The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



At the same time you want us not to believe Huang in 2008, with more data, who states that the MWP was slightly cooler versus the reference temperature.

Ok, let's go with what he says.

He identifies a MWP and the LIA.

The IPCC doesn't in their hockey stick graph.

Therefore, Huang has debunked the IPCC.

End of story.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from bigdavediode:



Here's a chart of hundreds of years of sunspot activity, please look since 1880 and note how the graph goes basically horizontally:

<img src=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/800px-Sunspot_Numbers.png></img>

You're clearly insane.

The MA at 1880 is about 40.

The MA at 2000 is about 70.

That's a 75% increase.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from Haroki:

Therefore, Huang has debunked the IPCC.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the questions on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader is to debunk the IPCC.

 

[Eight]

Quote from bigdavediode:

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.

Humans account for one part per 700 of CO2 in the atmosphere per year, nowadays. They didn't do a tiny fraction of that amount at the START of the industrial revolution. If you live in a panic stricken and math free environment [wow, that would be the moronic left would it not?] then Billions of tons sounds horrible... it's tiny even at today's levels and it was absolutely trivial at the beginning of the industrial revolution...

Al Gore is going to cash in on this new taxation bigtime.

Who is this Dave guy anyhow? Before the elections he posted his irrational stuff constantly, somebody must pay these guys, they aren't in it for the truth, and they never quit... obsessed or paid, which is it? Actually I don't care, I'm hitting the ignore button...

Trade well or die folks, the inmates are running the asylum......

 

[Bakinec]

I am not expert in this topic, but I remember learning in my 6th grade science class something along the lines that throughout its history earth went through temperature changes at certain intervals of time. Not sure how that can explain global warming.

Maybe the sunspot activity is causing it? It did increase in the past century and I've read that it will still increase going deeper into the 21st century.


One thing I do know, is that this winter in NYC was one of the warmest, and this summer is one of the coolest, I've ever seen in my 10 years here.

 

[Eight]

Quote from Gubinec:



One thing I do know, is that this winter in NYC was one of the warmest, and this summer is one of the coolest, I've ever seen in my 10 years here.

To Dave that probably is proof of Global Warming and reason to set his hair on fire and run in circles yelling......

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

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.

Three or four percent of what? Temperature?

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?

You keep saying "Percent of the greenhouse effect." First you'll have to define what you mean in concrete terms. Percent of heat retention? Percent of temperature?

Then once you have explained where you're starting from, we can deconstruct your error(s).

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Arnie:

Just post the study that PROVES C02 causes GW. You can't beacuse it doesn't exist. All your studies and graph just show a correlation.

The proof is in laser absorption spectroscopy of the CO2 molecule.

Everytime I go out after it rains, the sidewalk is wet. Does that PROVE wet sidewalks cause rain? Apparently it does in your world.

Huh. So CO2 molecules absorb heat therefore... what?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from drjekyllus:

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.

Just a few posts back I posted the corresponding graphs of IR absorption by H20 versus CO2, where a person could easily see that H2O is an excellent absorber of IR, but not at the peak IR spectrum like CO2 is.

Additionally, although H2O is a greenhouse gas, it is not a "forcing" gas.

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.

Here's a graph -- show us what you mean:

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png">

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

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.

You're not reading the report, your reading a short, few page summary for policy makers which tries to summarize the main message of the report.

Please consult the actual report.