Does CO2 really drive global warming?

You are mistaken, TheTaoOfBill.

 

I am not mistaken. You clearly do not understand basic properties of the greenhouse gases.

And if you don't believe me just look at the numbers.

Water Vapor makes up for 36-66% of the green house effect

CO2 Makes up for 9-26% of the green house effect.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

Water Vapor makes up about .4% of our atmosphere while CO2 makes up about .04% of our atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

Using VERY simple math we can conclude then that since water vapor is 10 times as common in our atmosphere than CO2 and yet only contributes about 4 times more to our greenhouse effect that CO2 is a much stronger Greenhouse gas.

This is really basic stuff here. How in the world could anyone consider you knowledgeable on climate change when you don't even understand the basics of green house gases? I think you need to spend less time researching which animated smileys to use and more time actually reading the science of global warming.

 

So 4-5 million barrels of oil per day was a concern was it?

Ever Googled the current daily consumption of oil? (she asks innocently)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

In excess of 80 million barrels a day........


And that is just the oil.......there is also coal...........and the usual balance for Co2 production, forestation is being lost at an unprecedented rate.......

Do you really think this has no effect

But even then there is another goal post shift - this time the old Furphy about water vapour not being taken into account

Sorry - but just how DUMB do you think scientists are that they would overlook this?

 

Sorry gmb.

This “contrived” graph of global temperature is refuted by the official NOAA and NASA GISS surface temperature anomaly plots.

The NOAA and NASA graphs are plots of actual (reliable) satellite and weather station global surface temperature data.

Your plot is nothing more than a "time series" of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to the total simulated and observed global temperature change.

Your data results are clearly based on a bad model that in no way tracks the actual NASA and NOAA global surface temperature measurements.

Nice try, but no cigar!

 

How?

Just saying that it is different is not enough - you have to demonstrate how

 

Wrong on several counts. Water vapor makes up from 0-4% of our atmosphere, not ".4%", as you mistakenly posted.

CO2 exists at about .000382 of the atmosphere, and causes NO SIGNIFICANT THERMAL EFFECTS in that miniscule amount, despite unending, completely unsubstantiated, absolutely nowhere near proven claims by the Warmist Carbonistas.

You ridiculous claims about the "ratio" of the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 are nothing more than Warmist drivel.

Any chemist worth his compounds realizes that CO2, in such miniscule concentrations, is NOT a significant thermal retainer, insulator, or reflector.

 

Misleading numbers again Grokky?

Just what does that 0.000382 define? It is not the percentage - it is not the parts per million.........

See it is no good bandying about numbers that are not defined

When one googles Co2 0.000382 guess what? The only match is to political forum and a member called "Grokmaster"

 

I'm not even going to respond to a post riddled with uncited claims and fake numbers that can't even be searched for. Pathetic response.

 

Actually they don't attribute global warming to that at all. They talk about how they expect record breaking temperatures in the next 2 to 3 years because of an increase in natural forcings, but the only bit that could even be linked to attribution flies in the face of your post.

 

You are not interested in my objections. if were you' done some post reading BEFORE you jumped in.

You do not need read a denier to know that a denier does not know simple scientific things you know. And so you go. Nothing can cause you to doubt a few things you have in your head. It is good to be you.

 

I had listed 11 arguments of warmers.

Now all I have to do is to copy paste the list.

I’ve been trying to see if I can bring a warmer up to the level of Ellochka the cannibal. I am still looking for one warmer who’d show to be equal in intelligence to a member of MumboJumbo tribe.

" http://lib.ru/ILFPETROV/ilf_petrov_12_chairs_engl.txt

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
ELLOCHKA THE CANNIBAL

William Shakespeare's vocabulary has been estimated by the experts at twelve thousand words. The vocabulary of a Negro from the Mumbo Jumbo tribe amounts to three hundred words.
Ellochka Shukin managed easily and fluently on thirty.
Here are the words, phrases and interjections which she fastidiously picked from the great, rich and expressive Russian language:
1. You're being vulgar.
2. Ho-ho (expresses irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and satisfaction, according to the circumstances).
3. Great!
4. Dismal (applied to everything-for example: "dismal Pete has arrived", "dismal weather", or a "dismal cat").
5. Gloom.
6. Ghastly (for example: when meeting a close female acquaintance, "a ghastly meeting").
7. Kid (applied to all male acquaintances, regardless of age or social position).
8. Don't tell me how to live!
9. Like a babe ("I whacked him like a babe" when playing cards, or "I brought him down like a babe," evidently when talking to a legal tenant).
10.Ter-r-rific!
11. Fat and good-looking (used to describe both animate and
inanimate objects).
12. Let's go by horse-cab (said to her husband).
13. Let's go by taxi (said to male acquaintances).
14. You're all white at the back! (joke).
15. Just imagine!
16. Ula (added to a name to denote affection-for example: Mishula, Zinula).
17. Oho! (irony, surprise, delight, loathing, joy, contempt and
satisfaction)." The extraordinary small number of words remaining were used as connecting links between Ellochka and department-store assistants.".




When Ellochka the cannibal managed easily and fluently on thirty, all warmers' bullying arguments may be brought down to less then a dozen:

1. You don’t understand science (evolution) (climate)(Marxism), don’t you?
2. You should get some education.
3. 97% of scientists are wrong and you are right?
4. 97% of scientists believe in global warming.
5. read this:
somethingImyslefcannotunderstandbutitisfrommyside. com.NASA.gov
6. You really think it is a conspiracy?
7. scientists can be easily bough by oil companies money, scientists cannot be bought by government’s money extracted from taxpayers. Oil and government use different money.
8. …. Not too many more are there
…. [ I am working on it]
13. You have submitted 12 equations; IF I prove (using arguments listed above) that one of them is wrong, will you accept that others are wrong?
14. I did not say that
15. You have not proven anything.



