Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh it is a greenhouse gas it's just not anthropomorphic, that is man does not produce it in any measurable quantity. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be an ice ball.

Yes, it would be an ice all.

Without mankind, I wonder how well off the earth would be? What it would look like?

And 'man does not produce it in any measurable quanity? I'm not even sure that's a statement that a lot of 'unbelievers' would subscribe to.

[Rustic Charm]

da da 100 on my iPad

[Lake-Effect]

(and happy Earth day. at least to the ones who give a fig about it)

[sailorchic34]

[QUOTE=jackdale;1806770]You need to tell the solar scientists that; they seem to be unaware./QUOTE]

A lovely paper and only slightly bogus. The paper concluded that solar impact to global warming is 0.12 watts per square meter. Yet the solar flux at the surface of the earth is 1340 watts per square meter which is well documented btw.

This can be verified simply by taking a say 100 watt solar panel, with an area of say .75 square meters and the efficiency of the panel at 10% and you have 1340*.75*0.1 =100.5 watts. Easy math that anyone can do. Were the solar flux only 0.12 watts per meter, solar panels would not function.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And 'man does not produce it in any measurable quanity? I'm not even sure that's a statement that a lot of 'unbelievers' would subscribe to.

Oh sorry, yes man produces water vapor, but from a world wide standpoint, man's contribution is, roughly 0.0001 percent. It's just not that much. 99.999% of water vapor is from evaporation.

[SV THIRD DAY]

DURHAM: Study finds 'natural variability' impacts global warming - WNCN: News, Weather, Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville

Just in Time for the 100th Page.....looks like the MMGW Cult is having people jump ship....

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh sorry, yes man produces water vapor, but from a world wide standpoint, man's contribution is, roughly 0.0001 percent. It's just not that much. 99.999% of water vapor is from evaporation.

Oops sorry, that is 0.001%, that is man's contribution to water vapor.

Water vapor makes up 95% ish of green house gases. CO2 makes up 3.6% and of that 3.6% about 3.5 percent ish, gee, lets just call it 5% of that, is manmade. The other 95 percent of co2 is natural. So mans total contribution is about 0.28%. The IPCC got rid of water vapor as it makes AGW so much easier to believe.

Yes man does influence greenhouse gases and CO2 is increasing due to mans burning of fuels and clear cutting rainforests.

So if everyone reduced their fuel use 10% it would reduce total greenhouse gases by 0.03%, maybe.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh it is a greenhouse gas it's just not anthropomorphic, that is man does not produce it in any measurable quantity. Without greenhouse gases, the earth would be an ice ball.

The absolute amount of H2O in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere. Something has to act as a stimulus to get the temperature to increase. Anthropogenic CO2 will increase that temperature.

The is an optimal level of CO2. I expect it is in the range of that witnessed over the past 800,000 years: 180 - 300 ppm.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

DURHAM: Study finds 'natural variability' impacts global warming - WNCN: News, Weather, Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville

Just in Time for the 100th Page.....looks like the MMGW Cult is having people jump ship....

A cut and paste from your link

Brown, as well as Wenhong Li, assistant professor of climate at Duke, found that the Earth is looking at IPCC's more of a middle-of-the-road warming solution and not the fastest-tract prediction.

No one denies a role for natural variability as a factor in climate change.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=sailorchic34;1807313]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You need to tell the solar scientists that; they seem to be unaware./QUOTE]

A lovely paper and only slightly bogus. The paper concluded that solar impact to global warming is 0.12 watts per square meter. Yet the solar flux at the surface of the earth is 1340 watts per square meter which is well documented btw.

You misread the paper

The change in solar radiative forcing since
1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be
0.12 W m−2
, corresponding to an increase in TSI of
0.69 W m−2

The word "change" matters.

TSI does not change much, that is why it is an insignificant factor in climate change.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The absolute amount of H2O in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere. Something has to act as a stimulus to get the temperature to increase. Anthropogenic CO2 will increase that temperature.

The is an optimal level of CO2. I expect it is in the range of that witnessed over the past 800,000 years: 180 - 300 ppm.

Funny how the earth warms up in the daytime and cools off at night. You would thing that with CO2 being the driver that the temperature would be the same day and night.

Me thinks big ball of fire in sky might have a wee bit of influence. It is a variable star after all and does not have a constant flux rate. Co2 impact is about 1.2 watts per square meter, where solar flux is only 1340 watts per meter.

Mind you I expect if the amazon rainforest had not been clear cuting for the last 40 odd years, co2 might be a tad lower.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

if everyone reduced their fuel use 10% it would reduce total greenhouse gases by 0.03%, maybe.

That assumes that all the different 'greenhouse gases' act equally by volume.

Right now there's about bugger all we can do to reduce the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. The current issue is to maybe stop adding to it so quickly.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

So if everyone reduced their fuel use 10% it would reduce total greenhouse gases by 0.03%, maybe.

Take all of the CO2 generated by the USA and get rid of it....once you figure out that it doesn't matter you start to realize the scam of the entire movement. If they care about CO2, but it doesn't matter if the USA end 100% of it tomorrow....hmm....then why else are they hyping this scam...money/power/control and most of all forgiveness from their eco sins to mother Gia. It is their Religion....just like ISIS.

[sailorchic34]

[QUOTE=jackdale;1807351]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

You misread the paper



The word "change" matters.

TSI does not change much, that is why it is an insignificant factor in climate change.

Yet solar output changes 1.3 watts per foot over the last three 11 year solar cycles. Where as co2 forcing is calculated at 1.2 watts per foot. So it looks like changes in solar impacts as much change as co2.

[SV THIRD DAY]

[QUOTE=sailorchic34;1807358]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yet solar output changes 1.3 watts per foot over the last three 11 year solar cycles. Where as co2 forcing is calculated at 1.2 watts per foot. So it looks like changes in solar impacts as much change as co2.

What the MMGW Cultists don't want to...or can't admit is that I can make a "model" to show that Taco Consumption is a driver of Global Warming. And you just called them out on it by catching that they are fudging the numbers...ha ha ha.....

Ban Tacos....Save the Planet