Yes, for CO2 and "solely" for CO2, as your paper clearly cites.
That tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis. The AGW debate is about the projections of water vapour feedback, not the small changes produced "solely" by CO2.
Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
That tells us nothing about the AGW hypothesis. The AGW debate is about the projections of water vapour feedback, not the small changes produced "solely" by CO2.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/
Seems to me there was a noticeable natural warming trend that happened way before 1850 and continues until today, with the added benefit of human greed and stupidity since the 1950's.
That was a misstatement, I'll let this press release from NASA explain it better.
The point I was trying to make was reduced solar output changes the poles temperature, the jet stream shifts towards the equator, all areas between the jet stream and poles are in cold country, if your toward the equator it's hotter and wetter, more water is evaporated at the equator and transported to the poles, more snow is put down reflecting sunlight back to space.
Now, If you notice the picture below of observed sun spots. Sun-spots were observed in the past to inform how active or inactive the sun was, today it's called pseudoscience.
I wonder how all that energy at the peak in 1950, and successive cycles, was absorbed and distributed over the next many years.
Considering our oceans absorb 50% of the sun's energy and store 1000x more heat than our atmosphere,
I wonder if ENSO events gained in magnitude and frequency, by releasing all that stored energy as evaporation.
I will let NOAA explain what the ENSO is
Here is ENSO surface temp data from NOAA for all events from 1981 -2016. (click link if you want to see data back to 1950)
Seems to me our current ENSO cycle has raised global temps by ~2ºC all by itself.
Until there's no more stored heat in the ocean.
Last edited:
Again, that is the NET effect of man made CO2. If water vapour feedback were reducing it that would net out. They measured the NET warming. Also known as radiative forcing. Note: MEASURED. Not hypothesized. Not modeled. Measured the NET effect by measuring the ACTUAL warming.
The article couldn't be clearer.
You are in denial.
Others on the thread have taken a more balanced position: maybe there are other factors like solar output or something else that are cooling the planet, offsetting AGW. Maybe warming will turn out to be a good thing. All reasonable questions.
You on the other hand are in straight denial.
Bullshit, the latest study confirms the accuracy of the models, including water vapour feedback.
CO2 causes global warming, that is known and proven.
There are studies that show that water vapour feedback will increase global warming, with 1ºC of warming due to CO2 leading to 3ºC total warming with water vapour feedback.
When I show that these studies have been done and concrete proof of water vapour's feedback mechanism proven, will you concede that AGW is no longer a theory?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?
No, the warming started around the dawn of industrialization. That's the effect that gave us the hockey stick graph.
Those are still minor influences they are talking about, small changes to the toposphere, possible small change in the Pacific, and the possibility that we are at a Maunder minimum right now (which would theoretically be cooling the planet, not warming).
None of those explain what we are seeing now.
There is no evidence to support this statement.
The oceans are storing CO2 and heat from AGW. ENSO events haven't changed that much, this last El Nino seemed bigger only because the planet was warmer.
That just shows the similar ranges of El Nino, and that the 1997 super El Nino was about as big as the 2015 El Nino.
Nothing there.
You are grasping at straws here, nothing you've brought here hasn't been studied before.
Nice to see someone with an open mind, willing to weigh the evidence objectively.
Oh wait, that's me.
You just failed.
All you did was prove that you are a denier, someone who will stick to their anti-science claims whatever evidence is provided.
You're just making shit up.
The study Fuji cited isn't the "latest," it's more than a year old. And it had nothing that addressed the accuracy of the water vapour feedback.
This is hilarious.
You've got it ass backwards, Fuji. The claim is that the water vapour amplifies the warming from CO2. In fact, the majority of the warming predicted in the models is based on the water vapour feedback -- something your paper doesn't address.
Sorry, but they measured the net effect. That includes any water vapor effect or any other effect of CO2 add what they measured was the heat reaching the ground and how it varied based on the amount of CO2. It's very clear in the paper and your shrill denials are increasingly pathetic.
You really aren't worth debating, you have religious, faith based beliefs that are invulnerable to fact. You are one of those willfully blind people incapable of real debate.
Sorry.
No, it doesn't:
It has been explicitly stated that the 0.2 figure doesn't include water vapour.Science Daily said:
Having a "real debate" means getting your facts right and having a basic understanding of the issues.
You don't know what you're talking about -- water vapour causing warming, water vapour causing cooling, water vapour being part of the "combination" of factors, etc. You keep making it up as you go along, revealing you are a total fraud.
Indeed, it's funny how many times you claimed the paper in Nature definitively backed your views before finally revealing that you had never actually read it (and don't even understand the news release).
It's equally funny that you claim to be so much smarter than Frankfooter. Yet Frankfooter seems to get that the figure cited in your paper was solely for CO2. I don't agree with much of what he's saying, but at least Franky is able to grasp certain things that continue to be completely over your head.
That was a study on CO2, confirming the greenhouse effect and the primary driver of AGW.
Are you seriously so daft as to think that there are not other existing studies out on water vapour?
The question remains, when I post up links to studies confirming the feedback mechanism of water vapour in AGW, will you concede that AGW is not a theory, but proven?
Or will you try to move the goal posts again?
fuji's paper set out to prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the planets temperature.
It proved that.
Of course there are other papers out there on water vapour.
Will you shut up when you read these or just move on to claiming that its all about methane, or some other new goal post?
Sorry but the study CLEARLY looked at the NET impact:
"Positive radiative forcing occurs when Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010."
That means that when more CO2 is present there's an increase in warming measured at the surface.
Last edited:
And of the tose 11 % some are being paid not to believe it.
I remember reading about the greenhouse effect in old text books on Venus. The theory and science have been around fro a long time. The effects of CO(2) are well known in theory and practice.
Sure their are some myths around - must people don't know about the robot singularity either. Or that certain math is technically illegal.
I remember reading about the greenhouse effect in old text books on Venus. The theory and science have been around fro a long time. The effects of CO(2) are well known in theory and practice.
Sure their are some myths around - must people don't know about the robot singularity either. Or that certain math is technically illegal.
Yup, that chart is still in use.
There are now about two dozen other papers that have backed up those initial findings using different methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
S
**Sophie**
You mean the chart that Mann is now saying he didn't have anything to with?!
Mann's court deposition:
"In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together… This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous."
Nothing but god damned LIES! All of it!
- Status
