Evidence supporting AGW

[CrusaderFrank]

It was warmer 120,000 years ago, when the CO2 level stood at 300 ppm. And the CH4 was about 800 ppb. Today, the CO2 level is above 400 ppm, and the CH4 above 1800 ppb. The sea level at that time was about 20 ft higher than today. The climate has an inertia in it, and takes time to ramp up, but as it does, our descendents will see more than a 20 ft increase in sea level, and a much warmer world than today.

...and he can back that up with lab experiments too.

Uh huh

Sure he can

 

[Crick]

What makes you think lab experiments are required? What makes you think they're definitive? What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?

 

[SSDD]

Those warm period did not involve a major change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. In fact, given the total load of GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, NOx, and industrial gases that are as much as thousands of times effective GHG as CO2, we have not had this kind of heat trapping ability in the atmosphere in over 20 million years. At that time, there were no ice caps. And far less clathrates in the ocean. And we have done this in the space of 150 years.

They didn't involve major changes in CO2 but at the time, the atmospheric CO2 was close to 2000ppm. No runaway warming at 2000ppm...how could that be? What is our paltry contribution to atmospheric CO2 when the natural level, when the earth is not in an ice age is over 1000ppm?

 

[SSDD]

Really? Your link as to when it has recently been warmer is where?

Here...according to the IPCC

 

[SSDD]

Toddster, are you really that stupid, or are you being purposely obtuse. The present level has happened in the last 150 years. That is a far greater rate of increase than we have seen in millions of years. In fact, it is a faster rate of increase than we saw in the P-T extinction event.

Can you prove any of that claim? Which proxies will give you an accurate resolution of 150 years?

You are full of shit rocks...you say whatever you think will bolster your cause because you are driven by a political agenda....you claim to be studying towards a degree...and you lie through your teeth in an effort to make a point...nothing about you makes me think that if you were an actual scientist that you would hesitate for a second to fudge, alter, manipulate, or fabricate data to help you in your political motivations....most of those who claim to be climate scientists identify themselves with the same politics as you and I don't doubt for a second that people like you will lie without even an eye blink if you think it will further your politics.

 

[SSDD]

What makes you think lab experiments are required? What makes you think they're definitive? What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?

An experiment reflecting something like real world conditions that demonstrates that adding a whisp of CO2 will result in warming might be nice....maybe some experiments that would actually demonstrate an observable greenhouse effect in the atmosphere...some experiments that would perhaps result in quantifying the greenhouse effect if it exists...

Hundreds of billion dollars have been poured into the AGW hoax...do you think it is unreasonable to expect that a greenhouse effect, if it exists would have been observed and measured by now...or that it would have been quantified.....and I mean really quantified...not the 5 degree temperature spread posited by climate models....hundreds of billions that could have been spent on real environmental issues and not the first observation, measurement, or quantification of the claimed greenhouse effect...the so called data is all computer model output.

 

[Crick]

What makes you think lab experiments are required? What makes you think they're definitive? What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?

An experiment reflecting something like real world conditions that demonstrates that adding a whisp of CO2 will result in warming might be nice....maybe some experiments that would actually demonstrate an observable greenhouse effect in the atmosphere...some experiments that would perhaps result in quantifying the greenhouse effect if it exists...

A desktop-sized container of gas DOES "reflect something like real world conditions", but it is obviously grossly less complex, less massive with a tiny fraction of the components present in the Earth's environment. This is all obvious. When I asked you what experiment you'd like to see "specifically" I wanted to know how you would address the scaling issues and gross simplification that any LABORATORY experiment of this nature will unavoidably suffer.

Hundreds of billion dollars have been poured into the AGW hoax...do you think it is unreasonable to expect that a greenhouse effect, if it exists would have been observed and measured by now...or that it would have been quantified.....and I mean really quantified...not the 5 degree temperature spread posited by climate models....hundreds of billions that could have been spent on real environmental issues and not the first observation, measurement, or quantification of the claimed greenhouse effect...the so called data is all computer model output.

If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO. Half the estimates would show cooling. How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago. It is not widely accepted. It is UNIVERSALLY accepted. The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence. Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What makes you think lab experiments are required? What makes you think they're definitive? What lab experiments would you like to see... specifically?

An experiment reflecting something like real world conditions that demonstrates that adding a whisp of CO2 will result in warming might be nice....maybe some experiments that would actually demonstrate an observable greenhouse effect in the atmosphere...some experiments that would perhaps result in quantifying the greenhouse effect if it exists...

