Global Warming is a Scam

We can prove that there is an increase, and we can prove that the increase is due entirely to anthropogenic use of fossil fuels. Arrhenius proved in the 1800's that CO2 in the atmosphere does cause the "greenhouse effect", and that this effect is concentration-dependent.So, yes, I would say it's proven. Deniers such as yourself are never able to explain how you could increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, without causing an increase in global temperatures.

We can radiocarbon date CO2, which proves that the increase in CO2 is due to carbon which was until recently trapped as fossil fuels. So we know that the increase is due to fossil fuels.

I don't follow this. Clouds are made of water just like oceans, so if shortwave radiation penetrates even ocean water to great depth, a few hundred feet of diffuse cloud cover isn't likely to have any effect on the amount of shortwave radiation reaching the surface. So whether it's cloudy or not would seem to have no effect on oceanic shortwave insolation. Because of precipitation, the water vapor in the atmosphere is always at equilibrium. While it's true that the content of water vapor in the atmosphere is a large contributor to the heat retention of the atmosphere, water vapor can't have a forcing effect on heat retention because any "additional" water vapor in the air simply leaves as rain.Gases like CO2, NO, and methane - greenhouse gases - aren't like that; there's no such thing as "CO2 rain." While the individual contribution of any of those gases may be very small compared to water vapor, those gases have a capacity to force climate change by an increase in atmospheric retained heat because it's very possible to disequilibriate the gas content of the atmosphere over a human time scale. And in doing so, the effect is magnified because a warmer atmosphere retains more water vapor.Water vapor in the atmosphere is the result of heat retention, not the cause of it. There's no relationship between climate change and sunspots, because there has been no significant change in any solar aspect since 1950 - with the exception that the Earth's total insolation has fallen. "Skeptics" such as yourself would have us believe that a cooling sun can cause global warming. Nonsensical.As for the Maunder Minima:

quote:

---

A more interesting question is whether our current understanding of how solar forcing works is sufficient to explain the clearest solar impacts in the record. During the most studied period, the Maunder Minimum (MM) in the late 17th Century, sunspots were very rarely seen and that corresponded to a particularly cool period in the Northern Hemisphere (particularly in Europe as is seen in the speleothem record as well — NB. cooler temperatures are associated with increased isotope ratios). In order to assess that, all other forcings that were operating at the same time need to be considered as well. The MM was also a time of enhanced volcanic activity, and the cooling from this was probably comparable with the cooling due to solar effects (an exact attribution is impossible given the uncertainties in both forcings) .Another important factor is that the records of cooling at the MM are predominantly continental and mainly located in North America and Eurasia. This is consistent with the eveidence for a weak NAO at this time in independent reconstructions.

---

http://www.realclimate.org/...5/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing

No, we should see the exact opposite - warmer temperatures at the surface and a cooler troposphere, because that's what greenhouse gases do - reduce the net heat flow between the warm surface and the cool troposphere and thereby reduce the amount of the surface's heat that escapes into space. A climate that retains more of the sun's heat will warm. Hence, global warming.And as you've pointed out, that's what we see - increasing surface temperatures and a cooling troposphere. If the troposphere were warming, that would cool the surface, not warm it. Basic physics, here.