Global Warming Experts I need help?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve
  • Start date Start date
S

Steve

Guest
I have looked into this and have a question.
How come the only feedbacks mentioned are to CO2?
When all feedbacks are tide to temperature and not chemical?
We have a natural warming of .2-3 def C (I did not take the peak) between 1935 and 1945.
From some of the models with the feedback systems show a multiplyer of about 2-3X over 100 years.
If this effect is true could don't you have to say that .4-.6 deg C of this warm up is natural.
The water vapor feedback, as almost all proposed positive feedbacks are tied only to temperature.
At the same time the effect of CO2 from the IPCC is about .45 degree C.
Why is it the only way I can get .6 +/- 2 degree C is to assume no feedback or a negative one.
Even a 10% feedback would yeild a temperature of about .8 degree C on the higher end.
From this the most change I can see from CO2 is 1 degree for doubling and 1.11 deg total.
If I take the average of .6 deg C. I get a negative feedback -8%.
What am I missing and how are they getting a 3X effect from the feedbacks?
If we assume positive feedbacks, The math points to the sun increased the temperature by .2-.3 deg C and the feedback was about 2X that which led to .4-.6 degree temperature rise?
Therefore the effects from CO2 is a small 0-.2 degree C.
 
You are beginning to see the truth, AGW is now and always has been an oil company scheme to keep the USA from going nuclear for energy until all the coal, oil and gas resources are used up.
 
its in terms of CO2 because the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more sunlight gets trapped by our atmosphere -- leading to changes in temperature. global warming is absolutely not a myth unless youre a retarded religious biggot who also thinks the world was created 6000 years ago. come on now.
 
Back
Top