Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
- Status
Sunspots are part of the sun, kook.
more sunspots, more solar radiation.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
WTF is this chart of from bloomberg, 1890-2005, where is 2006-2016.
Why can't you tell me how much human CO2 has been added from 1980-2016 compared to 1880-1976.
Bloomberg, that’s footers favourite site, especially since it states that deforestation has NO effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and does not contribute to the so called global warming.
FAST
Keep denying, you really are just punching yourself in the head with these asinine posts. The presence of CO2 resulted in additional warming of .2 watts per meter squared per decade, exactly what the AGW models predict. If some other effect were interfering the energy down welling would have been less.
You are wrong, you are proved wrong, and this is the second instance of you spewing asinine things to deny scientific results that disprove your faith based religious views on climate.
You've missed the point that Fuji also can't grasp. Those recorded increases are only for CO2, not water vapour.
The warming caused solely by CO2 is too small to worry about. Even climate researchers who support your position will agree with that.
If you acknowledge that my view is that man-made emissions are not the dominant factor, how does that support your claim that I have accepted that "AGW is real"?
????
I still don't think you know what "anthropogenic" means. As I said, the "consensus" is a load of bullshit, created by continually shifting the meaning of words so that they are utterly meaningless.
You repeatedly miss the point. That additional warming of .2 watts per meter squared per decade is only due to CO2. As your news release clearly stated, that is the isolated calculation you get when you remove the impact of water vapour and clouds.
The number you're citing tells us nothing about the merits of the AGW hypothesis. The debate is about the warming that is supposedly created by water vapour, not the amount created "solely" by CO2. Whether it fits the model projections or not, the amount created "solely" by CO2 is too small to worry about.
What, you mean the sun has an effect on the earths temp., who knew.I was hoping he was going to show me something like this
FAST
i HAVE to admit I have not been reading up on this, but in the past the predictions where way off the other way - as I recall we are about 100 years ahead of the early predictions - so i am guessing they are trying to correct for way to conservative predictions of the past, and now are going the other way. Certainly the opening of the north west passage was not on the books as a possible 20 years ago.
Yes. That is the net effect of the presence of the CO2. The presence of the CO2 results in additional radiative forcing of 0.2 watts per square meter per decade, confirming AGW through direct observation.
Your claim that the radiative forcing could be less because of offsetting factors is directly proved wrong because they measured all the downwelling energy in concluding that CO2 from human sources (and not from other sources) adds the incremental radiative forcing.
Again, I can go pay the $32 if you need additional confirmation of exactly what they did, but for my $32 I need a commitment from you that when it shows they determined a NET incremental increase that you will finally shut up. I'll expect no further posts from you disputing AGW.
And if you remove the influence of El Nino, volcanoes, and the solar cycle from the global surface temperature data, you get this
Looks like a chart that confuses sources, but its hard to tell without a link to the source.
Post the link to the original article, please.
Nonsense, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its effect is quite large even if it isn't as large a part of the atmosphere.
Legit climate researchers understand that.
Overlay that chart with a chart of global temperatures
From your source..http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Who's the kook.
Solar is a minor influence in that chart, the two real influences are volcano's and ENSO.And if you remove the influence of El Nino, volcanoes, and the solar cycle from the global surface temperature data, you get this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
That's from the source article for your chart, by the way.
Solar was a distant third influence.
You have accepted that man influences the climate, now you are just denying the real impact.
- Status
