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

A blip that is able to be measured buddy. Now show us where science is able to categorically indicate planetary climate prior to this. You can't even back up the other graph....lol!

While you are frantically researching for the information above, how about you show us evidence from scientific studies that suggest the earth is in a climatic cooling trend? Don't dodge this now gaz!

 

What? Oh that is right, you really do believe that there is no evidence other than what you are peddling


This one is even from 'your Oh so great source', yet you still have not debunked it... LOL

View attachment 18822 What is the difference? LOL

View attachment 18823 and simply ignored it because you could not find a way around this one… LOL

Do you ATTEMPT to suggest that these graphs are dodgy? From dodgy sites?... LOL Provide evidence of such... so far we have nothing but your lies.

I am not dodging the subject, You are. You are weaving about like a boxer with a feather in his hand. Unable to throw a knockout blow because you do not know how too… LOL

Instead of attempting to make me run around and provide something you will simply ignore and lie about… Try answering the question of what correlation is CO2 to temperature? With some evidence… Like I know that will never be answered by you because you have no idea…LOL

You are fabricating debunking data with... Oh that is right YOUR WORD... LOL which as it turns out is worthless as you fabricate and lie all the time... LOL

So far you have not accepted that your own great source let alone anything that you cannot explain… Oh that is right, you cannot explain anything... because in your mind it is all dodgy...LOL

 

Anyone who has done basic physics knows that even though CO2 is a greenhouse gas it doesn't drive climate change or a greenhouse effect.

Like i keep telling you its in our past history and its also closer to home right now.

For instance if we have a look at the keeling curve, nearly 1/3 of all manmade CO2 emissions have been emitted since 1998.

Yet our temperature has remained more or less stable.

Most of the warming in the last century was before 1940, after 1940 due to WW2 production increased on massive scales so did CO2 yet we had a cooling effect from 1940 to 1970.

You have failed to prove that CO2 and temperature correlate, the only person on this forum that thinks they have proven CO2 and temprature correlate is you.

Wake up to yourself and face reality and stop living in a make believe world.

 

How do you think they measured this blip???.... LOL

When you explain how they measured that Blip of 450.000 years you will have your answer to your second question.

Attempting logical fallacy has its flaws when you try and dispute things with absolutely no idea of what you are talking about… LOL

 

Buddy, what it is suggesting is that Ice cores are able to measure precisely the atmospheric occurrences, whereas ocean cores are not able to provide variances precisely over shorter time scales.

Ice core data 450 thousand years suggest correlation of sorts. In the instance your paleozoic graph - (you insist on posting to support your argument) is absolutely correct, there is no doubt other factors may have caused the disparity between co2 and temperature, however, i tend to believe that pieces of the puzzle are missing in terms of temperature. There are many variables that could be considered, unlike today they have exhausted all possible natural possibilities to arrive at the point in which the only feasible forcing is man-made.

No, I hadn't gone away, again other priorities take precedence over PF.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMPP21B1673C

 

My understanding is that the airforce take into consideration co2 levels, now if it was such a seemingly small quantity in the atmosphere, why do these guys need it in ascertaining projections.

You can continue to rave on about cooling, but the trend is still heading northwards!

Low solar activity was most likely the primary cause for cooling during 1940's - 70s, which in effect disguised overall increased temperatures, such as what had occurred during La Niña and volcanic events. It would be like having a air conditioner on in your house, which obviously disguises the real temperature outside. It is not hard to understand.

 

The military want to be ableto perform under any conditions therefore they would ofcourse be interested in global cooling or global warming, i dont think it goes too far beyond that, unless you can provide evidence that it does.

Again for the upteenth time i never said cooling what i did say is that we haven't had unequivocal warming.

1997 was the warmest year in the last few decades we have not past this temperature again up until the present day so yeah global warming has stalled and the head of the IPCC the MET Office and James hansen have all agreed that temperatures aren't doing what they had predicted.

That is temperatures to keep rising meaning that each year gets hotter than the last, yet our hottest year over the last few decades has been 1997 and we have not exceeded this temperature, therefore there has been no warming since 1997 or for the last 16 years.

Either prove it or dont say anything??

So where is your evidence? that solar activity is responsible, since in one of your previous posts you where saying that solar activity hasn't varied much and isn't responsible for the current warming???

So where is the evidence that solar activity was responsible for the earth cooling between 1940 and 1970?

What about the fact that we have emitted 1/3 of all manmade CO2 into our atmosphere since 1998 yet temperatures have remained relatively stable???

What does this do to CO2 and temperature correlation??? in your opinion???

Straight from the horse's mouth - IPCC


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

 

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

1.....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

2.....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.
This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

3.....On a long time scale (NO), (millions of years)

 

LOL... Suggestions and indications.... So you believe that accuracy is predominantly a root issue in this issue... Fact is, it is paramount and the AGW crowd have been found wanting in that very area. Do you have some evidence that either method is accurate or not? Or is it simply an opinion?

Again, YOUR opinion is simply faith of what you are trying to represent... Nothing more.

Again, suggests correlation, but no specific demonstration of correlation. Fact is that should the Palaeozoic graph be correct, it clearly demonstrates that 450,000 years is the only area that CO2 has been below 300 PPM, thus demonstrating the inability of the AGW crowd (including yourself) to account for much higher levels of CO2 without the temperature correlation.

