I'm almost starting to miss Fuji. He thought water vapour in the atmosphere had a cooling effect.Water Vapor is responsible for the vast majority by far of the greenhouse effect. That is well known.
I'm almost starting to miss Fuji. He thought water vapour in the atmosphere had a cooling effect.Water Vapor is responsible for the vast majority by far of the greenhouse effect. That is well known.
What you've done is spam ideas, none of which you're willing to stand behind.i have provided multiple alternative theories including natural variability , ozone depletion and non explosive volcanic activity to name but a few
...
i have provided multiple alternative theories including natural variability , ozone depletion and non explosive volcanic activity to name but a fewWhat you've done is spam ideas, none of which you're willing to stand behind.
New Climate Change Musical Premiers to Rave Review In New York
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
Too bad thatBasic fact is that the scientific community disagrees with you but instead of asking yourself why, you simply claim that science is a political conspiracy.
It does cool things off when it rains, it absorbs Infrared radiation at far more frequencies than CO2 and it concentration in the atmosphere dwarfs CO2 (20 to 100 x) and all other greenhouse gasesI'm almost starting to miss Fuji. He thought water vapour in the atmosphere had a cooling effect.
Right, because the 'real' science you follow makes a claim and sticks with it forever.Is that the science that says masks don't work or the science that says masks do work?
Is that the science that says travel bans don't work or the science that says travel bans do work?
In both cases, Canada has taken both of those positions and supposedly based it on the "science."
Sorry, but science doesn't change that quickly.
These have been covered here endlessly.i have provided multiple alternative theories including natural variability , ozone depletion and non explosive volcanic activity to name but a few
Thus far you have not bothered to challenge any of these with any scientific evidence, so lets just treat them as viable alternatives
Your theory is supported by propaganda and flies in the face of science, its not worth a bucket of piss.It does cool things off when it rains, it absorbs Infrared radiation at far more frequencies than CO2 and it concentration in the atmosphere dwarfs CO2 (20 to 100 x) and all other greenhouse gases
2/3 of our planet is covered in water, it is the most important molecule by far for climate & life. Its role in cloud formation and turbulent fluid flows is not at all well understood
And the IPCC seems to think it can redefine this molecule to
a) fit their agenda of only anthropogenic causes could be possible for any and all changes in climate
b) fit their overly simplistic and brutally inaccurate computer models
c) ignore cloud formation and turbulent fluid flows
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
"Sticks with it forever?"Right, because the 'real' science you follow makes a claim and sticks with it forever.
It wasn't a change in science, it was a change in policy."Sticks with it forever?"
Franky, the government did a complete 180 on travel bans in just a matter of days. Do you really believe there was a dramatic change in the "science" within the span of one week?
Give your head a shake.
Furthermore, your global experts said there was "no evidence" the coronavirus could be transmitted from person to person when in fact there was plenty of evidence -- at that time -- that it could be spread among humans.
Face reality. Most of the claims your experts like to make are based on political motivations, not science.
Not only can you not find a legit scientist, but you have to do with an economist who ignores how much climate change is already costing.The National Post ran a terrific column by economist Ross McKitrick on the current "business as usual" forecast for global temperatures currently used by the IPCC.
Sounds like your record of predictions is a dismal failure.Moviefan-2;5243530 said:http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.
And that is exactly why I am calling you anti-science. You are being 100% clear that your intent is simply to undermine science and not actually look to support one.i have provided multiple alternative theories ...
Anti-science?And that is exactly why I am calling you anti-science. You are being 100% clear that your intent is simply to undermine science and not actually look to support one.
You are very much mistaken as I see science being inappropriately used and mis-represented to spread fear and propaganda
A perfect example is the misrepresentation of water Vapor
This is a blatant and apparently successful piece of propaganda intended to mislead the public on how the greenhouse effect works
here is the true representation of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
The difference is huge. Both from a scientific & ethical POV
No way they could sell (fool) the public with the second (true) representation
And it all comes back to the pseudoscience of only looking at possible human causes
|Several times this question has been put to you and yet you continue to avoid it like the plague
The fact of the matter is it is blatant propaganda and propaganda has absolutely no place in true scientific discovery
Let me clearly spell it out for you
I firmly believe that science has greatly enriched humanity and I also believe any pseudoscience which needs to resort to the silencing of its critics will set back real science by generations perhaps centuries
The minute I heard some fool use the word "denier" in reference to our scientific understanding of a extremely complex system such as climate I knew there was something wrong here
Science only will progress if open and honest debate is permitted. Genius does not occur without the rigors of being critiqued by those with an opposing view
That is how it works. you should know this cold.
