No question that co2 is a postive forcing

[Old Rocks]

I think he was saying that we are 40 percent of the way to a doubling of CO2 from some arbitrary benchmark. he says it is all manmade but surely at least part of it is from outgassing from oceans as the globe recovers from the Little Ice Age

If that's the case he can change the .00001248% to something like .000013% or even .00002% if he wants.

konradv has only a rudimentary grasp of climate science. he actually thinks that it is the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules that causes the heating rather than the slowing down of energy escaping into space.

Ian, don't lie about what other people post. Konradv has repeatedly posted the manner in which CO2 increases the warmth retained.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't see anyone here denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know what it does, it traps heat. And if that were the ONLY process occurring in our atmosphere, we might have cause for alarm......but it isn't.

You still don't understand the concept of perspective. A 25% increase seems like a lot. But pull back and look at the big picture. What percentage are we putting into the total atmosphere? CO2 is a trace gas, about .04%, mans contribution to that .04% is a litte over 3%. So if man contributes about 3.2% of 390 ppm, that's 12.48 ppm. The entire atmosphere is about 1,000,050 ppm of 'stuff'. Making the 'huge' amount of CO2 man is contributing to the atmosphere a mind boggling .00001248%.

It is a 40%, learn to do simple math. And the rest of your math is just as bad. Man is resposible for all of the 40%. As far as the affect of the percentage of CO2, why don't you just try that same percentage of Potassium Cyanide in relation to your body weight? Surely that small fraction of that substance cannot hurt you.

What number of mine is really 40%? I surely hope you don't really mean or believe the the atmosphere is 40% CO2.........

You can't really be this dumb......... on second thought....

 

[logical4u]

There is no question that it is being a green house gas...So 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...Remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...With the growing glaciers This my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...This occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the Atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the Atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every ******* year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest ******* sun spot cycle possible since the Dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 ******* year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...Not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother ******* nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a ******* green house gas? WTF? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...And add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

from website: The Open Door Web Site : Biology : The Environment

Composition of the Air

Over 200 years ago, the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier measured the chemical composition of air. Since the gases which make up the atmosphere are invisible, the best way to visualize them is by expressing them as percentages and by using a pie chart. It is important to note that oxygen gas, whose chemical symbol is 02, is not the main component of air and that carbon dioxide, C02, represents much less than one percent.

Gas Percentage of Atmosphere
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 21%
Carbon dioxide 0,03%
Other gases less than 1%




Composition of the Earth's Atmosphere

You can see the apparatus Lavoisier used to measure the atmosphere at the Musée des arts et Métiers in Paris



If carbon dioxide is changing so much, why aren't these percentages changing? Why isn't carbon climbing to say ... 1%, or 5%????

If you don't have any solutions, stop telling us that you want to tax us. You have no "constructive" solutions. You just want the money for political reasons.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no question that it is being a green house gas...So 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...Remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...With the growing glaciers This my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...This occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the Atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the Atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every ******* year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest ******* sun spot cycle possible since the Dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 ******* year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...Not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother ******* nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a ******* green house gas? WTF? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...And add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

from website: The Open Door Web Site : Biology : The Environment

Composition of the Air

Over 200 years ago, the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier measured the chemical composition of air. Since the gases which make up the atmosphere are invisible, the best way to visualize them is by expressing them as percentages and by using a pie chart. It is important to note that oxygen gas, whose chemical symbol is 02, is not the main component of air and that carbon dioxide, C02, represents much less than one percent.

Gas Percentage of Atmosphere
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 21%
Carbon dioxide 0,03%
Other gases less than 1%




Composition of the Earth's Atmosphere

You can see the apparatus Lavoisier used to measure the atmosphere at the Musée des arts et Métiers in Paris



If carbon dioxide is changing so much, why aren't these percentages changing? Why isn't carbon climbing to say ... 1%, or 5%????

If you don't have any solutions, stop telling us that you want to tax us. You have no "constructive" solutions. You just want the money for political reasons.

Now that you have demostrated enormous ignorance on this subject, here is where you can learn the fact from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[konradv]

I think he was saying that we are 40 percent of the way to a doubling of CO2 from some arbitrary benchmark. he says it is all manmade but surely at least part of it is from outgassing from oceans as the globe recovers from the Little Ice Age

If that's the case he can change the .00001248% to something like .000013% or even .00002% if he wants.

konradv has only a rudimentary grasp of climate science. he actually thinks that it is the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules that causes the heating rather than the slowing down of energy escaping into space.

I'm afraid you're the one with the rudimentary grasp of science. It's actually BOTH!!! Infra-red photons leaving earth can be trapped by CO2, slowing down escaping energy AND infra-red photons held by CO2 can be emitted towards earth, warming it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Done repeatedly, Frank, as you well know. Your nothing posts are getting quite stale, IMHO. How about trying out a new throw-away line? That one's so 2010.

Please post one single repeatable laboratory experiment that show the effect of add 200PPM of CO2 or kindly STFU

 

[CrusaderFrank]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

Really? You are not a scientist, so link us to some real information concerning that.

