As far as I can see there's no need to "roll back divisions"
We are emitting Co2 and in quantities that are now 100x that of volcanoes - this is a fact
deniers still try to blame (amongst other things) volcanoes yet try to ignore the above information.
Deniers try to use past warming events (even though most are linked to rises in that same Co2, as far as I can see deniers seem to do a good job of disproving their own nonsense.
They even agree we cause a small ~1% change per year but claim this is nothing, yet they fail to grasp what a 1% change over 100 or 150 years is, again even simple math should tell them this, but as usual it escapes them. The entire science community think AGW is happening and that we are the cause based on the evidence, what do deniers offer as a counter an array of sad theories that science was able to disprove with little real effort as the theories were so bad, so now denier try conspiracies theories blaming everyone from scientists to communists to greens to random billionaires and fictional secret societies things that might be at home in Dan Browns next silly novel, but hardly what anyone would call science.
With what is happening in the Arctic and with sea level, deniers are running out of time, which is why the conspiracy theories are starting to get more ridiculous and desperate.
They continue to try and claim we are cooling but that is certainly not what sea level data shows, it shows no real sign of cooling.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
With the evidence that exists for AGW, the only thing that continue to surprise me is that anyone is still listening to deniers at all. But then I guess that's always going to happen if you look at other things people believe, ~7% of Americans are still convinced Elvis is alive or the utterly ridiculous conspiracies that have sprung up around 9/11. Or the rubbish we get here from time to time about HAARP or contrails, their are a lot of uninformed people and they seem to like to fill that ignorance with rot, although talk of the end of the world in Dec 2012 seems to have died down, till they invent a new date.
It would cause global warming if the warming caused by those gases were greater than a cooling provided by some other factor. For instance, if the warming of say... 0.8C per century was greater than the cooling effect of a miniscule amount of cooling related to orbital variations or milankovich cycles. Of course, as we both know, there are many many more variables that need to be taken into account. And this refers to the entire system not just the skin or the surface but the entire planet.
Water vapor 'traps' more heat on a molecule to molecule basis than CO2 AND water vapor is about a hundred times more prevalent in the air -- do you think humans can control the amount of water vapor in the air?
CO2 does NOT drive temperatures like Warmists want you to believe. Even Al Gore knows this and had to admit it before a session of Congress:
Al Gore grudgingly admits that the warming HAPPENS FIRST then CO2 follows
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20...
Obviously, if the warming happens first, before CO2 rises, then it's NOT rising CO2 that is causing the warming.
But why the big push to convince everyone that humans are causing the problem? The answer is simple, the elitists involved in this globalist scam want to tax CO2, which is the perfect object of a tax because no person can live without creating it, we exhale it after all.
And nearly every form of combustion creates CO2, so it allows for taxation on a very broad scale. And they also want to create a trading exchange for carbon. These schemes combined would be worth billions --- perhaps trillions of dollars as the market matures.
Man-made Global Warming is an enormous scam to gain power and take our money. It's actually the Sun that drives temperature and climate and people don't control the Sun.
There is much more to know about this scam, I suggest you watch the two videos linked below:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
It would depend on the magnitude of the warming due to thermair, as compared to that of other feed backs and forcings (either positive or negative).
97% of greenhouse gases are totally natural due to the earths vegetation. Dying plants etc and animals account for it.
He'd have to emit more than the water in the air and that is impossible.
Let's say there was a special gas called "thermair" emitted by certain types of man-made machinery and capable of trapping a lot of heat in relatively small concentrations, and humans were adding it to the atmosphere on an unprecedented time scale, and everyone agreed that thermair did trap heat and Man was causing its rising concentration.
In this hypothetical scenario, would there still be a debate over the existence of global warming?
No, this is not a trick question. It's an attempt to roll back divisions and refresh the logic of this issue.
P.S. Read this trivial article if you have time: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