It boils down to a very simple piece of logic :
If the pseudoscience were truly settled , there would be no need for propaganda and there would be no need to silence anyone, yet there is propaganda, intimidation and silencing occurring in climate science on an ongoing basis
Frankfooter responds to every post with mis-information almost instantaneously. You surly can not have missed that display of cult like obsession and corruptness
John Cook does the same bashing any opposing view on the internet
I can not speak to what activists truly know or do not truly know or understandTens of thousands of scientists are currently studying our current climactic changes. They know all these details that you claim are being suppressed and they still overwhelmingly conclude see anthropogenic CO2 as playing a major role.
they however, seem quite adept at omitting or ignoring these inconvenient details (as you have repeatedly demonstrated by ignoring /avoiding the water vapor question),
Sort of like how Michael Mann decided to ignore/ erase the medieval warm period
Sort of like how Phil Jones decided to ignore/ erase the principles of honesty and integrity by corrupting the peer review process
Sort of like how the well funded John Cook mis-represented the 97% and continuously attacks opposing views with lies and mis-information
Sort of like how Frankfooter attacks opposing views with lies and mis-information. Please don't tell me you have been fooled by Frankfooter ?
#1. If you are an activist first mascarading as a scientist, then you are not an expert. Expertise in any subject requires objectivity and the desire to dig a little deeper by challenging the "experts" and most importantly it requires participation in honest and open debate. Why does a supposed expert such as Gavin Schmidt refuse to debate Roy Spencer?Sadly your only response to the experts is to claim they are part of a politically motivated conspiracy.
#2. No true scientific expert would dare to declare such a complex system as "settled" and most defiantly no true scientific expert would dare to silence critics and repress scientific debate
#3 Conspiracy? I would not use that word.. try group think, cult, religion. Pick one you like, but be sure to add corrupt so as not to omit Michael Mann, Phil Jones and John Cook
Lets be crystal clear It, it is not only what i claim it is what Richard Feynman claimedp.s. And despite what you claim, a generally successful theory is only replaced if there is a better one and climate modelling has been generally successful.
Any scientist worth his salt would agreeRichard Feynman
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
And despite what you say "generally successful" is not good enough to be labeled as scientific evidence
And it is also not good enough to justify scaring the living shit of children
And you had better get a whole better than "generally successful" if you are demanding the world population must change their behaviour
So it would be best if you attempted to make a scientific argument rather than attacking me or describing irrelevant poll results
ie the water vapor question....... if you dare
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
Larue is someone who claims to be more of a science expert than anyone on this board and all of NASA but can't actually figure out how to put someone on ignore?It boils down to a very simple piece of logic :
If the pseudoscience were truly settled , there would be no need for propaganda and there would be no need to silence anyone, yet there is propaganda, intimidation and silencing occurring in climate science on an ongoing basis
Frankfooter responds to every post with mis-information almost instantaneously. You surly can not have missed that display of cult like obsession and corruptness
John Cook does the same bashing any opposing view on the internet
The National Post ran a terrific column by economist Ross McKitrick on the current "business as usual" forecast for global temperatures currently used by the IPCC.
Ross McKitrick: The flaw in relying on worst-case-scenario climate model
Junk Science Week: The purpose of global climate policy is to get us from the dangerous upper end of the forecast range down to the safe bottom end — we are already…business.financialpost.com
As McKitrick explains, it is based on a worst-case scenario that is so preposterous it is impossible to believe. Even some of the strongest champions of man-made climate change say the IPCC's current "business as usual" forecast is total rubbish.
To cite one example, it includes the calculation for an astronomical growth in coal-fired plants over the next 90 years that no one believes could actually happen.
When you add in the Green New Deal's fantasy about replacing fossil fuels with green energy in the next 10 years, you're left with this reality:
- The most commonly cited current projections for global temperatures are a total fairy tale.
- One of the most widely touted plans to reduce man-made emissions is a total fairy tale.
So much for "science."
It’s also almost certain that nowhere in the story do they point out that RCP8.5 is an implausible worst-case scenario that was never meant to represent a likely base case outcome, and scientists have long known that using it as such is misleading. They do it anyway.
It gets worse. A recent study by Matthew Burgess of the University of Colorado and co-authors pointed out that RCP8.5 doesn’t even make sense in its own modeled reality. It projects so much economic growth that today’s poor countries will be richer in 2100 than the wealthiest countries are today (which would be nice if it happened), but they will also experience so much warming they become uninhabitable wastelands. How can both be true?
RCP8.5 was conceived as an outlier; an improbable worst-case scenario, not a likely business-as-usual forecast. Yet countless scientists and economists present it as one. You know how the game works. Feed RCP8.5 into a climate model, observe the catastrophe, then call it the “likely” no-policy base case if we don’t cut emissions. Last fall, in a commentary in Nature magazine, climate experts Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters scolded their colleagues for misleading the public this way, and distorting the policy debate in the process.
The IPCC likewise has form on this. Prior to commissioning the RCP group the IPCC issued the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), which ranged from low and slow CO2 growth to the infamous A1FI top-end scorcher, which climate modelers considered unrealistic but which allowed the IPCC to issue scary-sounding “up to six degrees” warming forecasts. In a column I published on this page on April 4, 2002, I noted that by the time it was shown to experts in early 2000 A1FI had already overestimated global coal consumption growth in the 1990s by 40 per cent.
