The Great Global Warming Swindle

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

You are once again confusing cause and effect. Long term studies have demonstrated that a rise in CO2 lags (not leads) a rise in global temperature by 800 years.

The current CO2 level and global temperature levels are well within the standard deviation of the mean over the long term on earth.

And has been pointed out many times:

There was never in the past the release of 8 billion tons per year of CO2 like there is now.

In the past the CO2 levels acted as the greenhouse gas that they are after they were released, extending and amplifying the small solar changes. There is no question about this. The forcing capability of CO2 can be determined fairly accurately via the historical records.

The fact that there may be no clear instance where CO2 STARTS the temp rise does NOT mean CO2 is a not a dominant greenhouse gas and given the conditions we see today can be expected to LEAD temp higher.

 

[futurecurrents]

"The current CO2 level and global temperature levels are well within the standard deviation of the mean over the long term on earth."


Well the earth used to be molten ball of lava also. What we are interested in is somewhat recent changes. Like within the last 400,000 years.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

Get A Clue, futurecurrents!

Water Vapor vs CO2 as a “Greenhouse” Gas
February 24, 2011

If you read many articles and comments in the blogosphere you would think that “skeptics” have discovered something hidden. Or highlighted an important truth that climate science is trying to hide.

Water vapor is actually the dominant “greenhouse” gas

This is true.

If only climate science actually realized it and stopped pretending that CO2 was the most important “greenhouse” gas..

If Only They Wrote it Larger..

"For terrestrial radiation, water vapor is the most important single constituent of the lower atmosphere, although carbon dioxide is always significant.."
- Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, Goody & Yung, Oxford University Press (1989, 2nd edition)

"Water vapor is the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.. Carbon dioxide is the second most important greenhouse gas.."
- Radiation and Climate, Vardavas & Taylor, Oxford University Press (2007)

"Generally speaking, water vapor is the single most important atmospheric absorber in the IR band.."

"No other atmospheric constituent is better known to the general public as a “greenhouse gas” than CO2. In actuality, water vapor has a larger overall impact on the radiative energy budget of the atmosphere.."
- A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Grant Petty, Sundog Publishing (2006)

"Water vapor is the most important gas for the transfer of radiation in the atmosphere.."
- Global Physical Climatology, Hartmann, Academic Press (1994)

"Table 6 shows the relative contributions of H2O, CO2 and O3 to reducing the outgoing longwave flux, from which it is seen that the longwave effect of H2O is significantly larger than the effects of CO2 and O3.."
- Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models, Ramanathan & Coakley, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics (1978)

"The importance of water vapor in regulating climate is undisputed. It is the dominant greenhouse gas, trapping more of Earth’s heat than any other gaseous constituent.."
- The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening, Soden, Jackson, Ramaswamy, Schwarzkopf & Huang, Science (2005)

"The dominant role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas has long been noted.."
- The Importance and Nature of the Water Vapor Budget in Nature and Models, Lindzen, Climate Sensitivity to Radiative Perturbations: Physical Mechanisms and Their Validation (1996)

"The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W/m², while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W/m².."
- Earth’s Annual Global MeanEnergy Budget, Kiehl & Trenberth, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (1997)

"Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere.."
- Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Held & Soden, Annual Review Energy Environment (2000)

"In fact, it’s so well-known that most times in papers it isn’t repeated. No one involved in atmospheric physics is confused about the subject."

"Why the focus on CO2 in that case?"

"Water vapor arguably lies at the heart of all key terrestrial atmospheric processes. Humidity is essential for the development of disturbed weather, influences (directly and indirectly through cloud formation) the planetary radiative balance, and influences surface fluxes and soil moisture. Water vapor is the only radiatively important atmospheric constituent that is sufficiently short‐lived and abundant in the atmosphere so as to be essentially under purely natural control.."
- Tropospheric Water Vapor, Convection & Climate, Sherwood, Roca, Weckwerth & Andronova, Review of Geophysics (2010)

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/24/water-vapor-vs-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas/

Short term. Not long term like CO2. We went through this.

