Global Warming Denial in a Nutshell

[BaudrillardNeverExisted]

But from some of my own studying I have noticed that continents such as Africa which have comparable low Co2 emissions have a rather large amount of Ozone damage compared to the rest of the world.

1. CO2 does not cause ozone damage.

2. Ozone damage does not cause global warming. They are separate issues. (In fact, the ozone issue shows how the world can work together effectively on environmental issues).

3. Gases can cross oceans, things mix within the upper atmosphere. That's why the ozone hole was in southern Chile/Antarctica despite the very low number of CFCs being used there. That's why acid rain affected Scandinavia despite most of the source of the pollutants being Britain.

[Destiny's Soldier]

IBIS

Please tell me where I'm wrong.


The average global temp is 14 C.

Water Vapour & CO2 are the IR absorbers.

The average moisture (water vapour) in the atmosphere is approx 1 %.

The average CO2 in atmosphere is 0.038%

So the percentage CO2 in "Greenhouse terms" is: 0.038/ 1.038 x 100% = 3.6%

Also note that Water Vapour is 3 times more absorbent of IR light than CO2.

Humans produces 27 BN Tonnes of CO2 annually
Nature produces 750 BN Tonnes of CO2 annually

meaning mans contribution is 3.5%

Even if 100% of all the 14 C was from IR light mans contribution would be as follows:

14 minus 96.4% and minus another 96.5% of the answer
14 x 0.036 x 0.035 = 0.018 deg

0.018 is nowhere near the 0.7 deg anomaly. All that IPCC computer modelling is just computer modelling. It's junk.


Even if the average global moisture level in atmosphere is 0.5 % the figures still don't add up for CO2 to drive the temp of the planet.

The reality is that most of the heat in the planet is from conduction and convection and IR Radiation is but a small player.

IBIS what about the 90,000 readings of CO2 accurate to 1-3% by chemical analysis dating back to 1800 showing CO2 at levels 510 ppm at 480ppm and at 420ppm in 1940. These tests were performed by the fathers of chemistry, biology and physics.

... ignore them all.

The Antartic ice cores are riddled in sampling problems and are not a closed system for preserving CO2 gas over time. CO2 is soluble in the medium it is supposed to be preserved in.

[BaudrillardNeverExisted]

IBIS

Please tell me where I'm wrong.


The average global temp is 14 C.

Water Vapour & CO2 are the IR absorbers.

The average moisture (water vapour) in the atmosphere is approx 1 %.

The average CO2 in atmosphere is 0.038%

So the percentage CO2 in "Greenhouse terms" is: 0.038/ 1.038 x 100% = 3.6%

Also note that Water Vapour is 3 times more absorbent of IR light than CO2.

Ibis has already explained dozens of times that water vapour only persists in the atmosphere for a few days. So your whole argument falls to pieces when you divide the percentages. If climate science was that simple, we wouldn't be having a debate.

To emphasise the point: If you're looking for a simple equation to prove/disprove anthropogenic global warming, you're not going to get it.

[Destiny's Soldier]

Ibis has already explained dozens of times that water vapour only persists in the atmosphere for a few days. So your whole argument falls to pieces when you divide the percentages. If climate science was that simple, we wouldn't be having a debate.

To emphasise the point: If you're looking for a simple equation to prove/disprove anthropogenic global warming, you're not going to get it.

Lets agree to disagree on Water Vapour:

And the 90,000 tests by Chemical measurement?

[ryano]

All that IPCC computer modelling is just computer modelling. It's junk.

And your own modelling is better because...?

[Destiny's Soldier]

And your own modelling is better because...?

Mine reflects what happens in reality.

What could cause 35 years of cooling between 1940 and 1975? CO2 output from man was massively increasing.

What could cause all of 2008 to be cooler than 2007 if CO2 is at an all time high?

Water Vapour not staying in the atmosphere is a total joke. It varies from 0 - 4%.
On average across the globe it is approx. 1%. (CO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere it goes into crops and trees)


I'm right. The 90,000 doumented hard scientific CO2 facts dating back to 1800 is irrefutable.

And up in smoke goes the warmists' credibility.

[ibis]

The takeoff in CO2 didn't really happen until after post-war reconstruction was finished:



Hence the steep rise in CO2 doesn't kick in until later.



In addition, of course, sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect - and sulphate aerosol pollution increased from 1940 on until they were controlled in the 1970's.

So we have a period of very slight cooling from 1940 (start of WW2) through the post-war reconstruction period up to the point where sulphate pollution was radically reduced in the 1970s. Still, no doubt you have an alternative explanation - you have to.

[robert151410]

IBIS

Please tell me where I'm wrong.


The average global temp is 14 C.

Water Vapour & CO2 are the IR absorbers.

The average moisture (water vapour) in the atmosphere is approx 1 %.

The average CO2 in atmosphere is 0.038%

So the percentage CO2 in "Greenhouse terms" is: 0.038/ 1.038 x 100% = 3.6%

Also note that Water Vapour is 3 times more absorbent of IR light than CO2.

Humans produces 27 BN Tonnes of CO2 annually
Nature produces 750 BN Tonnes of CO2 annually

meaning mans contribution is 3.5%

Even if 100% of all the 14 C was from IR light mans contribution would be as follows:

14 minus 96.4% and minus another 96.5% of the answer
14 x 0.036 x 0.035 = 0.018 deg

0.018 is nowhere near the 0.7 deg anomaly. All that IPCC computer modelling is just computer modelling. It's junk.


Even if the average global moisture level in atmosphere is 0.5 % the figures still don't add up for CO2 to drive the temp of the planet.

The reality is that most of the heat in the planet is from conduction and convection and IR Radiation is but a small player.

IBIS what about the 90,000 readings of CO2 accurate to 1-3% by chemical analysis dating back to 1800 showing CO2 at levels 510 ppm at 480ppm and at 420ppm in 1940. These tests were performed by the fathers of chemistry, biology and physics.

... ignore them all.

The Antartic ice cores are riddled in sampling problems and are not a closed system for preserving CO2 gas over time. CO2 is soluble in the medium it is supposed to be preserved in.

Facile in the extreme. He wants us to know he did chem in uni.

[ibis]

Lets agree to disagree on Water Vapour:

And the 90,000 tests by Chemical measurement?

These are the ones that were measured by a variety of mostly outdated techniques, and mostly at industrial sites in the UK Midlands...be careful what you regurgitate from 'skeptical' blogs.

[PAD10H]

those of you that think it is some green party conspiracy are wrong and choose to ignore the almost 100 years road to near scientific climate change consensus.

those of you that think spending to mitigate and adapt is another tax grab conspiracy are wrong and you ignore the most comprehensive and detailed economic analysis that have been conducted on the issue to date that suggests that to not spend now will be more costly in the medium to long term.

those of you that pretend you know the science and argue over your little data sets and complain that the issue seems too complex or cannot be reduced to a single solution are wrong but are free to keep your internet arguments going while governments, businesses, communities and people that have addressed the weight of evidence, deliberated over the risk and potential benefits can and will do something about it.