I got interested in the issue around that time in part because the IPCC would not attach probabilities to their scenarios. In two papers later published in 2012 and 2013 I and my co-authors showed that the likelihood of SRES emission scenarios could be assessed using historical evidence and indicators about how global energy markets constrain fossil fuel use, and each time the lower half of the range of scenarios was more probable than the upper half.
\and they have used RCP8.5 to indoctrinate and scare the living shit out of children. Absolutely despicableIf we want to avoid the RCP8.5 future scenario all we have to do is stop feeding it into climate models, because that’s the only place it exists.
2/3 of our planet is covered in water, it is the most important molecule by far for climate & life. Its role in cloud formation and turbulent fluid flows is not at all well understood
And the IPCC seems to think it can redefine this molecule to
If a scientific theory needs to be supported by propaganda and silencing its critics, it is not worth a bucket of piss
On ignore: Frankfooter
WHY IS CARBON DIOXIDE SO IMPORTANT?
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and it is considered to be the 'global climate thermostat' for planet Earth. That means the abundance of this one gas in Earth's atmosphere is the primary controller of the planet's surface temperature, and thus its climate.
Most of Earth's atmosphere - the 99.9 per cent made up of oxygen, nitrogen and argon - is 'transparent' to both solar radiation and the infrared radiation emitted by Earth. If these were the only gases in the atmosphere, Earth would be substantially colder, because all the heat the surface absorbed while it was facing the Sun would just radiate away into space as it rotated out of direct sunlight. None of that heat would stick around in the atmosphere to keep the planet warm, and we would likely have a 'snowball' Earth.
Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is transparent to incoming sunlight, but it absorbs outgoing infrared radiation. With just a trace amount (around 0.04 per cent) in the atmosphere, enough of that heat is trapped that the planet stays warm enough for life to take hold and for human civilization to flourish. Adding more CO2 to the air, incidentally, causes more heat to be trapped than normal, which is why we are seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
The other major greenhouse gases that also contribute to Earth's surface temperature are water vapour (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). None of these can regulate Earth's climate as effectively as CO2, though, for a straightforward reason - carbon dioxide is the most abundant temperature-independent greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
Methane, ozone and nitrous oxide are more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Methane is at least 25 times more potent, while ozone and nitrous oxide can be hundreds of times more potent. Fortunately for us, these gases just don't occur in enough abundance (yet) to have the same impact as carbon dioxide on the overall greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is also a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and it more abundant than CO2 as well. Thus, water vapour does contribute more to the overall greenhouse effect at any one time. It cannot be considered to be in control of Earth's climate, however, because it is strongly dependent on temperature.
If you lower the temperature, water vapour condenses into liquid water (clouds or rain), reducing its ability to absorb and reradiating infrared light. If you cool it further, it freezes solid, further reducing its contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Carbon dioxide, though, remains active as a greenhouse gas down to temperatures of -78.5°C. The only place on Earth where it gets that cold is near the south pole, in the dead of southern winter, and it does not remain that cold for very long. So, CO2 is effectively a temperature-independent gas everywhere on this planet.
The very reason we have large quantities of water vapour in Earth's atmosphere in the first place is due to the temperature independence of carbon dioxide. If the amount of CO2 in the air decreases, the planet cools, which causes water vapour to condense out and eventually freeze. This is how pretty much every glacial period in Earth's history started, as CO2 was absorbed from the air by various forms of life, and it became locked up or buried away in large quantities. It was only when carbon dioxide levels rose again, due to extreme volcanic events or mass die-offs, that temperatures increased, and the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere also increased.
In the roughly 10,000 years before the mid-1800s, when CO2 levels were reasonably uniform at around 260-270 ppm, Earth's climate remained relatively stable. The greenhouse gases in the air absorbed just enough of the heat Earth radiated out towards space to keep the planet's average temperature fairly steady, at around 15°C.
As shown in the graph below, from 1880 to 2019, the global average temperature has risen by roughly 1.2°C.
Credit:NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences
Seeing this kind of temperature increase in a small region, over a short period of time, such as in the local forecast for your city over a few days, is not much of a concern. It represents only a small amount of energy, and the temperature will eventually go down by that much, as well.
The entire planet warming up by over one degree, however, and in such a way that the temperature will not go down again by that amount for the foreseeable future, represents an immense amount of energy being invested into our weather and climate systems.
This is of great concern to us when it comes to extreme weather events and their potential impact on human civilization. It is going to be even worse, going forward, as CO2 emissions continue to rise, and the temperature continues to rise along with them.
Your authority which you never questioned and blindly believed / worshiped, the IPCC is being shown for what it really isGee Johnny, you are as bad a franky with spamming instead of answering questions.
#1. The physics does not support the the alarmist claim, so No I am not basing this on a conspiracy theory, rather the scienceAre you really basing your entire argument on claims that scientists worldwide are really part of a conspiracy to suppress widely known information?
Ouch, that hurts sooooooo much... Is criticizing my quoting skills really all you have?p.s. Considering how much time you spend arguing against science, I'm not surprised you have trouble with the quote function.
I'd rather follow scientists than oil industry lobbyists.Your authority which you never questioned and blindly believed / worshiped, the IPCC is being shown for what it really is