Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

FAST said:

Once again for the dunces here,...

Per NOAA

"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'"

- CO2 is NOT included,... there are only two components/variables in that positive feedback loop,... temperature and water vapour.

- There are numerous natural phenomena's that can, and do increase temperatures,.... El Niño as an example,... and that little ball of fire in the sky, called the sun, has strangely enough been known on occasion to increase the temperature of the earth.
But of coarse that isn't the case anymore,... since the last "revision" to generations of data,... the sun doesn't change the planets temperature anymore.

- There is no IF,...Water vapour is the predominate green house gas,... always has been.
Even before the self appointed unemployable experts started "revising" data accumulated for decades.

Click to expand...

Still don't understand the basics, do you FAST?

Yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas but no, its not a driving factor in the changing climate. As your quote states, it amplifies other changes, or forcings, to the climate. Even were you to create a massive stink in your neighbourhood and release massive amounts of water vapour into the atmosphere it would just end up raining back down on you. And clearly you understand that NASA, NOAA and the IPCC know exactly what part water vapour plays in climate change since you are quoting them in your posts. So lets just confirm,
a) water vapour changes don't drive climate change, they react to climate change
b) climatologists are very aware of the role of water vapour in their research, projections and models

Now, clearly you also don't understand El Nino's effect on the global climate if you think that El Ninos lead to long term increases in the global temperature. I suggest you read about ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and the total effect of El Nino's and La Nina's.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-did-el-nino-boost-global-temperature-in-2015

Solar changes in energy have also been discussed and shown to not possibly have caused the increase in global temperature.
I'll repeat the link to the Bloomberg chart that uses NASA data to show all the possible influences on global temp (including solar).
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Water vapour isn't listed on that chart because it doesn't drive change, by the way.

FAST said:

Once again for the dunces here,...

Per NOAA

"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'"

- CO2 is NOT included,... there are only two components/variables in that positive feedback loop,... temperature and water vapour.

- There are numerous natural phenomena's that can, and do increase temperatures,.... El Niño as an example,... and that little ball of fire in the sky, called the sun, has strangely enough been known on occasion to increase the temperature of the earth.
But of coarse that isn't the case anymore,... since the last "revision" to generations of data,... the sun doesn't change the planets temperature anymore.

- There is no IF,...Water vapour is the predominate green house gas,... always has been.
Even before the self appointed unemployable experts started "revising" data accumulated for decades.

Click to expand...

The Nature study measured the energy actually making it to the surface based on the levels of CO2 present. That inherently included all factors contributing to energy making it to the surface.

If, maybe, coulda,...

fuji said:

The Nature study measured the energy actually making it to the surface based on the levels of CO2 present. That inherently included all factors contributing to energy making it to the surface.

Click to expand...

Did your study in some nature magazine include what the percentage of the planets rise in temperature was contributed to the natural water vapour positive feed back loop,...???
To help you out, in a positive feed back loop, only two components exist, and both components values increase, one of which in this case,...is temperature.

Or did it contradict NOAA,...???

Your magazine simply created a theory about how much "energy" was reaching the surface, and therefor supposedly increasing the planets temperature based solely on the level of CO2 present.

FAST said:

Did your study in some nature magazine include what the percentage of the planets rise in temperature was contributed to the natural water vapour positive feed back loop,...???
To help you out, in a positive feed back loop, only two components exist, and both components values increase, one of which in this case,...is temperature.

Or did it contradict NOAA,...???

Your magazine simply created a theory about how much "energy" was reaching the surface, and therefor supposedly increasing the planets temperature based solely on the level of CO2 present.

Click to expand...

It measured the effect at two locations over ten years, which established precisely how much additional warming per square foot is contributed by changes in atmospheric CO2.

So we know how much warming CO2 contributed.

Unless you believe there is some massive overlooked cooling effect that result means that CO2 is the primary contributor to the warming we've seen over the past century. (A massive unknown cooling effect would create "room" for a massive unknown warming effect.)

fuji said:

It measured the effect at two locations over ten years, which established precisely how much additional warming per square foot is contributed by changes in atmospheric CO2.

