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

[fuji]

Hilarious!! Now, Fuji is claiming that when he talked about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature, he was referring to "warming."

Is there anyone other than Fuji who thinks the word "reducing" describes an increase?

Unbelievable.

(By the way, his B.S. claims that he picked up the "cooling" idiocy from my 2016 posts is absurd. Nothing was stated or implied by me that would have led to that scientifically illiterate conclusion. And Fuji initially tried to defend his man-made global "cooling" idiocy when he repeated it in June 2017 -- after I had mocked his claims.)

Meanwhile, let's deal with the word "if", that Fuji thinks is so important.

Although we know Fuji is full of crap, let's play along and accept the claim that he was only allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback might be responsible for cooling the Earth's temperature.

That means Fuji has fully rejected the idea that the AGW hypothesis is supported by facts.

To repeat: The overwhelming majority of the warming in the computer model projections comes from water vapour feedback.

If you don't accept the premise about water vapour feedback greatly amplifying the warming from CO2, then you cannot believe that human emissions have been the primary driver of the warming that occurred (mostly in the last 20 years of the 20th century) since 1950.

Fuji insists he is open to the idea that water vapour feedback doesn't produce the kind of warming projected by the models. Indeed, using the word "if", he says it may not cause any warming at all and might actually be "reducing" the Earth's temperature.

Thus, Fuji has made it official -- he fully rejects the idea that the AGW hypothesis has been confirmed by the facts (yet another in Fuji's ongoing string of contradictions).

^^^^ utter nonsense

What sort of twisted dishonest bullshit are you spinning where me replying to YOUR claims about water vapor with a dismissive "if" can be turned into the load of bullshit you just posted.

And you know WHY you are lying and posting bullshit?

Because you haven't got anything else to post. You never had any valid answer to the fact--the proven fact--that 100% of scientists capable of getting their view on global warming published in a top journal support it. Every one.

We are not any longer debating this topic because it's no longer a theory or a hypothesis. Human caused global warming is now just an observed fact.

All your predictions were wrong. You claims that warming stopped were wrong. The theories advanced by the kooks you cited were disproven and global warming was definitively empirically observed.

So what else can you do but start inane debates by lying about what others wrote. You sure as hell don't have anything relevant to post!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Hey fuji, you mad??

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but its clearly bogus.
Solar activity has not increased the temp of the planet over the last 150 or so years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

(the data used in that chart comes directly from NASA and is directly linked to at the bottom of the page)

 

[FAST]

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 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 earth.

Water vapour is the predominate green house gas.

 

[FAST]

Hey fuji, you mad??

Funny that he claims that MF2 doesn't have anything to post,... yet always responds to them,... but mind you only with childish insults,... because he has nothing other than continually bringing up some discredited nature magazine to counter with.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

You and moviefan still don't understand the basics here, do you?

Water vapour is a feedback effect. It only changes globally when the planet's global temperature changes. Water vapour levels can't drive any climate change at the global level, it just reacts to changes globally. Your fixation on water vapour only underlines your lack of understanding of the basics of climate change science.

The next step in your education requires you to now define what a 'forcing' on the climate is.
Good luck.

 

[FAST]

That stench is back.

Hopefully it will waft away again,...soon.

 

[fuji]

Hey fuji, you mad??

I don't like liars

 

[Moviefan-2]

^^^^ utter nonsense

What sort of twisted dishonest bullshit are you spinning where me replying to YOUR claims about water vapor with a dismissive "if" can be turned into the load of bullshit you just posted.

And you know WHY you are lying and posting bullshit?

Because you haven't got anything else to post. You never had any valid answer to the fact--the proven fact--that 100% of scientists capable of getting their view on global warming published in a top journal support it. Every one.

We are not any longer debating this topic because it's no longer a theory or a hypothesis. Human caused global warming is now just an observed fact.