You pretend to be a scientist please link to one repeatable laboratory experiment showing the effect of a 200PPM (or 40% increase) in CO2.

I'll wait, just like I've been waiting over a year for you to post one

 

[konradv]

Done repeatedly, Frank, as you well know. Your nothing posts are getting quite stale, IMHO. How about trying out a new throw-away line? That one's so 2010.

Please post one single repeatable laboratory experiment that show the effect of add 200PPM of CO2 or kindly STFU

How many times do we need to answer the same question? That's been asked and answered many times, but you pretend it hasn't. Could you kindly follow your own advice?

 

[konradv]

I'll wait, just like I've been waiting over a year for you to post one
----------------------------------------------

This is ludicrous on several levels. First, are you telling me youy haven't read any of my posts in a year. That's obviously false on the face of it. Secondly, I haven't been a member for a year yet and you'd know that, if you ever did any research instead of just parroting whatever fits your prejudices.

 

[logical4u]

There is no question that it is being a green house gas...So 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...Remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...With the growing glaciers This my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...This occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the Atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the Atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every ******* year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest ******* sun spot cycle possible since the Dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 ******* year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...Not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother ******* nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a ******* green house gas? WTF? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...And add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

from website: The Open Door Web Site : Biology : The Environment

Composition of the Air

Over 200 years ago, the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier measured the chemical composition of air. Since the gases which make up the atmosphere are invisible, the best way to visualize them is by expressing them as percentages and by using a pie chart. It is important to note that oxygen gas, whose chemical symbol is 02, is not the main component of air and that carbon dioxide, C02, represents much less than one percent.

Gas Percentage of Atmosphere
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 21%
Carbon dioxide 0,03%
Other gases less than 1%




Composition of the Earth's Atmosphere

You can see the apparatus Lavoisier used to measure the atmosphere at the Musée des arts et Métiers in Paris



If carbon dioxide is changing so much, why aren't these percentages changing? Why isn't carbon climbing to say ... 1%, or 5%????

If you don't have any solutions, stop telling us that you want to tax us. You have no "constructive" solutions. You just want the money for political reasons.

Now that you have demostrated enormous ignorance on this subject, here is where you can learn the fact from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

They are dealing with parts per million and parts per billion. That is like someone saying that 1/4 teaspoon increase in a measuring cup is "a huge increase". It is made purposefully vague. Tell us about the "overall" percentages. Have they changed? Is nitrogen or oxygen being dispaced by carbon?

Calling someone "ignorant" is not answering the question. Can you answer the question: have the overall percentages of carbon changed in the atmosphere? Please don't answer in ppm or ppb, thanks.

 

[konradv]

from website: The Open Door Web Site : Biology : The Environment

Composition of the Air

Over 200 years ago, the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier measured the chemical composition of air. Since the gases which make up the atmosphere are invisible, the best way to visualize them is by expressing them as percentages and by using a pie chart. It is important to note that oxygen gas, whose chemical symbol is 02, is not the main component of air and that carbon dioxide, C02, represents much less than one percent.

Gas Percentage of Atmosphere
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 21%
Carbon dioxide 0,03%
Other gases less than 1%




Composition of the Earth's Atmosphere

You can see the apparatus Lavoisier used to measure the atmosphere at the Musée des arts et Métiers in Paris



If carbon dioxide is changing so much, why aren't these percentages changing? Why isn't carbon climbing to say ... 1%, or 5%????

If you don't have any solutions, stop telling us that you want to tax us. You have no "constructive" solutions. You just want the money for political reasons.

Now that you have demostrated enormous ignorance on this subject, here is where you can learn the fact from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

They are dealing with parts per million and parts per billion. That is like someone saying that 1/4 teaspoon increase in a measuring cup is "a huge increase". It is made purposefully vague. Tell us about the "overall" percentages. Have they changed? Is nitrogen or oxygen being dispaced by carbon?

Calling someone "ignorant" is not answering the question. Can you answer the question: have the overall percentages of carbon changed in the atmosphere? Please don't answer in ppm or ppb, thanks.

I'm afraid your analysis is faulty. It's not like adding a 1/4 tsp to a cup, but adding a 1/4 cup to a cup. That IS significant, even if you're talking logarithimically, that's a 10% increase in the temperature "forcing" effect of CO2. Overall percentages of CO2 are irrelevant. What's important is the well-known effect of the relatively low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during pre-industrial ages vs. the today's concentration. Displacing O2 and N2 is also irrelevant. They aren't GHGs and really don't figure in the discussion.

 

[Bern80]

It is a 40%, learn to do simple math. And the rest of your math is just as bad. Man is resposible for all of the 40%. As far as the affect of the percentage of CO2, why don't you just try that same percentage of Potassium Cyanide in relation to your body weight? Surely that small fraction of that substance cannot hurt you.

What number of mine is really 40%? I surely hope you don't really mean or believe the the atmosphere is 40% CO2.........

You can't really be this dumb......... on second thought....

No I'm not. You're just not very specific. You said some number of mine was off, but didn't indicate which one.

