"1) I made a post below in another thread stating that there was scientific consensus on the anthropogenic global warming issue."
Which is that CO2 caused most of warming in last 50 years? Or is that greenhouse gases have caused most of the warming in last 50 years?
How much warming has there been in last 50 years, and therefore of this increase how much is due to CO2 or other greenhouse gases?
Using this graph of global warming:
It indicates roughly that of the warming of last 100 years about 1/2 of this warming occurred in the first 50 years. If greenhouse gases did not cause most of this warming, what were the cause of warming in the first part of 20th Century?
If we merely eyeball this graph it looks like in last 50 years to be about a .3 C increase in global temperature.
The measurement from Mauna Loa since 1959 [49 years ago] appear to start around 315 ppm in 1959 and by 2007 reach to around 385 ppm so about 70 ppm in total increase.
Graph:
Of the .3 C increase in global temperature over the last 50 years how is due to 70 ppm increase in CO2?
Did the 70 ppm increase in CO2 force any increase in global water vapor and if so, what part of the .3 C increase is due this increase in global water vapor increase forced by the 70 ppm increase in CO2?
And according to this graph on methane in the atmosphere:
Methane levels in 1984 were about 1640 parts per Billion [1.64 ppm] and rose to about 1775 ppb in 2005. So a total increase of 135 ppb.
"Concentrations of methane in the air have been rising at 1 per cent per year, at least since 1950. This is four times the rate of increase of carbon dioxide."
06 May 1989 From New Scientist
If the greenhouse gases in last 50 years have caused most of the .3 C in temperature. Would be a fair and in accordance this claim to say that this means that the 70 ppm increase in CO2 plus any CO2 forcing which increases water vapor has resulted in at LEAST .1 C increase in global temperature and that all others have caused at LEAST .05 C increase in global temperature? And if this is not a fair or reasonable, how would you characterize it?
And accordingly, this leaves less than .15 C increase due to other factors, such as "normal" climate variability, solar variability, human land use [and other unstated or unknown factors].
Current Events » in reply to Since you insist on playing dumb, let me walk you through it as if you were...
re: Since you insist on playing dumb, let me walk you through it as if you were...
The whole thread (55 posts)
- REPOSTING SINCE I AM TIRED OF THE LIE: "There is no scientific concensus on global warming"
- "There is no scientific concensus on a round earth" was true, too.
- re: REPOSTING SINCE I AM TIRED OF THE LIE: "There is no scientific concensus on global warming"
- re: REPOSTING SINCE I AM TIRED OF THE LIE: "There is no scientific concensus on global warming"
- You want to try me instead?
- TRY you? heck- I was COUNTING on you, TB....
- re: TRY you? heck- I was COUNTING on you, TB....
- Just like I pointed out to McFly...
- Devastating...
- Take that line from Al Gore, did you?
- I took no line from Gore that I can see- Actually, I would prefer he stay out of it.
- Again, that's all you have.
- You have lost it....
- Hard to find few?
- "People at the UN and other scientific bodies are openly talking about making it a criminal offense to speak against man made global warming." Put up or shut-up
- And this.
- Well I can see who didn't read the report I linked to.
- "People at the UN and other scientific bodies" Not them as far as I know.
- "People at the UN and other scientific bodies are openly talking about making it a criminal offense to speak against man made global warming." Put up or shut-up
- "Climate scientists"...
- Hard to find few?
- You have lost it....
- Again, that's all you have.
- I took no line from Gore that I can see- Actually, I would prefer he stay out of it.
- An Absence of evidence argument if I have ever seen one. (n/t)
- TRY you? heck- I was COUNTING on you, TB....