All your predictions were wrong. You claims that warming stopped were wrong. The theories advanced by the kooks you cited were disproven and global warming was definitively empirically observed.

So what else can you do but start inane debates by lying about what others wrote. You sure as hell don't have anything relevant to post!

Fuji is mad because his bullshit isn't working.

As you can see in my previous post, I fully acknowledged that he used the word "if" and that he now says he is only allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback has a cooling effect on the planet.

Yet he has failed to address any of the points I have raised and cannot explain the ongoing contradictions in his posts.

To repeat: His use of the word "if" still represents a wholesale rejection of the AGW hypothesis. Simply allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback doesn't produce the warming projected in the models means:

- The predictions about man-made warming haven't been verified.

- It isn't established that there has been anything unusual about the warming trend in the latter part of the 20th century.

- It isn't established that man-made emissions were the primary cause of the small amount of warming that did occur.

As I said before, there is no "if" in the computer model projections about water vapour feedback.

Even if we accept Fuji's explanations as legit, that still means he is conceding the AGW hypothesis has not been established as a fact.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny that he claims that MF2 doesn't have anything to post,... yet always responds to them,... but mind you only with childish insults,... because he has nothing other than continually bringing up some discredited nature magazine to counter with.

For more than a year now, I have clearly established that he is completely misrepresenting that paper in Nature.

He doesn't read the scientific journals and has never understood what that paper was actually saying (and what it wasn't saying) -- that's why he got it completely ass backwards in his response about water vapour feedback.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Even though I'm not completely following the fuji global warming train, I'm going with MovieFan on this one, because I know fuji is generally full of shit and he cannot be trusted.

Cheers!!

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

For more than a year now, I have clearly established that he is completely misrepresenting that paper in Nature

Could you post the exact link to that Nature paper, please??

I wanna put fuji to bed, once and for all

 

[Moviefan-2]

Could you post the exact link to that Nature paper, please??

I wanna put fuji to bed, once and for all

Here's the link to the actual paper, but you have to pay to read the full thing (and Fuji has admitted he didn't pay to read it): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

However, here is a news release that describes what's in it: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The release makes it clear that the results Fuji is citing only speak to warming trends that were "solely" attributed to CO2 and did not include calculations of the impacts from water vapour and clouds. Fuji tried to claim that it still showed warming after they included the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.

It's also worth remembering that subsequent papers that have been published in Nature have confirmed that the predictions about how man-made emissions would affect the Earth's temperature were "substantially larger" than the observed results:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

 

[fuji]

Fuji is mad because his bullshit isn't working.

No, I'm calling you out for lying. If you don't like being called a liar, don't lie.

As you can see in my previous post, I fully acknowledged that he used the word "if"

Then stop lying. You don't get to "acknowledge" the if and still say I made the claim that follows the word. That's lying. You need to retract that claim.

and that he now says he is only allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback has a cooling effect on the planet.

I'm not allowing any possibility. Learn English and stop lying.

English lesson:

"If 2+2=3 you're still an idiot" doesn't mean I am "allowing the possibility" of the conditional, it means I'm dismissing the relevance of the conditional to the conclusion.

Yet he has failed to address any of the points I have raised and cannot explain the ongoing contradictions in his posts.

There are no contradictions. You had to lie about what I wrote to claim that. You need to stop lying.

To repeat: His use of the word "if" still represents a wholesale rejection of the AGW hypothesis.

No it doesn't, it just means I was dismissing YOUR claim. I never made any statement is my own one way or another on water vapor and you can't take me dismissing your claim with an if as though I were

That's lying.

Simply allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback doesn't produce the warming projected in the models means:

I never said any such thing, liar.

- The predictions about man-made warming haven't been verified.

Except that HAVE been verified. Whatever you think about MY post is irrelevant. The verification in Nature in no way depends on any discussion on terb.

That's absurd.

The verification is Nature is a fact whether or not you like it and no matter what any of us say on terb.

