The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[Matt8200]

Quote from bigdavediode:
Nobody's arguing that water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas, it is.

However it is not a "forcing" gas because it rains out at increased concentrations.

Now, please address my actual points.

Your point was that "CO2's contribution is not minor", I have clearly refuted that with many sources showing its contribution is only about 3 or 4% of the greenhouse effect. If you have another source (not some graph which somehow you can magically induce CO2 role is) please post it.

Now lets address what our greanhouse contribution is from CO2. Humans produce less the 5% of the total source of CO2 each year. If CO2 accounts for 4% of the total greenhouse effect then our total contribution is about 4% x 5% or 0.2%. Do you really think 0.2% is significant enough to have a major effect?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

Another example:

The MWP and the tropics/Tasmania warming were at the same time.

Please stop posting about the Medieval Warm Epoch as if it were 1) defined, and 2) global.

It is neither a defined period nor global. It has nothing to do with global climate change as it is not global. Let me repeat this for you: regional warmth is not global. One more time: the MWP was not global. If you're not sure about this, please consult some of the previous posts of mine in this thread.

Dave says that the MWP is northern hemisphere only and means nothing.

Any regional anomaly is not global. We're discussing global climate here -- it's even in the topic of the thread.

And that the tropics/Taz aren't either.

Gah!

True, but a rational person would look at the time line and notice that they're happening at the same time.

IOW, it's global.

Dave doesn't get this.

Look, I've already posted charts of regional temperatures variations showing that the MWP wasn't a global phenomenon. Here's yet another one (on the last page):

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

Why are only climatologists allowed to comment?

When citing an authority, they need to be an authority in their field. Also, fire hot.

If someone is schooled in say, economics, and uses statistics every day in their field, and sees where the statistics given isn't good methodology, why are they NOT allowed to comment on the statistical relavence of a study?

What you're doing is called poisoning the well.

And it's dishonest.

It would be if you hadn't argued with an appeal to authority, and I rightly point out the credentials of your authority.

But sure, let's take a look at this economist's argument about climatology.

First off, the very first things your economist does is to cite the satellite troposphere measurements which have already been utterly destroyed, discredited and crushed by me in this thread.

I will post the citation regarding his error in this thread yet again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

You know, if I was going to cite satellite temperature readings of the troposphere, I'd actually find satellites that directly measure the troposphere.

But that's just me.

But even before the errors in this data had been isolated and verified, there was another group which had entirely different results from Spencer and Christie (which is what this economist is quoting) -- the other group was Wentz, Mears and colleagues.

A quick search of his paper, and there's no mention of Wentz, Mears and colleagues' results and their differences from Spencer and Christie. That, my friends, is golden cherry picking. He had to work to delete any mention of Wentz, Mears and colleagues.

Then he goes on to mention the MWP without mentioning that it was a regional phenomenon and not global.

So who is this dishonest hack? Well he's an economist and not a climatologist, that we know. I decided to Google his name and not so surprisingly he works for a nutty coin-operated think tank called the Fraser Institute. He's not even a full professor, but an assistant professor and only graduated in 1996. He also opposed things like endangered species. Did I mention that he's not even a climatologist?

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, it is temperature dependent, as I've already written. However, solar activity is only one factor that can increase temperature (and since we're at a solar minimum we can see that something else is causing it, so please, stop grasping for the lifebuoy of solar activity.)

An 11 yr solar cycle is irrelevant to long term warming/cooling that stretches into the 100's of years.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

Then you violated your own rule by quoting how many US troops are in UN assignments, rather than reflecting what they've done since the UN's inception.

Dishonest representation.

Wotta surprise

It doesn't require "sampling" to deduce the number of troops volunteered in an area.

I posted the exact numbers as of (nearly) this moment.

If you'd like to have a conversation about 1945, by all means, we can discuss that year. However you'd have to word your sentences in past tense.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

When asked about temps today vs temps during the MWP, you say "it's been warming up" and use graphs that don't include that time period to make your point.

False, in fact the citation I just posted goes back to the year 200 with another chart back to year ZERO.

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf

That's cherry picking.

Which makes you dishonest about your cherry picking.

Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Haroki:

An 11 yr solar cycle is irrelevant to long term warming/cooling that stretches into the 100's of years.

I agree.

Unfortunately it's critically relevant if you're arguing that the solar cycle is responsible for the increased temperature that we've seen since the industrial revolution.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



1-When citing an authority, they need to be an authority in their field. Also, fire hot.

2-First off, the very first things your economist does is to cite the satellite troposphere measurements which have already been utterly destroyed, discredited and crushed by me in this thread.

1- I linked to a paper. You misrepresented yet again, Dave. Wotta surprise.

2- you skipped over the bulk of the paper where he explains how it is statistically invalid, and explains why. Respond to that.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I agree.

Unfortunately it's critically relevant if you're arguing that the solar cycle is responsible for the increased temperature that we've seen since the industrial revolution.

How can an 11 yr cycle be both relevant and not?

You contradict yourself when it suits you Dave. And yet you see some logic to your answer?

Very dishonest.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:

False, in fact the citation I just posted goes back to the year 200 with another chart back to year ZERO.

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf



Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.

1- this only deals with the NH. Therefore it's invalid to use.

2- I just proved that I'm right.