Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas not CO2 as the IPCC wants us to believe?

Ok but thats about all the sense you make with this post.

What do you mean the graphs from WUWT paper are legitimate just look at where they came from? the information is there for all to see. So i cant see your point with this one.

Is that your opinion about the roman warm period etc etc or is there a scientific paper to back it and you up ??

He has used acouple of sources.

The graph (450000 to 500000 years) that TV is always shoving under our noses comes from ice core data.

The other one (11000 years) comes from U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C:

Is that what the global warming fraternity do, a little bit from here and a little bit from there then lets smooth it out and no one knows where the hell it came from.

So i think you are mistaken here.

And the skeptical science blog holds water does it, this is your source of information is it.

Why is that real correlation? what the graphs i posted are false correlation are they?

Where are the references to those graphs

 

Don't be deceived by him AM, you have to take into consideration "Natural Variations", this cannot be discounted when looking at climate change. Forget about oscillations due to weather, you have to look at complete "Trends". This clip is a great example of it: [video=youtube;u_0JZRIHFtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk[/video]

 

So you post these huge documents and suggest that I read them to debate you....bwahhhahahah!!! Garry, you are flat out comprehending simple posts buddy. Now where is your evidence?????......you have none!!!! because it is all nonsensical ramblings of a pretentious nutjob. Now either debate the topics appropriately or sit quietly and do your own research so that you will be able to grasp concepts, by that time you may have big boy status and join the debate in a constructive manner.

 

BB, isn't this what converted professor Muller, the use of multiple sites?

 

Hey TV

You're a TROLL...........

 

Why am I a troll dumb?

 

Sort of - Muller looked at the data with a fresh amount of analysis and a broader sampling and all he did was validate what people like Hansen had been saying all along - warming is happening

BTW I had a really really well researched answer to D&D and the bloody internet cut out and I lost the lot but it centred around this paper
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404000870

as just one example of research versus the crap that is on blogs - including WUWT

 

Yes, those huge documents are about the Modelling of the CSIRO and the IPCC. These are the very modelling your religions base their entire case of AGW on.

Do you suggest you need somebody else to tell you what they mean?

And here I thought you were telling us all, how people need to be informed to make proper decisions. So you really are a drone, who expects to be told what to think.

The IPCC and the CSIRO are ramblings of a pretentious nutjob?... LOL get informed that is simply the start of the information you will need to read before you can even consider to look at my extrapolations of the AGW theory.

LOL... This demonstration of need to be told what to think. You consider yourself in the big boy status and yet you need to be told what to think. Your demonstration of inability to look at the information on one aspect of the AGW theory clearly demonstrates that you are simply a drone. In your defence, you seem to be trying to break that mould, but the old "I am not going to read all that" demonstrates the fact you have no intention of getting informed. Thus, you need somebody else to give you an opinion so you can pretend you know what you’re talking about.

You wanted evidence, and that is just the start. Just because you don’t understand it and will never be likely too, I don’t expect you will ever understand. Evidence has been supplied, and again your lies and insults expose you as a person of lacking ability.

 

Nutjob rambling once again. Most of us are debating the topic here but you have a set on me. Do I turn you on or something dude.....lol! Debate the topic for Gods sake.

 

You asked for evidence... Not me... If you do not want to debate what I say, don't butt your nose into something I say to somebody else.

You did not ask me for particular evidence, just evidence that supports my opinion. And you do not like what is supplied. You complain that you are not going to read copious amounts of documentation, which tells everybody you need to be told an opinion.

My guess is that it is for the religious side of AGW, because that is what the ALP has hung its hat on. Oh yes, and I do mean religious, due to the fact that you follow it with faith, not informed ascent. Because you obviously need to be told what to think.

So far I have asked several questions of you, and you have been found lacking with lies and insult. So if you want to debate go for it, perhaps you could demonstrate how 500,000 years ago CO2 was not near 1000 ppm? Maybe a correlation of CO2 and warming temperatures? How about the Warming effect of water vapour in the atmosphere and the CO2 effect on the vapour? But my guess is 'no, you cannot'

 

Bowergirl

You cannot say anything about there being no correlation between CO2 & temperature so now you have switched to forcings??

Nice diversion but you will still be found wanting even here in the forcings department, because that the department that really sucks in the AGW camp.

Now what are you trying to say here that man's 30 gigatonnes of CO2 is causing all this fuss????

Dont forget 720 gigatonnes of CO2 is natural from the ecosystems.

And from what i have read from the rise of CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere of 110ppm in the last centrury only between 10% - 20% is attributed to man.

I will try to find this information again, may take a day or two.

That fact that your mod atrribute 90% of the global warming to humans is so ridiculus its not funny.