So we know how much warming CO2 contributed.

Click to expand...

You didn't reply to my post.

But I'll give you a second chance,... what percentage was attributed to the CO2 that man added to the atmosphere,...???

And just what is ... "the effect".

"precisely",... is that the same scientific term as,..."exactly",... ???

FAST said:

You didn't reply to my post.

But I'll give you a second chance,... what percentage was attributed to the CO2 that man added to the atmosphere,...???

Click to expand...

That's not what the study looked at, it looked at the amount of heat created by increasing CO2.
You'd need to reference a study that looked at how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere then look at what the view is on how much of the present climate change has been caused by humans.
Of course fuji's study didn't look at those issues.

So why don't I save you some time:

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Click to expand...

http://www.climatechange2013.org/

And just what is ... "the effect".

"precisely",... is that the same scientific term as,..."exactly",... ???

Click to expand...

If you read the report link it very clearly stated their 'exact' findings.
0.2 W m−2 per decade
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html?foxtrotcallback=true
(read the article for the full details, if you can. Oh, and terb doesn't format the results correctly so look at the link for correct formatting)

Fuck its getting rank here.

FAST said:

You didn't reply to my post.

But I'll give you a second chance,... what percentage was attributed to the CO2 that man added to the atmosphere,...???

And just what is ... "the effect".

"precisely",... is that the same scientific term as,..."exactly",... ???

Click to expand...

I answered your post but realizing that probably requires more mental horsepower than you have.

fuji said:

I answered your post but realizing that probably requires more mental horsepower than you have.

Click to expand...

You did not such thing,... just more fuji horse shit.

If you need help with percentages,... please let us know,... we are all here to help you fuji.

FAST said:

You did not such thing,... just more fuji horse shit.

If you need help with percentages,... please let us know,... we are all here to help you fuji.

Click to expand...

Your inability to read and comprehend the answer given is your problem, not mine. I don't need to help you at all.

FAST said:

Fuck its getting rank here.

Click to expand...

I answered all your questions clearly and with links and the numbers you requested.
And all you can do to answer is to complain about your personal hygiene issues.

If you're not able to keep up with the discussion and understand the issues, perhaps you shouldn't be posting here.

Confirms once again the source of that disgusting smell here.

Maybe it will go away again,... one can only hope.

fuji said:

Your inability to read and comprehend the answer given is your problem, not mine. I don't need to help you at all.

Click to expand...

Ah but you did not respond to my post,... you just ran away and hid again.

And once again,... my offer to explain percentages to you,... still stands.

FAST said:

Ah but you did not respond to my post,... you just ran away and hid again.

And once again,... my offer to explain percentages to you,... still stands.

Click to expand...

Speaking of running away and hiding, you got answers from both me and fuji and the only response you have?

FAST said:

Confirms once again the source of that disgusting smell here.

Maybe it will go away again,... one can only hope.

Click to expand...

Try facing the facts.
You were given answers but can't understand them.

And once again,...Confirms the source of that disgusting smell here.

Maybe it will go away again,... one can only hope.

FAST said:

Fuck its getting rank here.

Click to expand...

You could try a shower. Maybe some deodorant?

basketcase said:

You could try a shower. Maybe some deodorant?

Click to expand...

Yours will never come off with a shower or deodorant, clorox won't work either.

basketcase said:

You could try a shower. Maybe some deodorant?

Click to expand...

I'm not the coward,... that's were the stench is coming from.

And don't think your stink doesn't precede you.

FAST said:

I'm not the coward,... that's were the stench is coming from.

And don't think you don't stink like shit.

Click to expand...

Allow me to help you out with some internet basics.
We are all connected electronically and are not in the same room as you.
Any stench you smell is your own.

As you described it, this 'stench of cowards', seems to come from those who are run away when given answers that show them foolish.
Note that you have yet to answer the points raised here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Retain-Heat&p=5933964&viewfull=1#post5933964

FAST said:

I'm not the coward,... that's were the stench is coming from.

And don't think your stink doesn't precede you.

Click to expand...

Did you even graduate from highschool? From where this infantile garbage?