Also from the same site, that many peer reviewed articles are now suggesting that 300ppm of CO2 is the norm not the exception as point directly, should also demonstrate one thing, NOBODY HAS HALF THE ANSWERS

LOL… so there are many variables they cannot account for, so they have decided that nature cannot be the cause… LOL Fact is, they do not know what drives the natural cycles as demonstrated by the fact they have only just discovered that one lightning bolt emits far more OZONE gas than man produces each day. In case you did not know OZONE gas is considered a GHG, but is totally unaccounted for in the theory, due to the fact that low level ozone gas effects are literally unknown. So tell me, how can they account for variables that they have no knowledge of effect? I can, they ignore it as NOISE.

What are you on about? I know you have been away, my guess is that you had rushed off to a ALP training program. But who cares?

 

Ice core data is fairly reliable but not infallible, as science its self shows us.

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, CO2 lags temperature thats a fact.

CO2 doesn't drive temperature.

 

does co2 absorb heat?

 

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

You were saying that,

and i responded with

So how come we have jumped to

"does co2 absorb heat?"

What about your statement that ice core data can measure CO2 precisely?

Didn't you say we should solve one thing at a time?


.

 

It is totally relevant to discussion. Does co2 absorb heat? It only needs a yes or no!

 

Ok i'll play your dumb games!!!!

Yes it does!!

AND????????

What about ice cores measuring the CO2 content precisely???

 

(I'm glad we agree that co2 levels have been the same for the past 500 thousand years up until the industrial revolution.)

(I'm glad we could agree that plant life was starting to emerge some 500 million years ago.)

(Now we also agree that Co2 absorbs heat)........You say that co2 lags temperature, which I agree in some instances, it also demonstrates the reverse as well. Now if both of those were so non corresponding, why is there this unique pattern that suggests that they do correspond even with lag? I'm getting to my response to co2 absorbing heat but would like your response to the question posed regarding lag.

sorry for not getting back sooner than this, but will try to keep up with quick responses.

 

Denialists have been claiming "Co2 lags temperature" for over 10 years and it has been debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a cyclone

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

Another site (New Scientist) saying the same thing

http://www.newscientist.com/article...es-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

- - - Updated - - -

Denialists have been claiming "Co2 lags temperature" for over 10 years and it has been debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a cyclone

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

Another site (New Scientist) saying the same thing

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

 

And then there is this

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/...gap-between-warming-and-rising-carbon-dioxide

But no real reason to believe scientists because it is all just a clever conspiracy really

 

Not all processes have been exhausted but yet as new developments comes to the fore, it becomes much more glaringly supportive of man's massive contribution to current climate change!

 

Absolutely!!

This has been like putting together a 4D jigsaw puzzle - we have the edges (foundations) pretty rock solid and a enough of the inner pieces have fitted to let us see the overall picture - what is left is filling in the bits of solid colour between the main pictures

 

Like kids in a lolly shop that have discovered a new lolly, get the parents to buy it for them and then run off to tell all their friends about it while they eat it in front of them.

Thats what the global warming religion's zealots do when presented with new data.

You know the problem with the global warming religion is as soon as a new discovery is heralded the global warming religion doesn't say thats your findings now give us the data so we can test it.

But i forgot the global warming religion is by consensus, so anything that gets thrown up is eagerly crasped and presented as further evidence without putting the findings to the test first.

The global warming religion seem to say it serves our cause therefore its true even if we haven't verified your findings Mr.Pedro from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems.

This Mr. Pedro's thesis might just be right, we will know soon enough when the skeptics get a hold of it analyse what his hyposthesis is all about and put it to the test.

Thank goodness skeptics dont think like alarmists or the bankers would have already given us a water vapor tax to coincide with the carbon tax.

And TV and bowergirl would be defending the water vapor tax as vigorously as they defend the carbon tax.

HHHmmmmm bowergirl i could understand why TV could get lost in all of this but YOU???

My dear a lag is a lag is it not.

10 or 15 years ago all scientists, skeptics and alarmists alike agreed that CO2 lagged temperature by approximaetly 800 years.

Now Mr. Pedro recons that his modelling of the ice cores he has drilled or got a hold of and modelled the data shows a lag of approximatley 400 years.

Now am i missing something here. as far as i'm concrened a lag is a lag even if its only 4 hours, its still a lag is it not?

I can see why the global warming religion are desperately trying to disprove CO2 lagging temperature, because it throws their whole arguement of anthropogenic global warming out the window baby, water and tub.

Maybe Mr. Pedro's hypothesis is correct, lets wait and see what the skeptical scientists say once they get a hold of it and put it to the test, cause these guys dont work by consensus, they put it to the test.

And remember guys a lag means ........a lag pure and simple.

CO2 follows temperature by a lag of about 800 years or maybe now 400 years.

We will see??!!

 

Ad homs

Back on the "Don't bother reading list for you!!

 

Is that the pot calling the kettle black????????????????????????

 

I played your silly game and this is where it has lead us to.

Can you please quote me on where i have agreed to all this????

 

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.

We also know that nearly 1/3 of all CO2 manmade emissions were emitted after 1998, yet our temperature has remained more or less stable.

Even the IPCC confirm this.

 

We also know that the global warming religion like to use the scale of 450,000 years to respresent the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Thats because we are zoomed out to just the right scale that makes the graph appear that CO2 & temperture correlate.

Well if they did indeed correlate it wouldn't matter what scale you used.

Common sense, plain and simple.

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

1.....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

2.....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.
This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

3.....On a long time scale (NO), (millions of years)