 

[jem]

you just proved my point..
considering how much I wanted Romney to win could my analysis of what a professional poll was have been better?


"polls slanted greater to the Dems than the 2008 the template are leftist frauds... and they should be chastised. This will include the crazy predictions made by nate silver.

polls with the 2008 template are leftists, fools, or blind.
even axelrod said last night they will not do as well as 2008.

poll between 2010 and 2008 are professional... perhaps a little partisan as they get closer to 2008.

polls with 2010... are perhaps a bit partisan to the Rs but smart.


but IMO

polls should slanted more to the Is and the Rs because that is what the turnout on Tuesday will teach us.

all these pollsters... underweighted the Is."

Quote from exGOPer:

So I looked up your posts right before the elections and here's what I found.



http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3671739#post3671739



http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3670695#post3670695




http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3670690#post3670690

I think you should just give up on all kinds of analysis out of embarrassment, frankly it's just embarrassing for me to dig up how wrong you are..consistently. Not just you, the rest of your clown brigade who continue posting from the same sources that fooled you for months.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

I win.

 

[exGOPer]

Quote from jem:

you just proved my point..
considering how much I wanted Romney to win could my analysis of what a professional poll was have been better?

Could you type that again? You were consistently wrong throughout your thread and your analysis for the lack of a better word was a sick joke.

 

[jem]

Quote from exGOPer:

Could you type that again? You were consistently wrong throughout your thread and your analysis for the lack of a better word was a sick joke.

We started comment on polls when many of the polls early on were slanted to the dems by 11 to 24 points.

I predicted that by election time they were go to more balanced ratios.
I was completely correct...

And just so clowns did not think it was about predicting a winner I made that post... in which I explained that Professional polls would be using a model or a template that should either be based on the 2008 or 2010 or election or somewhere in between.

I explained that I felt 2008 was slanted left and 2010 might also be a bit partisan.

so it turned out... the poll model I stated was professional got the election exactly right.

Now personally I was hoping for a turnout far more R than what a professional poll would have modeled.

I was trying to read the tea leaves and hoping the Independents were going to turn out big for Romney.
And for a while after the 1st debate it was polling that way...

but the Independents flipped back in some of the on the polls just in front of the election.

 

[gwb-trading]

As expected 'global warming' is just a liberal scam so they have to work less hours.

Study: Global Warming Can Be Slowed By Working Less
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/04/-study-global-warming-can-be-slowed-by-working-less

A worldwide switch to a "more European" work schedule, which includes working fewer hours and more vacation time, could prevent as much as half of the expected global temperature rise by 2100, according to the analysis, which used a 2012 study that found shorter work hours could be associated with lower carbon emissions.

Add this to the list of laughable studies that promote the global warming agenda.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

As expected 'global warming' is just a liberal scam so they have to work less hours.

Study: Global Warming Can Be Slowed By Working Less
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/04/-study-global-warming-can-be-slowed-by-working-less

A worldwide switch to a "more European" work schedule, which includes working fewer hours and more vacation time, could prevent as much as half of the expected global temperature rise by 2100, according to the analysis, which used a 2012 study that found shorter work hours could be associated with lower carbon emissions.

Add this to the list of laughable studies that promote the global warming agenda.

Ah yes, the AGENDA. The one that 97% of the worlds climatologists are in on. To ruin the FF industry, make Al Gore richer, to stifle the economy, to let the UN control us and to prove that the deniers (mostly Republicans) are indeed morons. Must fight the AGENDA.
The one that says that if the dominant greenhouse gas goes up 35%, things will get warmer. That crazy, common-sense, AGENDA.

You're truly delusional.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Ah yes, the AGENDA. The one that 97% of the worlds climatologists are in on.

Where are your links to your three studies showing 97% of the world's climatologists support man-made global warming? You claim you posted them before - you have not. Probably due to the reason that studies showing 97% don't exist. It is a magical number the global warming promoters pulled out of their rear ends.