Again you play the fool with your inability to think outside the box you have allowed yourself to be placed in. I have never argued for AGW (you really need to look up the meaning of the term). I argue strictly for mans contributory role in climate change. And you, in your feeble attempt to appear as if you have some intellect, consistently ignore that very real reality.
OK then trapper, lets see a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that man has in any way altered the global climate...or even contributed to it in a way that is statistically different from zero.
So lets take a look at some more stuff that passes for evidence in your mind...this should be good for a laugh.
OK...so the heading of this "article" is "
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?'
So in spite of your claim that you think we are only "contributors" your first link is making the claim that we are "major" contributors. I look up at the top of the page and what do I see? It is by the Union of Concerned Scientists.....snicker. Before we start looking for anything like actual evidence in this piece, I would like to take a minute to point out what sort of organization the Union of Concerned Scientists is. Here, meet Kenji. She is a voting member in good standing in the Union of Concerned Scientists and has been since October 2011.
Here is her letter of acceptance:
It is always very interesting...and telling to see where people get the information that convinces them to a particular point of view. So now that we have established what sort of organization the Union of Concerned Scientist is...that being one who will accept anyone so long as they are willing to pony up $35 and actually are not a union of scientists at all, lets look at the evidence contained on that page if there is any there.
So off the bat, they say that the 4th assessment of the IPCC is certain to greater than 90% that emissions of "heat trapping" gasses from human activities has caused "most" of the observed warming since the mid 20th century.
Well, it is a statement, but if you go to the 4th assessment of the IPCC, you won't find a shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that statement. And the statement itself is so wrong as to be laughable. The only so called greenhouse gas that can actually "trap" heat in the open atmosphere is water vapor due to its ability to change phases at atmospheric temperatures. All the rest of the so called greenhouse gasses simply absorb and emit right on out into space....when they actually get to emit that absorbed energy in the form of a photon that is. If the so called greenhouse gasses were able to absorb and trap energy, the inevitable result would be a tropospheric hot spot, and more than a million radiosondes sent to the upper atmosphere tell us that there is no tropospheric hot spot.
Here...some actual science for you, although I doubt that it will get past your blinders. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second. That means that when a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon, it takes about a second for it to actually emit a photon in the form of IR radiation. At low altitudes...that would mean the troposphere, the mean time between molecular collisions by which any given molecule could transfer energy to another gas molecule by convection is about a nanosecond. That means the time it takes a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is about a billion times longer than it would take that same molecule to transfer its energy to another molecule. Statistically, it is more likely to be oxygen or nitrogen.
This means that the chances of a molecule radiating energy rather than passing that energy on via convection is about a billion to one. That very fact should make you wonder about the veracity of a radiative greenhouse effect. The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect in an atmosphere that is so dominated by convection is suspect.
So moving on...The make the claim that there are human fingerprints on the carbon "overload". Recent published studies cast some serious doubt on that claim.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
Munshi said:
“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
In simple terms, that means that our CO2 emissions are not even enough to have an effect that is statistically greater than zero on the amount of CO2 the earth produces on its own. And the claim that our CO2 is different from natural CO2 is on the dodgy side as well...there are plenty of natural forest fires, and gases resulting from the burning of natural hydrocarbons that are indistinguishable form our own emissions.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830508786238369
Goldberg said:
“[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
Essenhigh said:
“[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”
http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
Ahlbeck said:
“The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Then they go on to claim that natural variability can't account for the changes we have seen. That claim is complete and udder bullshit on its face. Here are two gold standard temperature reconstructions...one from the arctic circle...one from the antarctic circle...both show the same signature of increase and decrease indicating that the temperature changes were global in nature...both show temperature changes that were both larger than anything we have seen, and those changes happened far faster than any change we have experienced.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that there is not the first piece...not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence on that entire link that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor is there a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that even demonstrates that we have an effect on the global climate that is statistically different from zero. In short, like your other link, this one is an opinion piece, not supported by any actual evidence. It is based on assumption and assumption isn't anything like science in case you didn't know.
(CONTINUED)