A desktop-sized container of gas DOES "reflect something like real world conditions", but it is obviously grossly less complex, less massive with a tiny fraction of the components present in the Earth's environment. This is all obvious. When I asked you what experiment you'd like to see "specifically" I wanted to know how you would address the scaling issues and gross simplification that any LABORATORY experiment of this nature will unavoidably suffer.

Hundreds of billion dollars have been poured into the AGW hoax...do you think it is unreasonable to expect that a greenhouse effect, if it exists would have been observed and measured by now...or that it would have been quantified.....and I mean really quantified...not the 5 degree temperature spread posited by climate models....hundreds of billions that could have been spent on real environmental issues and not the first observation, measurement, or quantification of the claimed greenhouse effect...the so called data is all computer model output.

If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO. Half the estimates would show cooling. How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago. It is not widely accepted. It is UNIVERSALLY accepted. The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence. Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.

So why do you keep insisting that the CO2 drives the climate? Now you're saying that you havent eliminated all the variables except -- it can't be both. Either you've eliminated all the variables or you haven't

 

[SSDD]

If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO. Half the estimates would show cooling. How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?

No...I don't think I said that at all....I said that no one said that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit LW....again, you simply make up what you wish your opponent said and argue against that.

If, a greenhouse effect exists as described and modeled by climate science, why does the model only work on earth? Why do the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse on earth break down on other planets and not yield a temperature even close to the actual temperature on those other planets while using nothing more than the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation, one can get very close to the actual temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.

greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago. It is not widely accepted. It is UNIVERSALLY accepted. The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence. Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.

The greenhouse effect as demonstrated 100 years ago was debunked by woods barely a year later....all of the claims were shown to be false.

As to a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, as opposed to in a jar being demonstrated, observed, measured or quantified.........still waiting.

 

[Crick]

If the greenhouse effect did not exist (and did you not just a few hours ago make the statement "who says it doesn't exist?") the average of the estimates of climate sensitivity would be ZERO. Half the estimates would show cooling. How many studies have you seen that indicate greenhouse gases can cause cooling?

No...I don't think I said that at all....I said that no one said that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit LW....again, you simply make up what you wish your opponent said and argue against that.

How many times have you said "If a greenhouse effect exists"? How many times have you said "absorption followed by emission doesn't equal warming"?

If, a greenhouse effect exists as described and modeled by climate science, why does the model only work on earth? Why do the physics used to describe the so called greenhouse on earth break down on other planets and not yield a temperature even close to the actual temperature on those other planets while using nothing more than the ideal gas laws and incoming solar radiation, one can get very close to the actual temperature on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect works just fine on other planets. Here are a few sites discussing the matter:

Greenhouse effect: Other planets - - Science Museum

ESA Science & Technology: Greenhouse effects... also on other planets

Venus & Mars

Greenhouse effect on other planets?

greenhouse effect was demonstrated to the satisfaction of ALL the world's scientists over a hundred years ago. It is not widely accepted. It is UNIVERSALLY accepted. The graphs of absorption spectra you've seen posted here dozens of times are definitive evidence. Your classic denier charge that it is all meaningless computer models shows only the multivariate nature of your ignorance.

The greenhouse effect as demonstrated 100 years ago was debunked by woods barely a year later....all of the claims were shown to be false.

Then you do reject it. Though even Willis Eschenback says Wood was full of crap. Check out The R. W. Wood Experiment | Watts Up With That?

As to a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, as opposed to in a jar being demonstrated, observed, measured or quantified.........still waiting.

What do you believe is raising the Earth's temperature 33C higher than Stefan-Boltzman says it should be?

 

[SSDD]

How many times have you said "If a greenhouse effect exists"? How many times have you said "absorption followed by emission doesn't equal warming"?

Since I don't think that a greenhouse effect, as described by climate science exists, I say it every time I voice the opinion...and absorption followed by emission do not equal warming.

greenhouse effect works just fine on other planets. Here are a few sites discussing the matter:

Your links are bullshit...they simply make the claim that a greenhouse effect as described by climate science exists on other planets...fact is, it doesn't even exist here.....and any pseudoscientific site that claims that the temperature on venus is due to a runaway greehouse effect is not worth the time it takes to read....the temperature on venus is due to its atmospheric pressure....not a greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

A greenhouse effect as described by climate science requires solar radiation be absorbed by the surface, radiated into the atmosphere and then back radiated to the surface...very little solar radiation ever reaches the surface of venus..

