Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

it's always amusing when someone posts something they believe supports their views but instead does exactly the opposite......

- - - Updated - - -

he may have read them but definitely didn't comprehend what was written if he did....

 

No. The accepted science is, among others, Beer's Law, conservation of energy, Planck's Law, Stefan--Boltzmann law and the math include the radiative transfer equations. If you think these have been "skewed to align with your beliefs on the subject", you'd better contact the physicist and climate researchers, including the skeptics. Because there is no disagreement on this part of AGW.

Interesting you should link to http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

when your original link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html states

You've debunked your own link!

 

What a bunch of mumbo jumbo. LOL!
Still no proof an increase in CO2 will cause further warming. None, again, the mythbuster video basically proves that. hahahahaahahahaha. Anything to be right, correct?

 

No what I did was show that sites like these use pseudo academic sources and referencing - they also cherry pick data. If you dislike the video are you willing also to disprove NASA or Harvard http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/?

Look - very very few people deny the physics of CO2 - it is roughly the same number as think the world is flat

 

OK, let's assume that water vapor amplifies the effects of CO2. Humans are attributed to only 3% of total CO2 emmisions. We saw a drop in global temperature back in 2007 that essentially wiped out decades of so-called global warming. Temperatures have flattened out since. Also, what comes first, CO2 change or temperature change? CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential for Earth's processes.

 

Both links acknowledge that water vapor is a big player.

 

Even if it were only 3% - that 3% is cumulative - which means that it is not negated by the system but each year adds to the year before. So over 10 years we have a cumulative effect of………….

That daily tech article is embarrassing - as would be anything that started with
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded.

Anecdotal - not measured not factual but verbal reports from cherry picked sites around the world. Tell me - was there a El Nino or La Nina event that year? What was the Solar input? Did the total measurements of the ENTIRE GLOBE match these "anecdotal" accounts?

As for the temperatures

Sorry - but why quote someone so well debunked? Monte Heib is NOT a climate scientist but a mining safety engineer. His site is now dated but his straw men continue…...

 

Where is the proof that CO2 rises before temperature? If there is global warming of the likes of Al Gore, why is polar ice increasing? Why is New York, California and Florida still above water. Why is it now "climate change" and not "global warming" anymore?

 

No-one is saying that it does not but it AMPLIFIES the problem rather than causing it - see you missed this bit in your link

 

Physics - Mannie, and PD can explain that part of it better than I can ( I am just a singer in this rock and roll band)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Al Gore is not causing global warming anymore than Lord Monckton is stopping it - and the polar ice is NOT increasing - remember the Earth has TWO poles

Who predicted they would be underwater by now?

Because there always has been the two different terms for different effects

 

I am still not convinced whether the chicken or the egg came first: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/#more-70149

 

I may be full of crap, but I think there is enough skepticism to say that the jury is still out on the Human-caused part of it. I am also not convinced of the motives behind the climate change crowd at the upper levels around the world.

 

Stick with Anthony Watts as a source at least he has SOME credibility unlike your previous source however good old Anthony is doing himself a disservice in posting random rubbish - particularly in relation to THIS paper which seems to suggest that the law of conservation of energy does not apply to the climate. His "source" is an unreferenced blog calling itself "the Hockey shtick"

but in your link there is another paper cited

"The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature"
It is soundly rebutted here:-

It is also interesting to note that Anthony Watts actually posted a rebuttal to the claim that CO2 causes cooling http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...es-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/ in doing so he nearly (but not quite) rebuts himself with this paper

- - - Updated - - -

A conspiracy that would have to span government organisations, NGO's, private enterprise and QANGOs in 187 different countries?? Wow that is SOME conspiracy!!!

 

I think we better just accept that the jury is still out on Human-caused climate change.

 

But your second link(by NASA) states :
"Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. "
contradicts your first link (geocraft)
"many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, " because it shows no one is ignoring the effects of WV. Geocraft is either ignorant of climate research or lying.

