The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



1-Well I consider it basically flat,

2-but sure there's an increase if you take the Mauder minimum to the modern maximum

3-then your 40% increase statement sounds realistic

4-unfortunately for you the temperature didn't go up 40%,

You could check the paper above which shows the radiative forcing effect of CO2, H20 and solar -- check it out and let us know how many W/sq. meter solar is responsible for.

1-I'm sure you do. Your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing otherwise.

2- your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the truth yet again. Ignoring the MM, the MA is flat around your 1880 mark, then goes up.

3- it's 75%. Your lies are catching up to you now. A little off....ok. But 75% off? Lying.

4- I don't care about sunspot activity. You try to say it's relevant cuz you're trying to be deceptive. It's only an indicator of direction in solar output in w/sq m. When you look at the actual numbers, energy reaching the earth went from 1368-1372w/ sq m. Pretty small, just like the temps.

And oops, CO2 went up a bunch........but temps haven't matched the rise.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



You could check the paper above

I did.

I love this part under your graph:

" The only increase in natural forcing of any significance between 1750 and 2005 occurred in solar irradiance. "

Oops, IPCC says that SI has been increasing.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from bigdavediode:

"total heating rate?" What does this even mean?

I have explained this many times. If you can't understand simple terminology you really shouldn't be posting in here.

He's not the Virginia State Climatologist and hasn't been since 2007 -- and that was an honorary position! Secondly, he kind of received $100,000 from the energy industry to say this.

I'm sure I could dig up plenty of financial ties to the IPCC and their reports too if I tried.

This never happened, the EPA never sought this. This is a joke.

The idea of it being classified as a pollutant is, not the fact that it is the major contributor to the greenhouse effect.

I can't click on the next link because it doesn't even work, but again, it contradicts radiative forcing already posted.

here is the correct link:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sci_and_techn-glacial_expansion_03-04.pdf

My argument is based on the total greenhouse effect. Post the numbers you believe are correct for each greenhouse gasses relative contribtion in the total greenhouse effect. It is useless to post ''forcing' values unless you have the total values to compare it. Once you do this you will see that the 'forcing' components have a magnitude close to that of range of the noise in the total greenhouse effect.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Matt8200:



Do you not read these links before you post them or do you just not understand them? Those numbers are "the contributions to radiative forcing from some of the factors influenced by human activities" not the total greenhouse effect like I am referring.

Dave didn't read it, or understand it if he did.

To the left of the graph, it is clearly marked that these are from human activities.

So naturally occuring water vapor is ignored.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from smilingsynic:

How much of the increase in water vapor can be attributed to the increase in CO2 levels?

If in fact the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels did did have increase global temperature then yes some feedback would occur as warmer air holds more water vapor. I argue that the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 will not have any significant effect on global temperature so thus it should not have an increase in the levels of water vapor.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



I've ignored solely regional data, rather than global data given that the topic is global warming.

You're an idiot.

Huang called it a GLOBAL temp increase/decrease around the times of the MWP/LIA.

So again, Huang debunks your buddies at IPCC.

 

[trefoil]

Last try at independent thought using actual data:

1959 CO2 in ppm: 315.98
2003 CO2 in ppm: 373.17

Given a six year lag, we will calculate the expected temperature anomaly for 2003-2008, given the above, as both an average and a median, and the formula for figuring this out for CO2, which is 5.35 * ln(ending CO2/starting CO2) *.8, so plugging in the above, you get:

5.35 * ln(373.17/315.98) * .8 = .71 K.

Actual average, 2003 - 2008: .65
Actual median, 2003 - 2008: .645

....slightly less than the predicted, which would be expected, since the lag is six to seven years, not the average of six years leading up to the sixth year, but I figured an average would be needed since temps bounce around, obviously, from year to year.
Anyway, the figure came very close. All the obfuscation about sun spots, water vapor (wotta pantload), and all the rest doesn't obscure the simple truth behind that simple formula, and the data that went into it.
Actual increase in Co2 in the atmosphere since 1959 is 23%, by the way. That ain't insignificant. I don't know where the idea that it is came from.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from Matt8200:

If in fact the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels did did have increase global temperature then yes some feedback would occur as warmer air holds more water vapor. I argue that the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 will not have any significant effect on global temperature so thus it should not have an increase in the levels of water vapor.

Depends on how one defines "small". Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels have increased by over 30% and methane levels have more than doubled, and much of the increase can be attributed to human activities.

 

[Haroki]

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Another issue that people are confused about is the rate of increase of carbon dioxide. Some people think that CO2 is rising dramatically. This is probably because of graphs like the one below.

http://brneurosci.org/global-co2-levels-exaggerated.gif

However, in hard science journals, the graph above would be considered dishonest, because the y-axis starts at 290 instead of zero. This misleads the reader into thinking that CO2 levels have undergone a huge increase when in fact, CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900. When the data are plotted honestly, with the y axis starting at zero, the true scope of the change becomes clear.

http://brneurosci.org/global-co2-levels.png

Anthropogenic CO2 contributions constitute 3.2% of the total atmospheric CO2 (using 288 ppm as the pre-industrial baseline). About 14.8% of the increase in CO2 since 1900, or 11.88 ppm, was caused by man-made additions. The remaining 68.5 ppm is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [26]. From this, researchers have estimated that, when water vapor is taken into account, anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause about 0.117% of the Earth's total greenhouse effect [25].

 

[Matt8200]

Good links Haroki.

For those of you who claim that changing CO2 levels drive the temperature up and down what was the source of the changing CO2 levels before the industrial revolution. The data shows they have been correlated for hundreds of thousands of years. You have to be able to answer this question to say fluctuating CO2 levels drive temperature changes rather than vise versa. There is an explanation for how changing temperatures can drive CO2 levels.