The lack of a greenhouse effect was proven by the venus probe...despite claims of a runaway greenhouse effect on venus, the probes showed that if one descends into the atmosphere of venus to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is 1000 millibars or the sea level pressure of earth, the temperature is 66C....warmer than earth but when one accounts for the difference from the sun and resulting increased incoming solar radiation, the temperature there at the same pressure as earth is almost identical to the temperature of earth....in an atmosphere composed almost entirely of so called greenhouse gasses. That alone should have been enough to send the greenhouse hypothesis to the trash if climate science were an honest branch of science...

For further evidence of the lack of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science one need only apply the ideal gas laws to the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres.

These calculations were provided by Ross MLeod..properties are from the planetary fact sheet from NASA....feel free to point out any errors to NASA...(note: (S)=Surface (1 bar)= equals altitude where pressure equals that at earth sea level

Property Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune

Pressure 92000 1014 6.9-9 1000 1000 1000 1000
(millibar) (S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Density 65000 1217 20 160 190 420 450
(g/m3) (S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)

Molecular 43.45 28.97 43.34 2.22 2.07 2.64 2.59
weight
(g/mole)

Temp(K) 737K 288K 210k 165K 134K 76K 72K
(S) (S) (S) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar) (1 bar)


Solar 2613.9 1367.6 589.2 50.50 14.90 3.71 1.51
Irradiance
(w/m2)

Black Body 184.2 254.3 210.1 110.0 81.1 58.2 46.6
Temperature
(K)


Venus
PV = nRT
92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Earth
PV = nRT
1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K

Mars
PV = nRT
Because the Martian atmosphere is so slight 2 calculations were used– the minimum and maximum measured at the Viking Lander Site to demonstrate something significant.
6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,
T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Jupiter
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K
There can, by definition be no greenhouse effect on jupiter

Saturn
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Saturn

Uranus
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Uranus

Neptune
PV = nRT
1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T
T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K
There can, by definition, be no greenhouse effect on Neptune

Particularly note the actual surface temperature of earth and the temperature calculated via the ideal gas laws....very close....doesn't the greenhouse hypothesis claim that an additional 33C is added by the greenhouse effect? Don't you find it interesting that according to the greenhouse hypothesis without the greenhouse effect the temperature would be -18C while the ideal gas laws say that the temperature on earth should be pretty damned close to the actual temperature on earth?

And as to the physics of the greenhouse effect working fine on other planets, that statement is laughable...the actual temperature on the surface of Venus is about 464C the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature on venus should be about 477C...the greenhouse effect model, when applied to venus predicts that without a greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus would be a balmy 68C....the ideal gas laws say 477....the greenhouse effect claims to be 396 degrees on venus.

It is absolutely laughable....What would the greenhouse effect be on planets that have no greenhouse effect due to a lack of greenhouse gasses? The ideal gas laws predict those temperatures just fine...what does the greenhouse effect say?

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is profound, but it doesn't care what the composition of the atmosphere is and thus isn't politically attractive as human activity can not be demonized...

you do reject it. Though even Willis Eschenback says Wood was full of crap. Check out The R. W. Wood Experiment | Watts Up With That?

You think Willis is full of shit and don't believe a word he says, but think he is correct regarding Woods experiment? Interesting...Since you don't believe him, and think he is a hack, why do you accept his opinion on this matter? Let me guess...you accept anything from anyone so long as it agrees with what you think...and reject anything from anyone if they disagree with you.

do you believe is raising the Earth's temperature 33C higher than Stefan-Boltzman says it should be?

The Stephan Boltzman law applies to black bodies...it can't be rightly applied to earth..one more error within the failing greenhouse hypothesis.

The actual san temperature of the planet is about 59 degrees F....the ideal gas laws (with no greenhouse effect) predict that the temperature is 69 degrees F....the greenhouse hypothesis predicts that the temperaure without a greenhouse effect the temperature would be barely above 0 degrees F....which is more believable? No greenhouse effect as described by climate science exists.

 

[Crick]

You are both stupid and full of shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody were the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C [278.45K]. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[5][6] of the incoming sunlight, this idealized planet's effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) would be about −18 °C [255.15K].[7][8] The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C below Earth's actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C[287.15K].[9] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.[10]



5) "NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
6) "Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
7) "Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
8) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97
9) The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion
10) Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.