 

[Bern80]

Now that you have demostrated enormous ignorance on this subject, here is where you can learn the fact from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

They are dealing with parts per million and parts per billion. That is like someone saying that 1/4 teaspoon increase in a measuring cup is "a huge increase". It is made purposefully vague. Tell us about the "overall" percentages. Have they changed? Is nitrogen or oxygen being dispaced by carbon?

Calling someone "ignorant" is not answering the question. Can you answer the question: have the overall percentages of carbon changed in the atmosphere? Please don't answer in ppm or ppb, thanks.

I'm afraid your analysis is faulty. It's not like adding a 1/4 tsp to a cup, but adding a 1/4 cup to a cup. That IS significant, even if you're talking logarithimically, that's a 10% increase in the temperature "forcing" effect of CO2. Overall percentages of CO2 are irrelevant. What's important is the well-known effect of the relatively low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during pre-industrial ages vs. the today's concentration. Displacing O2 and N2 is also irrelevant. They aren't GHGs and really don't figure in the discussion.

That really isn't accurate either. Or at the very least if we want to continue with this kind of analogy, we need to know what's in the cup, if you will. Is the cup representing the atmosphere and all of its 'ingredients' or does the cup just have CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Done repeatedly, Frank, as you well know. Your nothing posts are getting quite stale, IMHO. How about trying out a new throw-away line? That one's so 2010.

Please post one single repeatable laboratory experiment that show the effect of add 200PPM of CO2 or kindly STFU

How many times do we need to answer the same question? That's been asked and answered many times, but you pretend it hasn't. Could you kindly follow your own advice?

You never posted a single experiment that deals with 200PPM increase in CO2 and still can't so please STFU

 

[IanC]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

Really? You are not a scientist, so link us to some real information concerning that.

from the first google hit on CO2 saturation global warming. Cold Facts on Global Warming

of course you already knew this. you can't be this interested with AGW without stumbling upon the general physics of the problem. why did you insinuate that you didnt know that there is a diminishing return on added CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll wait, just like I've been waiting over a year for you to post one
----------------------------------------------

This is ludicrous on several levels. First, are you telling me youy haven't read any of my posts in a year. That's obviously false on the face of it. Secondly, I haven't been a member for a year yet and you'd know that, if you ever did any research instead of just parroting whatever fits your prejudices.

I'm talking to all of the Warmers as a class.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

there is no question that it is being a green house gas...so 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...with the growing glaciers this my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...this occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. But it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every ******* year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest ******* sun spot cycle possible since the dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 ******* year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother ******* nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a ******* green house gas? Wtf? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...and add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

turn your computer off turn those lights off, no more tv sell your car. You are not allowed to build a fire. No more stored foods in the frig. No more fresh drinking water. Stop it all if you really are concerned about co2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

konradv is being disingenuous. CO2 forcings are logarthmic. every additional molecule makes less impact than the one before it. you can't say that adding 40 percent adds 40 percent effect.

Really? You are not a scientist, so link us to some real information concerning that.

from the first google hit on CO2 saturation global warming. Cold Facts on Global Warming

of course you already knew this. you can't be this interested with AGW without stumbling upon the general physics of the problem. why did you insinuate that you didnt know that there is a diminishing return on added CO2?

Hand out ice with that, that's gonna leave a mark

 

[IanC]

.....
On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every ******* year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.
.....
QUOTE]

Matthew, I like your posts but I think you are confusing knowing something about global warming with knowing everything about global warming. We just can't say that we have all the answers yet.


Declining solar activity linked to recent warming : Nature News

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.

Sunspots, dark areas of reduced surface temperature on the Sun caused by intense magnetic activity, are the best-known visible manifestation of the 11-year solar cycle. They have been regularly observed and recorded since the dawn of modern astronomy in the seventeenth century. But measurements of the wavelengths of solar radiation have until now been scant.

Radiation leak
Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.

I think there may be more to the picture than what is in your theory

 

[logical4u]

Now that you have demostrated enormous ignorance on this subject, here is where you can learn the fact from real scientists;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

They are dealing with parts per million and parts per billion. That is like someone saying that 1/4 teaspoon increase in a measuring cup is "a huge increase". It is made purposefully vague. Tell us about the "overall" percentages. Have they changed? Is nitrogen or oxygen being dispaced by carbon?

Calling someone "ignorant" is not answering the question. Can you answer the question: have the overall percentages of carbon changed in the atmosphere? Please don't answer in ppm or ppb, thanks.

I'm afraid your analysis is faulty. It's not like adding a 1/4 tsp to a cup, but adding a 1/4 cup to a cup. That IS significant, even if you're talking logarithimically, that's a 10% increase in the temperature "forcing" effect of CO2. Overall percentages of CO2 are irrelevant. What's important is the well-known effect of the relatively low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere during pre-industrial ages vs. the today's concentration. Displacing O2 and N2 is also irrelevant. They aren't GHGs and really don't figure in the discussion.

Funny how you "science intellectuals" decide what is and is not relevant.