Decided to make this so people could use these arguments against CAGW in debates

I like the graphs. I'm mostly interested in the first one since I believe that's the most politically useful, and politics of global warming is where I've spent most of the last 20 or so years of my career.

One question though, you mention the "greenhouse potency" of CO2 and H2O but you don't provide numbers. If you don't mind, could you tell me what the IPCC concensus numbers for that are?

Thanks in advance.

 

The IPCC logarithmic equation (as quoted above in the graph) predicts a total greenhouse warming for CO2 of 32 W/sq.m. The total greenhouse back-radiation from all sources according to the IPCC and Trenberth (see his Global Energy Budget) is 333 W/sq.m. So CO2 accounts for about 10% of total greenhouse warming while water vapour mostly makes up the rest, with methane contributing a small amount. Not done the calculations for methane but it would not contribute a lot.

 

For me, ECS is the critical measure and the foundation of debate so that graph is the one I find most valuable. But thanks for all of them.

 

But.... but.... but..... you can't force folks to give up their rights and wealth unless you scare them to death.... However will these charlatans bilk the public of their wealth again???

 

Try to ban water next?

 

Yikes!

 

Hey, banning water will kill off a lot more of the superfluous minions faster than banning CO2 hastening the golden planetary age of the modern elites.

Who could be against that?

 

Superb collection of data in visible form to emphasis its meaning. It's gonna take me a while to digest everything here, but thanks for this post.