The Global Warming Hoax is falling apart

Discussion in 'Politics' started by drjekyllus, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. Because they didn't identify a period on a graph?

    Please, get real.
     
    #461     Jul 5, 2009
  2. Okay, you've formed a theory, now you have to explain why temperatures don't drop during solar minimums.
     
    #462     Jul 5, 2009
  3. You really need me to define what the greenhouse effect is?

    "The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation."

    So CO2 is responsible for an estimated 3 or 4% of the total warming effect. Water vapor is estimated to contribute 95% of the total warming effect.
     
    #463     Jul 5, 2009
  4. You must be ignoring the next post I made because it came directly from the actual reports.
     
    #464     Jul 5, 2009
  5. Unfortunately naturally produced CO2 has been naturally absorbed, too, thus an equilibrium was established.

    Some man made CO2 was absorbed, but not all of it, and what was absorbed has helped acidify the oceans.

    Let's say your numbers were right (and they're not, they're far too low since CO2 has increased at least 20% since 1970 alone) -- take whatever annual numbers you have and multiply them by ten years, then twenty years, then fifty years.

    Who cares? Lots of people will.

    Probably the safest choice for you.
     
    #465     Jul 5, 2009
  6. Yes, about the proposals for action.

    "The IPCC produces also Special Reports; Methodology Reports; Technical Papers; and Supporting Material, often in response to requests from the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, or from other environmental Conventions."

    Can you figure out which ones might address water vapor? (Hell, I previously even gave you the page numbers.)
     
    #466     Jul 5, 2009
  7. What exactly do you mean by "total warming effect"? Total increase in temperature? If not, what then?

    You did know that humans are partially responsible for increases in water vapor, in methane, and in other greenhouse gases, right?
     
    #467     Jul 5, 2009
  8. Where did you get this nonsense number?

    I hope you're not trying to discuss stratospheric water vapor. Here are the actual numbers in W/sq. meters:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-2.1.html

    CO2 has a radiative forcing effect of over 1.5W/sq. meters, while H2O is less than .2W/sq. meter.

    Suffice to say, your thought that CO2 only is responsible for 3 or 4% of total radiative forcing is wildly wrong.
     
    #468     Jul 5, 2009
  9. No, idiot.

    Cuz the IPCC graph shows no increase during the MWP and the LIA.

    Face it troll, Huang's work debunks the IPCC graph.
     
    #469     Jul 5, 2009
  10. Why is this so difficult to understand? The greenhouse effect causes some quantity of energy to be absorbed at the surface of the earth which then increases the surface of the earth. I am talking about the percentage of this total energy that each individual gas contributes.

    Yes and my point is if you do the math humans CO2 contribution only increases the greenhouse effect by about 0.2%.
     
    #470     Jul 5, 2009