- It isn't established that there has been anything unusual about the warming trend in the latter part of the 20th century.

What's established is that there is a warming trend and that human emitted CO2 is the major cause of that warming trend.

- It isn't established that man-made emissions were the primary cause of the small amount of warming that did occur.

Yes it is. That's proven beyond any reasonable doubt by the direct measurement of the warming that resulted from CO2.

As I said before, there is no "if" in the computer model projections about water vapour feedback.

There's no computer model under discussion here. Warming caused by CO2 was observed directly. That direct observation happens to confirm the computer model but stands on its own as well.

Your entire post here it's a desperate and pathetic attempt to pretend to debate the issue when really you are just lying about what I said and spinning a lot of bullshit.

Get this through your incredibly think skull:

My posting history, and your lies about it, and everything else here on terb is irrelevant to the published research which absolutely confirmed global warming.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here is what Fuji wrote:

Again, that is the NET effect of man made CO2. If water vapour feedback were reducing it that would net out.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249

There is nothing in that quote to indicate that he was trying to refute the idea that water vapour feedback reduces the temperature.

In fact, he used the word "if" as an acknowledgement of that possibility -- a possibility, we must remember, that had only been raised by Fuji alone (and which Fuji repeated in June 2017).

That means he was conceding:

- The predictions about man-made warming haven't been verified.

- It isn't established that there has been anything unusual about the warming trend in the latter part of the 20th century.

- It isn't established that man-made emissions were the primary cause of the small amount of warming that did occur.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No it doesn't, it just means I was dismissing YOUR claim.

More bullshit. I never said or implied any such thing. Unlike Fuji, I know what I'm talking about.

To repeat what I said in my previous post, Fuji is the only person who talked about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature.

 

[fuji]

More bullshit. I never said or implied any such thing. Unlike Fuji, I know what I'm talking about.

To repeat what I said in my previous post, Fuji is the only person who talked about water vapour feedback "reducing" the temperature.

Yes you did go look at the thread history. I said global warming was proven by the Nature study. YOU brought up water vapor. I said no matter what effect water vapor had it was included in the evidence that CO2 levels cause global warming.

I phrased that with an if, as in, it doesn't matter if water vapor has xyz effect, that's included in the result. That doesn't imply I hold any position one way or another nor does it imply I think it's an open question. It's just dismissive.

I never made any claim either way about water vapor, I was just dismissing YOUR introduction of it in the discussion.

 

[basketcase]

Even though I'm not completely following the fuji global warming train,...

I am too. He just muddies the waters (pun intended) because of his compulsive need to argue and defend any statement he ever made.

I'll stick to what actual scientists say. You know, that human sources CO2 is the major factor influencing our current climactic changes.

 

[Frankfooter]

Fuji is mad because his bullshit isn't working.

As you can see in my previous post, I fully acknowledged that he used the word "if" and that he now says he is only allowing for the possibility that water vapour feedback has a cooling effect on the planet.

You are still making an incredibly stupid and basic error.
Water vapour has a feedback effect on the climate. When the global temp goes up the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, warming global temp.
When the global temp goes down, the atmosphere holds less water vapour and it has a cooling effect.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

That's because its a feedback effect.

On its own it won't change the global climate, it reacts to changes in the climate, unlike the effects of increasing CO2 which has a major forcing effect.

No wonder the rest of your claims make no sense, if you can't understand this one basic point.

 

[FAST]

Yes you did go look at the thread history. I said global warming was proven by the Nature study. YOU brought up water vapor. I said no matter what effect water vapor had it was included in the evidence that CO2 levels cause global warming.

I phrased that with an if, as in, it doesn't matter if water vapor has xyz effect, that's included in the result. That doesn't imply I hold any position one way or another nor does it imply I think it's an open question. It's just dismissive.

I never made any claim either way about water vapor, I was just dismissing YOUR introduction of it in the discussion.

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.