Now! Analyze my source http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/ and show me where it makes any false statements about the science or math

 

As long as you rely on the knowledge of others instead of learning the facts yourself, you'll never be convinced. I've given you a link where the knowledge is explained with accepted math and physics and you provide links to a paper that has already been contested. see Bowerbird's post and you can add this one

Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”

I bet you won't find those links on wattsup

 

It was interesting though to see Watts actually correct some of the denialosphere in relation to "Co2 causes decrease in temperature" guess he was trying to gain some credibility

 

I haven't linked to this in a while
[video=youtube;8nrvrkVBt24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24[/video]
Crock of the Week

 

The author of the video has an agenda, that is quite clear and I also notice that he uses a lot of cartoons, probably to keep the interest of people like you.

I highlighted a couple of important words for you.

You will notice that it is a theory and the author uses the word may which is not definitive nor is the email from Severinghaus where he replies, "About your question, why CO2 continues to rise even as temperature drops, it probably is the same reason that the onset of CO2 rise lags temperature.

These words are not used to point out fact, but to point out opinion.

 

You can't address the science in the video so you imply that my thinking is simplistic.
You can't address the science in the video so you focus on the authors choice of words.
Only those who are religious extremists are so sure of themselves that they never use the words "may" or "probably". The real scientists understand that nothing is written in stone.

 

Analysis complete: CO2 does what is says, I guess. Humans only account for 3% of a gas that accounts for .03% of the "greenhouse gases" Conclusion: We can't do a damn thing about climate change.

 

Too much controversy on this to come to a conclusion based on your so-called evidence.

 

We're responsible for 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Read this post if you want to know how we know that. (I bet you won't.)

Utter nonsense. We had a big La Niña that happened to coincide with a spike of volcanic ash from Rabaul. When that ended -- a whole three months later -- things were back to where they were before: hot.

Also untrue, as the regression slope since March 2008 (end of the event described above) is positive. While it's true that recent trends (over the past 5 to 10 years) have been lower than previous trends, the difference is not statisically significant. Surface temperatures are a noisy dataset, which means you can't tell anything by looking at short-term trends.

What comes first, the chicken or the egg? If you knew how climate really works, including the temperature/CO2 feedback loop, you wouldn't ask such questions, and you wouldn't be taken in by idiotic websites like WVFossils.

Unless your diet is composed of jellyfish, every plant and animal you eat evolved under a different climate than the one we're headed toward, and at a lower CO2 level than we have already caused. If you're not concerned about that, you're a fool.

 

Exactly right. You're full of crap. Or, to be more precise, you've been fed a load of crap, and you've happily opened your mouth to swallow.

On the off chance that you can actually do math, let me repeat myself. Human fossil carbon emissions since the industrial revolution amount to 365 billion tons through 2010 ( http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems ). Burning that much carbon creates 1.33 trillion tons of CO2. (It also reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere -- and by even greater amounts, since much of that carbon is in hydrocarbon molecules which also produces water when burned. The reduction in atmospheric oxygen has been observed, and is consistent with the amount of fossil fuel burned by humans. If there is some other way climate deniers can explain the observed reduction in atmospheric oxygen, we would all be very interested to hear it. But don't bother looking on denier blogs for the answer, because those "scientists" aren't interested in problems they can't lie about.)

Since the total mass of the atmosphere is 5.15e18 kg, and the amount of CO2 we have added is 1.33e15 kg, we have added 259 parts per million of CO2 by mass, which is 171 ppm by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air since 1750, from industrial records. But we also know from ice core records and contemporary reccords (here, here, here) that the actual amount atmospheric CO2 increase since 1750 is only 110 ppmv through 2010. Which means that the oceans and soils must be acting as a net sink for some of the anthropogenic CO2 we have created, and cannot therefore be acting as a net source for CO2.

In other words, we are responsible for 100% of the atmospheric CO2 increase. Case closed.

 

[video=youtube;nq4Bc2WCsdE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE[/video]