 

[SSDD]

And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?

Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...

You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.

 

[Crick]

And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?

The ideal gas law?!?!? I wouldn't have thought someone could be this stupid if they tried. You still think that pressure generates energy forever. What the ever-living fuck is wrong with you?

Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...

The idea gas law is PV=nRT. Which one of those terms covers albedo? Which one of those terms covers incoming radiation? Which one covers outgoing radiation? My god are you STUPID.

You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.

You believe all the world's scientists have been perpetrating a hoax since the time of Boyle, Charles and Dalton. Yeah, that's a reasonable position.

You're an idiot and a whack job. You need to seek an education and professional help.

 

[Kosh]

Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Also not that neither Venus nor Mars has a magnetic field. So to compare the Earth to any other planet like Venus or Mars as the so called greenhouse effect is silly.

But then again the AGW religious scriptures will not allow them to admit they are wrong:

AGW is not science and soon as we can get this cult to step down and let real science happen, the better we will all be.

 

[Crick]

Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:

Repeat your lies? Because you've no real evidence or data to support the shite you're trying to push on us; that's why.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

People are told that all over. The point has been made in every single IPCC assessment report. The point has appeared in hundreds if not thousands of articles about global warming. Your contention here that such information is being withheld is a lie.

When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity.

This is bullshit and why it is bullshit has been explained to you before. Thus your repetition of this post (and this is probably the fifth time you've posted the exact same material) is a WILLFUL LIE. Your "one percent" is the annual contribution humans make to the total of all greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans have been putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, at an ever-increasing rate, since the beginning of the industrial revolution over 150 years ago. The total amount of human-derived greenhouse gases CURRENTLY in the Earth's atmosphere is 42% of the total. 42%, not 1%, you lying sack of shit

Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it.

Not all the global warming you're talking about. The greenhouse effect was taking place before humans existed. If it weren't for the global warming provided by the greenhouse effect acting on CO2, CH4 and water vapor, this planet would have never been anything but a bloody frozen rock (I almost said snowball, but snow would require water which would cause warming). The 42% of atmospheric CO2 that humans have added IS responsible for the increasing temperatures we've been experiencing.

Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity.

I don't buy your "70 times" but water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Fortunately it has a very short life time in the atmosphere: no more than a few days. Unfortunately, it also provides a strong positive feedback mechanism for any other warming mechanism. Atmospheric water vapor levels are controlled entirely by temperature. Increased temperatures - and ONLY increased temperatures - will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If CO2 provides 1C of greenhouse warming, the added water vapor in the air from that 1C will produce ANOTHER 1C of warming.

When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Clouds do have a complex effect. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb and reradiate infrared. Here's a point for SSDD and his radiative insanity. If I stand under a clear night sky, I am radiating to space (2.6K) which doesn't send much back.. If I stand under a full bank of cumulus clouds at, say, 15,000 feet, I am radiating to a ceiling at perhaps 250K, which sends MUCH more energy back down to me. If I walk under a shelter: a leafy forest, a pavilion roof or my own house, I will be radiating to a surface at about 280K and with that decrease in my net loss, will be even more comfortable.

The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but not sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.

Also not that neither Venus nor Mars has a magnetic field. So to compare the Earth to any other planet like Venus or Mars as the so called greenhouse effect is silly.

What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?

But then again the AGW religious scriptures will not allow them to admit they are wrong:

Roy Spencer's graph here is a grossly manipulated lie. See HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

AGW is not science and soon as we can get this cult to step down and let real science happen, the better we will all be.

Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the ideal gas laws predict that the temperature of the planet, with no greenhouse effect would be?

Then consider reflected incoming solar radiation...albedo...etc., and the ideal gas laws just about nail the temperature on earth while the greehouse effect is way off in left field...

You have fallen for a hoax...and are to dumb to know it...at some point (assuming that even idiots can't be fooled indefinitely) you will transition from to dumb to know to to proud and arrogant to admit it.

Wow.
And I thought your only issue was your complete misunderstanding of the 2nd Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.
You should just stop posting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do we have to do this with the AGW cult every single time:

Repeat your lies? Because you've no real evidence or data to support the shite you're trying to push on us; that's why.

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds.

