The entire MMGW hoax is based on, well it got warmer in the 20th century, we burned fossil fuels in the 20th century so we must be at blame. The lie has been exposed.
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
The entire MMGW hoax is based on, well it got warmer in the 20th century, we burned fossil fuels in the 20th century so we must be at blame. The lie has been exposed.
Actually it is based on:
It is proven that mankind is producing billions of tons of CO2 per year.
It is proven that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere has come from man.
It is proven that CO2 is especially effective at absorbing and reemitting infra-red radiation.
It is proven that there has been global temperature increases since the industrial revolution.
It has been shown that the additional heat absorption of CO2 explains the extra global warmth.
Quote from Arnie:
BUT.......it has NOT been proven that the rise in temps is CAUSED by a rise in C02. Its coincidental, at best. But you keep posting, I like seeing you squirm.
So if one molecule absorbs a massive amount of heat, in your mind that doesn't prove anything about a quintillion molecules.
Since you never responded to my post before I will ask you again.
I have clearly shown with many sources showing CO2 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%. So we have increased the greenhouse effect by 0.2%. Do you really think a 0.2% increase in the greenhouse effect is significant enough to have a major effect on the climate?
DENIALIST!!!!! HERETIC!!!!!! FLAT-EARTHER!!!!!!
you no doubt believe the earth is 6000 years old!!!!
MOD: please delete his heresy from this thread, it's clearly hate-speech
CO2 is especially effective at absorbing infra-red radiation? In the grand scheme it really isn't. Water vapor it is proven to account for a lot more heat retention than CO2.
It has been proven that the global temperature has been increasing well before industrial revolution. You have been slammed countless times trying to pull this bogus argument and you lose on it everytime.
Nothing has been proven about any additional warming.
I was reading a summary of the "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change " right off the IPCC website today:
"The atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, inter alia, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have grown significantly"
-- http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/spm-science-of-climate-changes.pdf
Would you care to revise this statement? I sure don't see water vapor listed there.
More examples of how the IPCC totally ignores water vapor being a greenhouse gas.
"The emissions limitation proposals used in this Paper are expressed variously in terms of CO2 only or in terms of greenhouse gases. For the purposes of this Paper all the proposals are interpreted as applying to fossil CO2 emissionsç7 alone. The reasons for using this approximation are given in Section 3. To fully meet the initial request of the SBSTA (i.e., to discuss the temperature and sea level implications of the emissions limitation proposals) in a comprehensive manner, it would be necessary to cover the full range of possible concentrations (taking into account sinks and sources) of other gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tropospheric ozone (O3) and the halocarbonsç, along with the full range of possibilities for sulphate aerosolsç derived from sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions."
Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitations
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-IV-en.pdf
"Assessing the general implications of Article 2, involving the stabilization of all greenhouse gases (i.e., not just CO2) is difficult because we lack clearly defined ranges for likely future emissions of methane, N2O, SO2 and other gases."
Stabilization of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological and Socio-Economic Implications
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-III-en.pdf
"The emissions limitation proposals used in this Paper are expressed variously in terms of CO2 only or in terms of greenhouse gases. For the purposes of this Paper all the proposals are interpreted as applying to fossil CO2 emissionsç7 alone. The reasons for using this approximation are given in Section 3. To fully meet the initial request of the SBSTA (i.e., to discuss the temperature and sea level implications of the emissions limitation proposals) in a comprehensive manner, it would be necessary to cover the full range of possible concentrations (taking into account sinks and sources) of other gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tropospheric ozone (O3) and the halocarbonsç, along with the full range of possibilities for sulphate aerosolsç derived from sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions."
Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitations
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-IV-en.pdf
"Assessing the general implications of Article 2, involving the stabilization of all greenhouse gases (i.e., not just CO2) is difficult because we lack clearly defined ranges for likely future emissions of methane, N2O, SO2 and other gases."
Stabilization of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases: Physical, Biological and Socio-Economic Implications
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-III-en.pdf