And if water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect then how can manmade CO2 emissions have anything other than a minor impact?

.

 

If we look at the graphs below most of the global warming during the 20th centrury happened before 1940.

So the AGW religion couldn't even get that right, they report that most of the warming happened after 1950.

When we all know that temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 which sparked these very same clowns into action about global cooling and an ice age.

 

Here is another anomaly when it comes to the correlation of CO2 and temperature.

 

I will give you an opportunity to prove your credibility. Extract and reference what you need from sources provided and tell us why this supports your argument. Anyone of us can throw a load of documents on a table and say this is why I hold my view.....lmao!

How about I make it easy for you. The challenge is to provide proof that co2 levels were 1000ppm 500 thousand years ago.

 

So you want to be feed like a baby bib and all, what about some noises to make you up your mouth, or maybe even some distractions.

Problem is you never know when a baby will decide its had enough or even if they like it.

What are you going to do run of to the skeptical science blog to see what they have to say about it.

Read up on it and give us your opinion we already know what skeptical science has to say.

Pathetic, i just couldn't help myself.

 

Hahahahaha!!!...........and you are a neglective mother that feeds your babies donuts for breakfast and coke for beverages! So basically you'll feed ya babies whatever concoction is easy for you. Grabbing McDonald's for ya babies is a great analogy for where you get your denialist sustenance! So start by backing up your claims from reputable science, dont look for fast food outlets, they are no good for your babies ya mother!.....lol

 

BB, how can that possibly be proof that, "climate change is being caused by man's addition of vast amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere". Sorry BB, but your reply makes no sense.

 

He is demonstrating where he believes the minuscule (sic) amounts of carbon are coming from

 

Hes a she

 

demonstrating you have nothing

It is not my credibility that is in question here but yours. Unfortunately, when you lie, attempt subterfuge and butt into conversations you know little about, Your credibility... LOL... becomes worthless

To you challenge, that is easy, but again the claim was near 1000ppm and it was put to you to prove different. So yet again you have nothing so you resort playing little games with yourself. Can you refute??? I guess not.

Again the graph from Dumb demonstrates this, that should be simple enough for you to understand (I know you don't like reading articles).


as referenced by dumb http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
Do you refute that graph? Where are your sources to refute it? LOL... Oh sorry, you have nothing so you pretend to be the ultimately informed drone.



Perhaps this graph will help you... But I do not think so. So perhaps you would like to refute them... I think not. We will only hear you drone rhetoric and obtuse insults in your desperation to defend your religion.

 

Now we know you are prone to dodgy sources how about considering this graph from NASA:

You can easily find this source by the way......lol!!!!

 

How do we know its from NASA, where is the link??

Last time you posted this graph TV, whats wrong found something more to your liking.



Now which graph do you believe is it the one i just posted or is it the one you have now produced from somewhere.

There is a difference you know so which one TV???

Or do you believe in both perhaps??

Please tell us which one and why.

You know posting graphs without your thoughts (not the insulting type) is really quite meaningless dont you think?????.

Or have you nothing to say, just like posting graphs.

Why is this new one better than the first one.

Boy i cant wait for your intelectual answer.

 

Both graphs represent CO2 levels under 290ppm for at least the last 500,000 thousand years up until present. This is the current case in argument isn't it and what gazza has been going to town over? The graph I've posted, which doesn't take up too much space in the post, I might add, is from NASA. The graph you have posted loudly like you do with all your post is a graph that seems to be commonly used from both sides of the divide is the: Vostok station ice core records.

 

Really, that is your irrefutable evidence? Did you not read the Graph before you posted it? There is a difference from 400,000 and 500,000 you know? About 100,000 years to be precise... LOL, by the way, you should reference the graphs you post as this is not a NASA graph as you seem to think...LOL

Now providing a source for where you got the graph from is important. My guess is it is from globalclimate.ucr.edu would that be right? For if you did get it from where you claimed you would see it is not from NASA at all. It is properly sourced by NASA, so perhaps instead of simply doing a picture search, you actually read where they are plucked from.

So after you point out that I neglected to add the source of the last graph, I would like to apologise to anybody that may have caused problems for (obviously not TV, he has already stated he will not read articles he just likes pretty pictures). I cannot find the source again so it is fair enough to question A) validity of that graph and B) The Data origin used to create that graph.

So instead I will post this graph which is from the
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/category/paleoclimatology/



Very much identical and more clearly demonstrates the level of CO2 at 500,000 years. It also demonstrates at the beginning of the Ice age (not mini ice age) of over 4,000 ppm... LOL. Now where is your refutable evidence of my claims?

 

Mmmm... No it is not...LOL

And they both only demonstrate 400,000 years, or 450,000 years as in dumb's case. So where is that refutable evidence you proclaim.