of energy as it always has and CO2 is less than 1/1000th of the atmosphere.

You have shown no process that leads to catastrophic warming, except an allusion to the greenhouse gas effect.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

If it is a scientific process it has an equation. The equation relates CO2 concentration to temperature for a given luminosity and spectrum.

Oh, it's far far more complicated than that, but roughly the radiative forcing models give the input change from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (assuming a distribution expected by the mixing & climate) and these are very accurate.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[5] LBLRTM is an accurate, efficient and highly flexible line-by-line radiative transfer model that continues to be extensively validated with measured atmospheric radiance spectra from the submillimeter to the ultraviolet [Clough et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2004]. LBLRTM includes all significant molecular absorbers and represents the effects of self-broadening and foreign-broadening from water vapor with the MT_CKD_v1.4 continuum model. It uses all parameters on the HITRAN 2004 database, and it includes the continua of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, ozone as well as Rayleigh scattering extinction. The algorithmic accuracy of LBLRTM is 0.5%, and the limiting errors are generally attributable to the input line parameters and line shape. Integrated fluxes and heating rates are derived from LBLRTM radiance spectra with an independent program (RADSUM), which is also available at the AER radiative transfer web site. For the RTMIP calculations presented, LBLRTM/RADSUM utilizes three angles (six streams) for flux integration.

That's but one of the models they use.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Abstract

The radiative transfer models developed at AER are being used extensively for a wide range of applications in the atmospheric sciences. This communication is intended to provide a coherent summary of the various radiative transfer models and associated databases publicly available from AER (www.rtweb.aer.com...). Among the communities using the models are the remote sensing community (e.g. TES, IASI), the numerical weather prediction community (e.g. ECMWF, NCEP GFS, WRF, MM5), and the climate community (e.g. ECHAM5). Included in this communication is a description of the central features and recent updates for the following models: the line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM); the line file creation program (LNFL); the longwave and shortwave rapid radiative transfer models, RRTM_LW and RRTM_SW; the Monochromatic Radiative Transfer Model (MonoRTM); the MT_CKD Continuum; and the Kurucz Solar Source Function. LBLRTM and the associated line parameter database (e.g. HITRAN 2000 with 2001 updates) play a central role in the suite of models. The physics adopted for LBLRTM has been extensively analyzed in the context of closure experiments involving the evaluation of the model inputs (e.g. atmospheric state), spectral radiative measurements and the spectral model output. The rapid radiative transfer models are then developed and evaluated using the validated LBLRTM model.
Keywords

AER radiative transfer models; Line-by-line radiative transfer model (LBLRTM); LNFL; RRTM; Monochromatic radiative transfer model (MonoRTM); Continuum (MT_CKD); Kurucz solar source function

And that's just 5 minutes of Googling.

No equation means no process.

Alarmists never show a process.

Other than the tens of thousands of research papers and hundreds of major experimental programs?

Did you check out the textbook I mentioned? Elementary Climate Physics? You'll see plenty of process, just like the physics of chemical plants or rockets or any other major known field of applied physics & engineering we deal with.

The text is a very simplified introduction to the basics of what the professional researchers work on.

Do you think the climate community came up with "CO2 is harmful" out of their posterior?

Why not? They are the same establishment that prints inflationary money and caused the Great Depression and the Banker Bailout, and all of the Wars in the 20th Century.

Without any physics or experimental confirmation?

The USSR believed in biological Lamarckism.

This is a deep and decades long subject. The greenhouse effect and CO2 issue is over a hundred years old.

The same amount of time as the socialists have been trying to impose totalitarian rule. Coincidence?

I'm feeling generous, I'll provide another even easier link explaining the mechanistic physics (the 'process') of the greenhouse effect (again 3 minutes of googling)

www.realclimate.org...

Please read it. For real.

If you can't explain it, you are a true believer in divine "climate science".