The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

Haroki · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

1-Which "researchers" estimated this? Who?

2-Unfortunately I checked even the original comments (not that they have any weight without attribution) and the number 0.117% isn't even in there.

If you can point it out for us I'd appreciate it:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2008InventoryPublicReviewComments.pdf

1- you're not very good at doing research, are you Dave? Not that very many parrots are.

The source comes from the EPA and DOE.

2- and you just comfirmed that you're an idiot.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse
effect, (factoring in water vapor)."

It's right there in your link.

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from Matt8200:

Dave what is your gripe with this source? It is fully referenced and comes from the DOE. Please try to come up with a better response than "I don't understand it", that argument only makes you look like a fool. If you don't understand a term try looking it up on wikipedia.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that I don't understand something.

But thank you for your 1994 link, as I have now read the sentence that you deleted, and here it is:

"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."

And again I am still waiting for you to cite what you believe the correct total % contribution from CO2 and from water vapor is of the total greenhouse effect (not 'forcing' values or the portion from anthropogenic sources).

If by % contribution from CO2, you mean "heating rate", then you can read the sentence that I just posted above, the one you specifically did not post.

trefoil · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

There's nothing wrong with admitting that I don't understand something.

But thank you for your 1994 link, as I have now read the sentence that you deleted, and here it is:

"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."

If by % contribution from CO2, you mean "heating rate", then you can read the sentence that I just posted above, the one you specifically did not post.

...interesting, since the r2 from the correlations I did earlier was .85, which would take in, then, CO2 and some portion of the water vapor contribution, which makes sense since, obviously, the hotter it gets the more water vapor you get. (Actually an oversimplification, since methane and HFC's also contribute.)
Multiple lines of evidence coming together. Cool. Or hot, as the case may be.

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

1- you're not very good at doing research, are you Dave? Not that very many parrots are.

The source comes from the EPA and DOE.

Thanks! I found it now.

No, it is not sourced from the EPA -- it is from public comments that have been sent to them. In other words, letters to the editor.

Secondly, it was sent by "Bill Allen" -- who is Bill Allen? I can't really tell, he does not seem to have any qualifications listed.

Thirdly, he ignores that your original study claims that CO2 lasts in the atmosphere about 200 years while H20 rains out in about ten days.

Fourthly, in his table three, for example, he introduces a number of 95% for the how much of the "global warming effect" is caused by water vapor.

This number is wrong. (I mean, how could it be right when we've already seen that CO2 is responsible for 80% in the stratosphere?)

He introduces that number without support -- and actually cites others: âSolar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide,
Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,â Journal of
Geophysical Research 98(1993):7255-7264

A quick check of their paper and their statement "refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorption, not the long wave absorption (which is much larger)."

2- and you just comfirmed that you're an idiot.

Yeah, my wife says that too.

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse
effect, (factoring in water vapor)."

It's right there in your link.

Yes, if you use the incorrect 95% number pulled out of context from a ten year old paper, which ignores a huge amount of energy absorption, and then multiply percents by percents to ostensibly come up with something that was supposedly meaningful.

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from trefoil:

...interesting, since the r2 from the correlations I did earlier was .85, which would take in, then, CO2 and some portion of the water vapor contribution, which makes sense since, obviously, the hotter it gets the more water vapor you get. (Actually an oversimplification, since methane and HFC's also contribute.)
Multiple lines of evidence coming together. Cool. Or hot, as the case may be.

You're right, plus CO2 combined with water vapor has higher radiative absorption than CO2 or H2O alone -- I have a table which shows this if you're interested (and if I can find it again!)

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from Matt8200:

Why can't it becoming from the same source causing the oscillations shown in the data for the last 400,000 years?

Because there have been over twenty studies of the oceans and there has been no decrease in CO2 in oceans found which would be true if it was emitting CO2.

The only other place that it can be being emitted from is the land...

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from Lucrum:

Simple, it doesn't agree with him.

Also that it's not from the DOE at all, but from a letter to the editor, by a guy without any qualifications listed, who assumes an incorrect number taken out of context cited from a ten year old paper.

bigdavediode · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from Haroki:

LMAO.

I love it when you debunk your own statements.

Didn't you say that there was no cooling during this period?

You need to understand that cooling is different from trending on a graph of deltas.

trefoil · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

You're right, plus CO2 combined with water vapor has higher radiative absorption than CO2 or H2O alone -- I have a table which shows this if you're interested (and if I can find it again!)

I'd like to see that.

Matt8200 · Jul 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

But thank you for your 1994 link, as I have now read the sentence that you deleted, and here it is:

"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor."

Dave you never cease to amaze me. Did you miss the memo that stratosphere temperature have been decreasing:

"WMO (1999) concluded, on the basis of intercomparisons of the temperature records as measured by different instruments, that there has been a distinct cooling of the global mean temperature of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades, with a value of about 0.5Â°C/decade. "
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/223.htm

If stratospheric temperatures are decreasing they obviously aren't the driving mechanism of the increasing ocean temperatures and thus we only need to be concerned about global warming occurring in the troposphere.