I tried to make it easy for you and other evolutionists.

Instead of typing all the lines you could just type, - 15. 5.

Now, when it is in front of, can you try to use my time savir for your next post?



Since you are feeding on the garbage you post, I am sure you like the taste of it and Science mag is more credible for you than the observed reality.

You posted another example of

1. illiteracy of the author(s)
2. manipulation of data and semantics
3. obvious bias and agenda.

Examples.

1. If you compare data in %% you compare data in %% but not in a mixture of %% and metric tons.

2. you make an unbias order of data. You do not try to switch units of measurements and put the data you don’t like in the end, especially if this particular data was in the beginning of the previous predictions of the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community.

3. “probably” “insignificant” is semantics hiding the reality that no instruments have recorded changes which could be demonstrated and observed. The scale of probably and insignificant is a frivolous scale, not the one determined in the original predictions.

There are scales for earthquakes, winds, hurricanes, waves, tsunamis and everything real science describes. "Insignificant " should be either quantified or qualified as not existent for a scale, and thus consideration.




‘the smoke was not as black as expected” made me laugh, it is below any need to comment on it.


etc.

all garbage.

But in all of all the article there is no demonstration of any impact either global or local. No predictions based on tons of evidence worked as they never worked in all other experiments I did put forward to back my “opinion. “

 

Really, no significant effects? So the Earth freezing over without CO2 is not significant?

Do you get sick of not having a clue?

 

I've never seen someone so clueless be so sure of themselves.

 

Sadly they usually seem to go hand in hand.

 

I am wondering did you understand that .000382 is result of calcutaion of 382 ppm?

 

I pointed to everyone that you never were interested in any dscussion from the start.

You don't have to keep on proving my point.

Unless you have no other way to enjoy yourself.

 

The atmosphere consists of 21% oxygen. Oxygen has no ability to absorb and emit IR. In this case, the amount of gas present in the atmosphere is less important than a gas's ability to absorb and emit IR. By your logic, because Oxygen is 21% of the atmosphere, oxygen should be the strongest GHG.

source
So your only logical choice is either H2O and CO2 or neither H20 nor CO2.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...y-drive-global-warming-15.html#post1060948508

I already explained it to you twice, as well as some others tried to explain math:

Please try to pay attention.

If you quote a post, please try to read it.


Please, try to understand what the post does say, the thoughts and points expressed it and try to address them. Please , try to avoid inserting, making and addressing words, thoughts and points not expressed in the post you quote. Often this helps to answer some question which can come to your mind.

Understanding that a post is an objection to AWG is not enough. Countering not the statement quoted post, but making up your own guesses and conclusions based on the guesses may give an impression that that you believe in AWG no matter what are numbers, facts or observations.


Simply divide 382 by one million you will get the number which puzzles you. 382 ppm means 382 parts per 1 million parts. If you divide the same values one on another in the result you have no value. For instance if you divide sec^2 by sec you will get sec. If you divide sec by sec you will get 1 and no sec. If you divide parts by parts you as well get 1 and no parts, no percents.

I hope it can help you.

 

Unfortunately, your source is only telling a very small part of the total story.

This is a perfect example of how the "warmies" often lie and mislead the public with "half-truths". They often tell part of the story but leave our the most important part that that does not support their unfounded conclusions of the absorption and re-emission effects of CO2 on global warming.

Here is the most important part your "source" has intentionally left out.

 

No. That is the scientific view and your evidence you are trying to make logical conclusion from using your logic.

You are looking from the view of science you have learned never bothering to look at the surrounding reality.

From the view of the experimental philosophy it is different.

Experiment:

1. Take 1000000 parts of air consisting of 21% oxygen, 382 parts of CO2 etc.

Take a magic marker. Sign each molecule.

Put 1000000 signed parts in a sealed jar at room T in a dark room.

Come back in a year.

You will see the same signed molecules.



2. Now take 1000000 parts of air consisting of 21% oxygen, 382 parts of CO2 etc.

Take a magic marker. Sign each molecule.


Leave them in the atmosphere.

Come back in year.

You will see 1000000 parts of air consisting of 21% oxygen, 382 parts of CO2 etc.

You will find no molecules with your signature.


21% oxygen in science is totally different from 21% oxygen of the experimental philosophy.

So please start all your life over now trying to take in the account reality of Nature and atmosphere. You don’t need any special education, - just look around.

 

Why do the liberals in this group have such a difficult time understanding these very simple concepts?

282/1,000,000 = 0.000282

0.000282 X 100% = 0.0282%

 

You are asking a loaded question. See logic fallacies.

Firstly I addressed Bowbird. She is not a liberal. She is an Australian.

I am as sorry for pointing to her math and her being an Australian as I am sorry for pointing to your fallacies.

Actually the above is just PC. Obviously, I am not sorry at all. I am just having fan.


P.S. Many of those who think that they are liberals are not liberals.

 

So why is outgoing longwave radiation decreasing?
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

 

James Cessna, you have cited a website that describes it self as a bastion of revisionist history that claims:

"Fumigation gas chambers, both stationary and mobile, did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at POW, labor, and concentration camps and at the fighting front. It is highly likely that it was from this lifesaving procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged."

Its incredible that you source information from a website that claims that "lifesaving procedures" enacted by the Nazis were mistaken for genocide. Sheesh!!! I guess "denialists" know no bounds.

 

If you listen to Al Gore I'm not surprised you're so woefully misinformed about climate.