You took a shot on an open net, and you hit the goalpostThe goalposts didn't move, you missed the goal
You took a shot on an open net, and you hit the goalpostThe goalposts didn't move, you missed the goal
Hilarious!! Now, Fuji is claiming that when he talked about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature, he was referring to "warming."But let's look at your lie: YOU were going on about water vapor claiming it meant the climate wasn't warming as fast as AGW said. I pointed out that AGW is just observed fact and said IF water vapor is having any effect like that it's included in the observation.
If.
Of course it's not all. And glad you realize the vast majority of scientists disagree with your beliefs.Good thing you said vast majority of scientists, and not all scientists.
I'm glad we agree
I took a break from this place for a while and come back to find the same idiotic arguments.Hilarious!! Now, Fuji is claiming that when he talked about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature, he was referring to "warming."
Yes, 97% or so who study the climate agree.Good thing you said vast majority of scientists, and not all scientists.
I'm glad we agree
Are you telling us that you agree with Fuji that water vapour feedback is responsible for "cooling" the planet?I took a break from this place for a while and come back to find the same idiotic arguments.
Moviefan, do you understand the difference between a reactive and forcing effect on the climate?
You've been coached on this incredibly basic point repeatedly.
Prove that you even understand the minimal basics of the science here by giving us definitions of feedback and forcings on the climate.
Once you provide those definitions, should you be able, the next point would be to ask 'why do you think that water vapour feedback effect on climate change is more important then CO2's forcings on the climate?'
appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy. science is not a democracy.Yes, 97% or so who study the climate agree.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
So it shouldn't be hard to find 3 contrarians, what is much harder is either of these:
1) finding contrarians who aren't accepting money from the fossil fuel industry that stands to lose big money as their industry is understood to be dangerous to the planet's climate
2) finding contrarians who have a reasonable alternate theory of why the planet has warmed by 1ºC over the last century or so
Interesting. A purely political appointee is taking politics out of science?Here's some good news: President Trump has nominated a new administrator for NASA who wants to take the politics out of the research in areas like climate change and get back to focusing on scientific discovery.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-on-nomination-for-agency-administrator
I'm telling you that you still don't understand the difference between feedback and forcing.Are you telling us that you agree with Fuji that water vapour feedback is responsible for "cooling" the planet?
I love it.
fuji doesn't understand the basics of the water vapour positive feed back loop,... or he is simply running away again.Are you telling us that you agree with fuji that water vapour feedback is responsible for "cooling" the planet?
I love it.
Neither you nor moviefan understand the basics of the science.fuji doesn't understand the basics of the water vapour positive feed back loop,... or he is simply running away again.
Sorry to have asked a question that resulted in a stink in your neighbourhood.There goes the neighbourhood.
During his time away, I think Franky spent too much time in the sun. Either that, or he's been overpreparing for the legalization of marijuana.This is incredibly basic, if you and moviefan can't even explain why you think feedback effects are more important then forcings on climate change....
You are getting closer.During his time away, I think Franky spent too much time in the sun. Either that, or he's been overpreparing for the legalization of marijuana.
For the record, the AGW hypothesis and the models that show water vapour feedback producing the "largest part of the greenhouse effect" weren't created by me.
.
Not sure where you're getting this information from but it's bogus. Solar cycles are not constant in their warming and cooling effects. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that shows a direct correlation between temperature and solar activity. Much more so than co2 and temperature. Skeptical Science, DeSmogBlog and Wikipedia aren't credible/objective sources of information on the subject.Solar cycles are cycles. They do not lead to an overall warming trend.
A small part of the scientific community felt that solar cycles were to blame for the warming trend and the data available now shows they are wrong.
There you go again, lying. You've long since realized that you don't have any valid point to make so you lie.Are you telling us that you agree with Fuji that water vapour feedback is responsible for "cooling" the planet?
I love it.