The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart
- Thread starter drjekyllus
- Start date
Let me express it in investment terms: you have a graph, not of the earnings themselves, but of changes in earnings for a stock -- up $1, down $2, up $5 (ie. the delta of the earnings.)
Whether it trends up or down does not tell you whether it was profitable.
Same thing with the graph of deltas of temperature compared to a reference temperature -- the trend downwards does not necessarily mean that it was cooling overall, just that it may not have had an increasing level of heat.
You didn't quote the report at all, you quoted an appendix of submissions from the public, and some guy named "Bill" sent in his opinion.
Whether he had any qualifications (which he doesn't) it doesn't matter, given that his entire argument is debunked because it rests on a false assumption of "95%" which he sources from another paper, which he clearly misunderstood.
Nobody argues that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is -- it is not a forcing gas and your quote doesn't address that.
Sheesh, Lindzen? From 1994?
Do you understand that 1) your second paragraph has nothing to do with addressing my point, which is that water rains, and 2) Lindzen's arguments have long since been refuted?
Quote from TGregg:
And not just on Earth but on Mars too! Man, that's some power right there. You'd think if we were that powerful we could fix liberals.
I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but given how the Republicans are doing these days you guys should be in favor of endangered species programs.
You cannot debate the anthropogenic portion of the greenhouse effect before you distinguish what portion of the greenhouse effect is natural and what portion is anthropogenic . You have been trying do a correlation between changes in CO2 levels and temperature changes ignoring water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas. I posted a reference documenting its increasing levels so you simply cannot ignore it. You may try to argue that this is just positive feedback as hotter air holds more moisture but there is clearly something more occurring. There is 400,000 years of data showing temperature and CO2 levels oscillating. If the positive feedback between temperature and CO2 was the only mechanism driving the system then it would spiral out control (the famous hockey stick) and greenhouse effect would continue to increase until the atmosphere is fully saturated with water vapor. The historical data shows this is not case. Also the absorption bands of IR radiation between water vapor overlap. If you do the heat transfer calculations ignoring this fact then you come to the wrong conclusions.
Some people here think water vapor concentrations don't change due to the 'rain out' factor
I haven't been trying to do a correlation, I did it.
I also did a calculation using the radiative forcing formula for CO2 alone, and came very close to the average AND the median, using that formula alone, for the temperature anomalies in 2003 to 2008.
How do you account for the accuracy of that calculation? How could it possibly come so close if water vapor were so important, not to the effect, but to the marginal changes in the effect?
Water vapor is the background, but CO2 is the marginal change. As a trader, you should know that marginal change is what's interesting, not the background.
There's a 33 degrees C diff between what the temperature of the Earth would be without our atmosphere, and what it is with it. That's where water vapor is important. Obviously, there's a huge amount of solar energy that needs to be trapped to get that kind of difference, and just as obviously, water vapor would be important in that. That's different than figuring out where the very last degree of global temperature change is coming from. For that, you have to refer to CO2, N2O, and the rest, all of whose rapidly increasing levels (23% in the lifetime of Michael Jackson for CO2 is extremely rapid and very large in the context of the history of the Earth) come from human activity.
Finally, note that progress has been made for all gases except CO2, N2O, and to a minor - but worryingly growing - extent, for HFC's, which weren't covered by the Montreal Protocol because it wasn't known at the time that HFC's were a problem.
Denying the obvious importance of the last remaining gases gets no one anywhere, and degrades the quality of life we will leave for our children.
I also did a calculation using the radiative forcing formula for CO2 alone, and came very close to the average AND the median, using that formula alone, for the temperature anomalies in 2003 to 2008.
How do you account for the accuracy of that calculation? How could it possibly come so close if water vapor were so important, not to the effect, but to the marginal changes in the effect?
Water vapor is the background, but CO2 is the marginal change. As a trader, you should know that marginal change is what's interesting, not the background.
There's a 33 degrees C diff between what the temperature of the Earth would be without our atmosphere, and what it is with it. That's where water vapor is important. Obviously, there's a huge amount of solar energy that needs to be trapped to get that kind of difference, and just as obviously, water vapor would be important in that. That's different than figuring out where the very last degree of global temperature change is coming from. For that, you have to refer to CO2, N2O, and the rest, all of whose rapidly increasing levels (23% in the lifetime of Michael Jackson for CO2 is extremely rapid and very large in the context of the history of the Earth) come from human activity.
Finally, note that progress has been made for all gases except CO2, N2O, and to a minor - but worryingly growing - extent, for HFC's, which weren't covered by the Montreal Protocol because it wasn't known at the time that HFC's were a problem.
Denying the obvious importance of the last remaining gases gets no one anywhere, and degrades the quality of life we will leave for our children.
"While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). To demonstrate how quickly water reacts, I did a GCM experiment where I removed all the water in the atmosphere and waited to see how quickly it would fill up again (through evaporation from the ocean) . The result is shown in the figure. Itâs not a very exciting graph because the atmosphere fills up very quickly. At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days itâs back to within 1%. Thatâs less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
Since it's a feedback and not a forcing, that would make sense.
No, in fact there are estimates that CO2 will increase until we're something like six degrees above normal average global temperatures, at which point it levels off (and many millions of people die then, of course).
Actually I have already stated right off the bat that it varies (roughly) with temperature.