Oh Haroki Haroki Haroki... your graph is of Arctic temperature, not global averages.
If your global warming argument has merit, why do you need to keep using regional data as a crutch to prop it up?
The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Oh Haroki Haroki Haroki... your graph is of Arctic temperature, not global averages.
If your global warming argument has merit, why do you need to keep using regional data as a crutch to prop it up?
There is not just one source.
Volcanos and related seismic activity, for one. For the effects of seismic activity on temperatures, see the Permian extinction.
The burning of carbon-based fossil fuels has, obviously (to most), released millions of years of the carbon found in dead plants and animals from the Carboniferous into the atmosphere.
The burning of those fossil fuels has led to a measurable increase in carbon dioxide levels. We can say that with confidence since there is no other major factor that could account for such increases.
Have a nice night.
Umm... isn't your premise that increases in solar output is the cause of all this? Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot?
Look:
<img src="http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif">
"The slight downward trend in temperature from about 1945 until about 1975 is due to the increase in Sulfate Aerosols (SO4), largely produced by burning coal that contains sulfur. These cool the earth, and their increase during these years largely canceled the increase in CO2 during the same period."
Yes, note the word natural.
You can see the effect of the miniscule natural amount in the previous post showing the impact in W/sq. meter.
You seem to have difficulty explaining what these definitions mean.
Okay, so try. Then address how you've quoted a guy who was in an honorary position.
But the best part, by far, of your post was quoting a satirical article...
The article was a gag, a joke, satire. It is not a source for either numbers or facts. You cannot cite it.
Okay, what's the "error level" and let's calculate it out.
Okay, cite please. I have got to know which "hard science journal" would claim that a graph with non-zero x-axis is "dishonest."
Puh-leeze!
Wait wait wait... where's all this CO2 coming from?
Isn't the change still a whopping 23 percent?
Which "researchers" estimated this? Who?
Was it a guy in an honorary position?
I notice that the quote came, not from a scientific climatology journal, but comments sent to the EPA by... someone.
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
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.
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).
"Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. 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."
--Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
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).
"Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. 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."
--Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