People are told that all over. The point has been made in every single IPCC assessment report. The point has appeared in hundreds if not thousands of articles about global warming. Your contention here that such information is being withheld is a lie.



This is bullshit and why it is bullshit has been explained to you before. Thus your repetition of this post (and this is probably the fifth time you've posted the exact same material) is a WILLFUL LIE. Your "one percent" is the annual contribution humans make to the total of all greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Humans have been putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, at an ever-increasing rate, since the beginning of the industrial revolution over 150 years ago. The total amount of human-derived greenhouse gases CURRENTLY in the Earth's atmosphere is 42% of the total. 42%, not 1%, you lying sack of shit



Not all the global warming you're talking about. The greenhouse effect was taking place before humans existed. If it weren't for the global warming provided by the greenhouse effect acting on CO2, CH4 and water vapor, this planet would have never been anything but a bloody frozen rock (I almost said snowball, but snow would require water which would cause warming). The 42% of atmospheric CO2 that humans have added IS responsible for the increasing temperatures we've been experiencing.



I don't buy your "70 times" but water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. Fortunately it has a very short life time in the atmosphere: no more than a few days. Unfortunately, it also provides a strong positive feedback mechanism for any other warming mechanism. Atmospheric water vapor levels are controlled entirely by temperature. Increased temperatures - and ONLY increased temperatures - will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If CO2 provides 1C of greenhouse warming, the added water vapor in the air from that 1C will produce ANOTHER 1C of warming.



Clouds do have a complex effect. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb and reradiate infrared. Here's a point for SSDD and his radiative insanity. If I stand under a clear night sky, I am radiating to space (2.6K) which doesn't send much back.. If I stand under a full bank of cumulus clouds at, say, 15,000 feet, I am radiating to a ceiling at perhaps 250K, which sends MUCH more energy back down to me. If I walk under a shelter: a leafy forest, a pavilion roof or my own house, I will be radiating to a surface at about 280K and with that decrease in my net loss, will be even more comfortable.

The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but not sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.



What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?

But then again the AGW religious scriptures will not allow them to admit they are wrong:

Roy Spencer's graph here is a grossly manipulated lie. See HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

AGW is not science and soon as we can get this cult to step down and let real science happen, the better we will all be.

Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.

Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists

Yes, 75/77 is an impressive number.

 

[Kosh]

There was so much AGW religious scripture that was not based in science I chose these:

Clouds do have a complex effect. Clouds reflect incoming solar radiation and absorb and reradiate infrared. Here's a point for SSDD and his radiative insanity. If I stand under a clear night sky, I am radiating to space (2.6K) which doesn't send much back.. If I stand under a full bank of cumulus clouds at, say, 15,000 feet, I am radiating to a ceiling at perhaps 250K, which sends MUCH more energy back down to me. If I walk under a shelter: a leafy forest, a pavilion roof or my own house, I will be radiating to a surface at about 280K and with that decrease in my net loss, will be even more comfortable.

The net effect of clouds, worldwide, is net cooling but no sufficient (obviously) to cancel the effect of our increased CO2 levels.

More proof the AGW cult hates real science:

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

More proof that the AGW scriptures will rule the cult over actual science.

What? What effect do you think a magnetic field has on the greenhouse effect? It has NONE. Was this supposed to demonstrate your scientific competence? I'm curious who told you this was relevant. Where'd you get this point?

Once again the AGW cult goes to show they do not understand actual science.

If the Earth had NO magnetic field there would be ZERO life on this planet. Just like if there was NO sun there would be ZERO life here.

The AGW religion has been proven to be false.

Although here is something that will make the AGW cult go nuts:

Focus: Simulations Strengthen Earth’s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection
Physics - Simulations Strengthen Earth?s Magnetic-Field/Climate Connection

Given that AGW is the avowed position of 97% of all active climate scientists and every single national science academy on the planet, your statement is patent nonsense.

So what 75 or so climatologists from the IPCC, that drive high end cars and live a luxurious homes and make their living off the preaching of the AWG religious scriptures? I am supposed to believe a unproven religious belief over actual science?

Sure you continue to believe that, but the real science proves your religion incorrect. Also your AGW cult link to one who posted the AGW cult mantra and not any real science.

The AGW cult will do all they can to suppress real science in order to promote their religion.

 

[Crick]

It has been posted here before that the 97% figure has been found in studies and surveys involving thousands of scientists and thousands of published papers.