An inconvienent truth about that video from ant. Pause it at 2:57 and you can clearly see the black lines lower at 6000 and 4500 CM-1. This seems to indicate CO2 in the atmosphere IS blocking other wavelengths.
Notice also that at the wavelegth he points to BOTH LINES HAVE DIPS but water vapour give a peak.
Dallas It would have been good for you to type a few words about that current ice age predictions video.

Yes the pollution of once pristine oceans, the lungs of the planet, has to be a worry! And we need a very different attitude to run off to address some of the problems we are creating?

Ponded paddocks, myriad upland dams, Weirs, levees and downland barrages, will extend the freshwater environment far further and give any turbidity time to settle out!

Where that is really bad, the flow can be temporarily diverted through really large shallow settlement ponds which can be alternatively flooded or dried out via evaporation!

Once dry, the congealed muck can be removed and returned as soil conditioners as and where needed? Algae can be farmed as the basis of an endlessly sustainable self sufficient fuel production?

Other than that we can create synthetic diesel by combining Co2 collected from seawater with hydrogen collected via electrolysis from water decarbonated seawater.

Interestingly, as you reduce the Co2 from seawater, the natural environment removes similar amounts from the atmosphere. Whether that does or doesn't affect climate change is of little moment!

If all the warming is the result of natural events, we need to make plans to evacuate, preferably before we emulate Venus, the hottest planet in the solar system!

As we transition to nuclear power and synthetic fuels, we don't need to just dump current technology/infrastructure! But gradually phase them out at the earliest convenient time!

Thus we could build our first thorium reactor in S.A. The next in W.A. then N.T.? Followed by the old brown coal facilities, where each one could be tasked to use off peak capacity to create very low cost synthetic fuels, methanol and a diesel/jet fuel equivalent even if that needs to be stock piled in billions of megalitres?

And fund the transition from the megabuck profits on offer!

Meaning, we no longer be held by the economic short and curlies by foreign fuel suppliers! Who need to be forewarned, gather ye rosebuds while ye may!
Alan B.

Dear Bob Fernley-Jones,

Abuse the messenger? Hardly.

And further I am not the one espousing a contrary view, she is.

Of course the argument put here is not about the science. There is a direct correlation between one's politics and one's ability or desire to accept the science of AGW. I simply have made the obvious point that Jennifer's world view is shaped by her politics and unfortunately this includes her views on the science around climate change.

I have probably posted a couple of hundred responses arguing the toss with climate skeptics but their politically inspired intractable contrariness means it is a fools errand. So I have just called it for what it is.

The Marxist goon, steeleredux, accusses Marahosy of allowing her politics to override the truth. What a hypocrite this bozo is! He is totally guided by his political views. As far as I know, Ms. Marahosy has not revealed her political preferences, so the goon doesn't know what they are. She, like anyone else who dares to question the Marxists ignoramuses, is used as a punching bag by these gorillas.

Just noticed his last post in which he admits that he is a fool! A very odd bod!

Siliggy

What experiments can you provide that show your point of view.

Mythbusters have also been providing an experiment on greenhouse gases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Dallas

I saw the paper you provided a video too more than a week ago.
Papers written by scientists get criticised by peers; it is the process of skepticism that is part of science. But, all is not what it seems.

A bit of perspective on the paper released about a mini ice age.

Valentina Zharkova, one of the authors is quoted as saying:

"In the press release, we didn’t say anything about climate change. My guess is when they heard about Maunder minimum, they used Wikipedia or something to find out more about it."

https://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

Opening sentence from USA Today who had interviewed Valentina Zharkova:

"No one is more surprised than Valentina Zharkova that her research prompted a worldwide media storm over the next ice age.

That's because her research never even mentioned an ice age."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/scientists-dispute-ice-age-warnings/30257409/

Its the usual case of deniers trying to put 2+2 together and coming up with 5.

I wonder why I don't believe anything deniers write without first checking?