Becoming more and more obvious that you support cowardice,... explains a lot of your posting habits.
Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Your accusations of cowardice are based on your claims that people won't answer your questions.Becoming more and more obvious that you support cowardice,... explains a lot of your posting habits.
But the only one here refusing to answer to posts is you.
The only one here who resorts to name calling and insults when given answers he can't understand or reply to is you.
By your terms, you are the coward.
(though moviefan also fits this description, he just disappears when caught out, then comes back months later with the same claims)
Your questions were answered and yet all you do is cower and insult.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Retain-Heat&p=5933964&viewfull=1#post5933964
Fuji's paper from Nature was looking at a situation where increased CO2 had a warming effect. Your own link supports my interpretation of the AGW hypothesis: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.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.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.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249
But let's assume that the quote above is his current position, that he says it's unclear what effect water vapour feedback might have in a situation where man-made CO2 has increased and warming has been measured that can be directly attributed to the CO2 increase.
If that's Fuji's position, that is still a complete rejection of the AGW hypothesis.
As noted above (in the link provided by Frankfooter), the overwhelming majority of warming in the AGW models comes from water vapour feedback.
Fuji says he doesn't necessarily accept that water vapour feedback would lead to any warming. Thus, he has rejected the entire hypothesis.
Your own 'personal' interpretation is fairly idiotic, I'm afraid to say.Fuji's paper from Nature was looking at a situation where increased CO2 had a warming effect. Your own link supports my interpretation of the AGW hypothesis:
Noting that the paper referenced notes the basic fact that water vapour levels are increasing as the temperature increases is just confirmation that they act as feedback and not forcing.
You keep acting like you've discovered something new, when all you're doing is misinterpreting basics.
Again, same basic and stupid mistake.What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.
If temps go down, water vapour levels go down and it cools the planet in an amplified or 'feedback' mechanism.
If temps go up, water vapour increases and it amplifies increases.
That's what a feedback mechanism does.
How long before you understand this basic mechanism?
No attempt by you to rewrite what I said, lie about what I said, misrepresent what I said, or twist what I said is going to make that Nature article go away.What Fuji actually said was that he thought the paper (which he has never read) was looking at the net result after the "reducing" effect of water vapour feedback.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546249&viewfull=1#post5546249
But let's assume that the quote above is his current position, that he says it's unclear what effect water vapour feedback might have in a situation where man-made CO2 has increased and warming has been measured that can be directly attributed to the CO2 increase.
If that's Fuji's position, that is still a complete rejection of the AGW hypothesis.
As noted above (in the link provided by Frankfooter), the overwhelming majority of warming in the AGW models comes from water vapour feedback.
Fuji says he doesn't necessarily accept that water vapour feedback would lead to any warming. Thus, he has rejected the entire hypothesis.
No matter how much you squirm it's going to continue to be the case that AGW is just an observed fact at this point. It's been seen and measured.
To be clear on your lies and misrepresentations: I pointed out that the study measured the actual energy that reached the actual surface of the actual planet -- so any effect modifying that was implicitly accounted for since this is a real world observation, measuring the actual result. You were the one who wanted to talk about water vapor, I just dismissed all that by pointing out the study measured the ultimate, final, real effect on the planet.
Let's be clear on your other lie: At no point did I say it's "unclear" what effect water vapor has, I didn't claim it was unknown, hard to known, an open question, or anything else -- I just dismissed it as irrelevant.
The fact that you're trying to turn that into "a complete rejection of AGW" shows how utterly pathetic and desperate you are. There's no version of the "if" that I used that lets you come to that conclusion using valid logic -- you're a kook, and a liar, and you lost this debate years ago when this study was published (and really, well before that). You're like a zombie -- you don't realize you're dead, still trying to move around, but in reality--dead. You argued against AGW, and when it became an observed fact you lost.
Now learn this, and learn it well: It doesn't matter what I said. What matters is that the study proved AGW. It observed it. And that ended your entire worldview as a matter of fact.
So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".At no point did I say it's "unclear" what effect water vapor has, I didn't claim it was unknown, hard to known, an open question, or anything else -- I just dismissed it as irrelevant.
Looks like fuji is publishing his own version of some discredited nature magazine.
Of coarse that's what some do,... when they are caught in lies.
Next up,... fuji's version of the Hockey Shtick graph of lies,... that was published in a discredited nature magazine.
I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant to the study we were discussing. Learn to fucking read!!!!!So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".
Looks like fuji is publishing his own version of some discredited nature magazine.
Of coarse that's what some do,... when they are caught in lies.
Next up,... fuji's version of the Hockey Shtick graph of lies,... that was published in a discredited nature magazine.
I have noticed that actual arguments from AGW deniers are now very scarce, it's all misrepresentation such as FAST and MF display here--they're intellectually bankrupt and can no longer make reasonable arguments. All they do now is lie about what others said to create the illusion of debate.
There is no debate. AGW is an observed fact now.
Except water vapour is always relevant,... in any discussion regarding the climate.I never said it was irrelevant in general. I said it was irrelevant to the study we were discussing. Learn to fucking read!!!!!
