The Other Climate Theory (That Uses Actual Science)

Without the greenhouse effect OF WATER VAPOR (humidity) yes. But with the cooling effect of increased clouds, there is indeed cooling, perhaps even the Ice Ages.




Yes there are more than one greenhouse gases, bu the effect of CO2 is a pittance compared to water vapor, and human caused CO2 is only 0.28%!




Even total CO2, counting natural CO2, is still insignificant.




Yes.




As the original article pointed out, looking at something other than mainstream global warming studies for scientists was NOT a good career move. So why is the gamma ray theory not a good theory to investigate, particularly given the IPCC debacle and their near instant dismissal of the gamma ray study, which proved to be another embarrassment for them.

Well it is rather confusing. I got mixed up about it in another thread.

Global Warming is rubbish. Its very cold in Sunbury.

What makes you say it's "insignificant"? Do you mean unimportant? Do you mean "very small"? I'm confused by this. In statistics and science "insignificant" typically refers to the probability of finding a particular result, not whether a result is important or a large effect.

As to your chart 4a that you use to base your claims from, let's look at that, shall we?

Without the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on earth would be 0 degress Farenheit . Of course the majority is going to be natural because that establishes your baseline! That's what happened before humans came on the scene. The naturally occurring stuff is already baked into the climate equation, so whatever humans add get added to the baseline of what we are used to.

Manhattan is 23 square miles and makes up 0.000001167% of the earth's surface. Does that make Manhattan insignificant? Arizona is 0.057% of the surface area of the earth. Is Arizona insignificant? The human contribution to the greenhouse effect is at least 5 times more significant than the entire state of Arizona.

The earth is not that old, its more more than 6,000 years old 7,000 at the most.

Well years are very long for god, remember. I mean, the galaxy has to rotate round the entire universe. In this topic though we're using earth years, not galactic years.

Hogwash mate.

Venus has a cloud cover of sulfur dioxide that reflects about 60% of the sunlight. But what makes it in hits an atmosphere 93 times more dense than our and which is composed almost completely of CO2 (95%). The atmosphere of Venus is hotter than the average temperature on Mercury.



Insignificant because water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is a lot more of it.

"With all the attention given to the CO2 content of the atmosphere it is perplexing that the water vapor content is ignored when a change in the water vapor content from 0.41 of 1 percent to about 0.406 of 1 percent has the same effect on global warming as if all the CO2 in the atmosphere disappeared. If in fact the water vapor content of the atmosphere does fluctuate the attempt to relate global temperature to the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere is hopeless without information on water vapor content.

The situation is even more extreme than what was presented just above because the greenhouse gases vary in their effectiveness in absorbing thermal radiation. A molecule of H2O is 50 percent more effective or efficient in absorbing radiation than a molecule of CO2.

There are many who think the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere has increased enormously since the Industrial Revolution. The water content of the atmosphere has remained roughly constant."




And if you're talking an increase in CO2, it is still a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere:

3.618% of greenhouse gasses of which 0.117% is man made.

Kind of like the near instant dismissal by political conservatives of the theories of thousands upon thousands of climate scientists, which, I might add, HAS been thoroughly investigated and backed by extensive amounts of data?

What's more, in bumbling nervously to questioning on the issue at Wednesday night's debate, Gov. Perry even openly stated the motive for it that all of us with half a brain knew already:

"...to put America's economic future in jeopardy, asking us to cut back on areas [CO2 production] that would have monstrous economic impact on this country, is not good economics..."

Well, no s***, Mr. Perry. And sorry if the truth inconveniences you, but you don't shoot the messengers here, as all scientists do are just presenting their data and their relevant interpretations of that data, as that's what scientists are expected to do.

I say go on ahead and investigate any new theories that come up and see if they contribute to global warming as well, and to what degree. The more we can get, in terms of data, the better educated we are. We do know one major contributor so far: man made CO2, as indicated by such data, and cross checked extensively with other tested theories, such as solar activity. And, due to the massive amounts of such data that we already possess, I am betting that such investigations will show cosmic variations to have a smaller effect than the high end of their pre-investigative speculations.

LMAO, your misunderstanding of the scientific process is starting to show.

None of this would contradict the conclusions climate scientists have from their data and charts.

Again, I state, NONE of this would contradict the conclusions climate scientists have from their data and charts.

Yes, water vapor is in the air.

Yes, there is lots of water vapor in the air.

Yes, there is a lot more water vapor than there is CO2.

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas too.

Yes, water vapor has remained at relatively constant levels during the industrial revolution.

Yes, we humans have been adding CO2 to the air during the industrial revolution.

Yes, temperatures have risen during the industrial revolution.

So, what can we conclude from this?

Try real hard, PT. I even broke it down for you, step by step here.

So, you do know what happens when it gets warmer around water right? Like, if there's more CO2 so the air gets hotter? Yeah, the water heats up and evaporates and you have more water vapor in the air.

Nothing you have said contradicts global warming theories, at all, except your unsupported assertion that the amount of CO2 is "insignificant".

What is your basis for this assertion?

That graph does not help the man made global warming cause as it shows a predictable rise and fall of temperature over hundreds of thousands of years; long before modern humans.

Though even that chart only shows 0.0089% of the Earth's history. The other charts that show ~130 years of data 2.89x10^-6%. To put that in perspective, imagine living for 80 years; the amount of time represented in the graphs that show 130 years would equal roughly 1 minute and 13 seconds of your life, with most of the change happening in those last 13 seconds.

Notice the scale of the graph... natural variations over that time period have been about 175 - 300 ppm, a swing of about 125 ppm, occurring over a couple thousand years.

In the past 100 years, we've gone from about 285 to 390 ppm.

There is zero doubt that we are significantly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Absolutely zero doubt. That is literally undeniable. We have a good understanding of the carbon sinks on our planet, and we are pumping billions and billions of tons of CO2 directly into our atmosphere.

You can argue that the planet isn't warming, you can argue that we aren't the cause. But you cannot say that we are not increasing atmospheric CO2, because we absolutely 100% are.