I deleted my reply because I was tired and didn't want to carry on this sophomoric discussion. However, I've had a glass of wine or four now, so I will take another opportunity to call you out on your statements. I will also try to be a little more civil, as it is Friday, so good moods all around.
First, let me address your grammar comment. You are right, I never proof read my comment, because I didn't feel any necessity to. I wasn't writing for an article, I was writing a response to a statement I didn't care for, one I barely had the energy to reply to in the first place. Perfection was not my concern. However, since we are on the subject of grammar, let me correct some of yours (you dropped quite a few commas, but who doesn't).
No, Itchyshirt, you're not sorry. Use English properly, or don't bother.
You're trying to tell me I'm wrong? Then you failed.
Hell, the google search states it went up slightly. Yet, you repeat it's going down. Why would I listen to anything you have to say after that? I mean, that's basic reading comprehension. And you go on that I don't know what X or Y are? I'm not so arrogant and stupid as to think I know everything.Anyone who thinks that is a very dangerous person. You seem like you've read just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be particularly bright.
Protip: Condescension only works if you're- you know- right.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH - You're the dolt that claimed water was a man-made GHG emission. You got called on it. Your attempt to save face was just awful, truly pitiful. The German judges are tough, but the French can be bought, man, and they still gave you a 1.5 out of 10.0.
You have a lot of research to mull over and background science lessons to get through first.
The only thing I have to do is pay taxes and die. The rest is optional.
with such a nuanced point as "Global Cooling".
Yes. It's very nuanced. Your entire paragraph can be summed up as : "You're wrong. And you know nothing, Jon Snow."
Keep repeating it over and over. It's a mantra, like a Psalm or a Koan. You'll be fine. Don't worry. Your religion will survive few heretics. Maybe Gaia will burn us for you.
Now climb down off your cross, I need the wood to burn a polar bear for dinner.
Now to address your actual points. First off, I'll apologize. I again will admit that I glossed over the nitty gritty details of the TSI data and just based my statement that iridescence was decreasing from the PMOD data. It was a sexier statement that way. If you want to split hairs about that, that is fine, but the point I was making was that temperatures have gone up while iridescence hasn't.
Also, I do not claim to know everything, but I have a science background, and know a couple things about AGW theory, probably more than you do, judging from your statements on global cooling, H2O's effect, and the cold weather in NA.
Water: I never for a second claimed that water was being produced by man. What I was getting at is, you can analize the isotopes of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and this shows they are from fossil fuel combustion and not natural sources. The increase in CO2 is due to man's actions. I was ignoring H2O because it is usually thought to be a mostly minor part of the equation. Yes, it has a bigger effect, but it's concentration in the atmosphere physically cannot increase without the planet warming first. If it does, it will precipitate out of the atmosphere because the atmosphere is saturated. CO2 doesn't do this, which is why scientists are concerned with CO2 and not H2O.
True Believer: Please stop the comparison of AGW to a religion. It makes you look silly. All the science of climatology has been reviewed by other scientists, ones who have a professional incentive to challenge it. If there is a scientist who can show that this data is wrong, they would become prominent in the field. The reason I trust (not believe) in the science, is because I've seen the rigor of the scientific process, and know that anything publish in peer reviewed journals meets a certain level of scrutiny, and when it doesn't it is challenge by other scientists. The theory of AGW can be verified, unlike any religion.
John Snow: Honestly though, and I do apologize that this comes off as arrogant, (but I can't think of another way to put it), I don't think you know enough about this subject to comment on it so surely. IMHO this topic is one of the most important problems we as a species have to deal with (this is more of a belief or an opinion I'll admit; that is judging Global Warming against other issues we face, but I truly believe that to be the case). When someone mentions topics like Global Cooling or the cold weather to try and detract from the importance of AGW, I become upset sometimes. Especially when they seem to be making simple misconceptions about the science.
I'm not going to change your mind. I know that before I started my first reply, but if you truly think of yourself as an open minded individual, I implore you to watch potholer54's youtube series on the science of global warming. He explains it thoroughly with references to scientific literature throughout the series. He also spends time bashing Gore and other alarmists on the left for being hyperbolic, which may be to your enjoyment.
In closing, I apologize for my callousness yesterday. Just try to understand, people like me are 1) tired of these old arguments (I probably should have just abstained from the discussion entirely) and 2) nothing other than worried about the well being of the planet and our species.
If you have any other issues with what I posted please let me know what they are and I'll try to clarify them (though possibly only on the weekends after some wine). I believe my only factual error was over simplifying TSI by only considering the PMOD data when it is (you are right) more complex than that, but that is tangential to the point I was making anyways. Cheers.