I have noticed that actual arguments from AGW deniers are now very scarce, it's all misrepresentation such as FAST and MF display here--they're intellectually bankrupt and can no longer make reasonable arguments. All they do now is lie about what others said to create the illusion of debate.
There is no debate. AGW is an observed fact now.
But the real point is that you are continually running away from one of your fuji grand proclamations about the effect water vapour has on the climate.
I make no misrepresentations,... always factual.
How could some one lie when quoting what you post,... ???
And as far as being personally bankrupt,... you are morally bankrupt.
If there is actually "no debate",... does that mean you won't be commenting about my posts on the subject anymore,... nobody would complain fuji.
As far as climate change is concerned, its not a concern.So there you have it folks,... as far a green house gases, the temperature of the planet, and climate of the planet,..."water vapour is irrelevant".
Because, as I keep repeating and both you and moviefan seem unable to grasp, global water vapour levels changes as feedback to global temperature change.
You and moviefan are both failing to understand the basics here.
Water vapour global levels aren't changing the climate, they are changing in reaction to changing global temperatures.
What is driving climate change is primarily changes in CO2 levels globally.
Why are you unable to grasp this simple and basic fact?
Since the study measured the actual warming at the actual surface of the actual Earth it automatically took into account any real world factor because it was a real world measurement. To whatever extent water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it. It measured the actual impact on energy warming the surface..Except water vapour is always relevant,... in any discussion regarding the climate.
But the real point is that you are continually running away from one of your fuji grand proclamations about the effect water vapour has on the climate.
I make no misrepresentations,... always factual.
How could some one lie when quoting what you post,... ???
And as far as being personally bankrupt,... you are morally bankrupt.
If there is actually "no debate",... does that mean you won't be commenting about my posts on the subject anymore,... nobody would complain fuji.
This debate is over. You guys have not had any real reply to that point ever. It's been like a year and you've never had a reply, so it's indeed over.
^^^^ hey fuji, what are you doing up at 5am if you work in middle-management of a major company (like you said you were)??
Fricken hilarious,... "took into account any real world factor because it was the was a real world measurement"Since the study measured the actual warming at the actual surface of the actual Earth it automatically took into account any real world factor because it was a real world measurement. To whatever extent water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it. It measured the actual impact on energy warming the surface.. .
And just what is this new high tech instrument that can isolate the water vapour positive feed back effect of the planets temperature,... ???
As apposed to a fake world with a fake surface,... there is a surface on the planet that is not "actual". :doh:
And,... "water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it",... which is what we've been telling you over and over again,...now you finally understand,...:applouse:
You do NOT get to state what is a "real reply or when the debate is over",... you are nobody,... you are fuji.This debate is over. You guys have not had any real reply to that point ever. It's been like a year and you've never had a reply, so it's indeed over.
And once again,...does that mean you will not be quoting my posts on the subject,... one can only hope.
What time zone am I in?^^^^ hey fuji, what are you doing up at 5am if you work in middle-management of a major company (like you said you were)??
You missed the point. Total energy hitting the surface versus CO2 level in the atmosphere. Think. Think hard. I have faith that if you think long and hard you will get it. You may be senile but if you put in the effort you still can understand, so try!Fricken hilarious,... "took into account any real world factor because it was the was a real world measurement"
And just what is this new high tech instrument that can isolate the water vapour positive feed back effect of the planets temperature,... ???
As apposed to a fake world with a fake surface,... there is a surface on the planet that is not "actual". :doh:
And,... "water vapor makes a difference in the real world, the study measured it",... which is what we've been telling you over and over again,...now you finally understand,...:applouse:
You do NOT get to state what is a "real reply or when the debate is over",... you are nobody,... you are fuji.
And once again,...does that mean you will not be quoting my posts on the subject,... one can only hope.
If you're West coast it wouldve been a 2am post. If you're YYZ its a 5am post.What time zone am I in?
Either way, its crazy hours for a hard-working manager of a major company
Or is this the part where you tell us you live in a mansion in Hawaii
What makes you think 2am is crazy?If you're West coast it wouldve been a 2am post. If you're YYZ its a 5am post.
Either way, its crazy hours for a hard-working manager of a major company
Or is this the part where you tell us you live in a mansion in Hawaii
Once in a while wouldnt be crazy. But you post regularly between 2am and 6am.What makes you think 2am is crazy?
Those are not normal, usual hours for an office worker like you claimed you were.
I'm convinced you work at some capacity in the sex industry. Maybe as a driver or a phone answer guy.
I dont think you're a pimp or a drug dealer, because you come across as too nerdy for that.
Maybe you're just unemployed??
What makes you think I routinely post between 2 and 6? What time zone am I in?Once in a while wouldnt be crazy. But you post regularly between 2am and 6am.
Those are not normal, usual hours for an office worker like you claimed you were.
I'm convinced you work at some capacity in the sex industry. Maybe as a driver or a phone answer guy.
I dont think you're a pimp or a drug dealer, because you come across as too nerdy for that.
Maybe you're just unemployed??
