The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

[Matt8200]

Quote from trefoil:

Don't change the subject. Account for the accuracy of the formula. It shows in very simple terms that all you need to predict temperature anomalies within a reasonable range of their actual occurrence is the change in CO2 levels since 1959.
I've had enough, more than enough, of all this obfuscation. You know what the data very clearly shows. Math is math is math, and shows very precisely that CO2 is the major force accounting for the warming of the planet since the 50's.
Account for the accuracy in some other terms, or give up and admit that all you need to explain present-day warming is CO2.

I am not changing the subject at all. You can do your same calculation for the x and y components of a sine curve and it will look great in the middle 2/3s of the amplitude and then it fails miserably when it reaches peaks. You are trying to model a complex dynamic system that has feedback with a simple logarithmic equation. It does not work that way. I can send you my 1000 page book on the feedback control of dynamic systems if you would like to read that.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

"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

"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor." -- assuming these 1994 numbers are correct, so what?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

This model does not agree with the historical data. If there is not a mechanism to reverse the feedback process and since water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas the system would never be able to reverse itself and we would have reached and stayed at that 6 degree above normal limit temperature hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Why? Because there is no natural absorption? There is. CO2 sinks include the oceans, which are acidifying.

 

[Matt8200]

Try explaining why the system oscillated like shown in the historical data.

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from bigdavediode:

assuming these 1994 numbers are correct, so what?

Well since water vapor is the dominant component of the greenhouse effect and it creates its own positive feedback then it would not be possible for temperatures to decrease at tripping points as found in the historical data unless some other mechanism is involved. How does the IPCC handle this problem?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

Try explaining why the system oscillated like shown in the historical data.

Cataclysmic volcanoes, Earth damaging meteors, continent sized fires...

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

Well since water vapor is the dominant component of the greenhouse effect and it creates its own positive feedback then it would not be possible for temperatures to decrease at tripping points as found in the historical data unless some other mechanism is involved. How does the IPCC handle this problem?

Well you're asking at what point, long after humans have died in the millions, will the cycle eventually terminate. Although water vapor increases with temperature, it doesn't increase out of proportion to its warming. That is, the warming that it brings does not wildly increase water vapor concentrations so much that the increase would have a compounding effect. Water vapor increases somewhat with temperature, but not disporportionately.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from trefoil:

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. .

This is so ludicrous, that I cannot believe you are not embarra

Without an atmosphere, we would be like the moon. Extremely close to absolute zero even a foot off the ground. Many Deserts (including Antarctica) have almost no water vapor day or night, and you cannot say they are even within 33 degrees C (or even far more than that) of abs zero

 

[Matt8200]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Cataclysmic volcanoes, Earth damaging meteors, continent sized fires...

The graph of historical temperatures appears much too cyclical to just be explained by this.

Why do the spikes to +2 degrees only occur when the temperature was previously at the -7 to -8 range?

Why does the temperature immediately spike down once it hits the +2 to +3 range? Clearly this isn't being governed by CO2. Look at the spike 130,000 years ago. CO2 levels are almost level while the temperature begins to drop rapidly. How do you explain this?

And my biggest question is why can't we expect the temperature in the future to spike back down once it hits the +2 to +3 range?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Matt8200:

The graph of historical temperatures appears much too cyclical to just be explained by this.

You can tell this about the globe from only three cycles, and even then from the antarctic?

Please.

Why do the spikes to +2 degrees only occur when the temperature was previously at the -7 to -8 range?

In the antarctic? Okay, please explain why.

Why does the temperature immediately spike down once it hits the +2 to +3 range? Clearly this isn't being governed by CO2. Look at the spike 130,000 years ago. CO2 levels are almost level while the temperature begins to drop rapidly. How do you explain this?

And my biggest question is why can't we expect the temperature in the future to spike back down once it hits the +2 to +3 range?

Well it wouldn't matter if it did, because a +2 change in global temperatures would doom millions.