Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
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).
Of course it's not all. And glad you realize the vast majority of scientists disagree with your beliefs.
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?'
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
Are you telling us that you agree with Fuji that water vapour feedback is responsible for "cooling" the planet?
I love it.
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
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.
Its amazing how little you understand about the basics yet how much more you think you know then those who spend their lives researching the matter.
fuji doesn't understand the basics of the water vapour positive feed back loop,... or he is simply running away again.
My guess is the later,... fuji's time honoured response when he is proven wrong,... again.
Of course the other fuji alternative is to lie,... and accuse you of mixing a positive feedback loop with another climate phenomena.
Typical for those who think making childish insults,... is debating
Neither you nor moviefan understand the basics of the science.
Since moviefan clearly can't, can you explain the difference between feedback and forcing effects on the climate?
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, then you really shouldn't be here claiming that you know better then 97% of scientists who study the climate.
Sorry to have asked a question that resulted in a stink in your neighbourhood.
Had no idea that just asking you basic questions about how much you understand of your claims would result in you making a stink.
Shall we confirm that both you and moviefan don't understand even the basics of forcings and feedback mechanisms in the climate, which is why you drone on and on about water vapour?
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/28/water-vapour-greenhouse-gas
The reason that I think Franky's brain is totally fried is that he is challenging me to defend the calculations and the predictions made by the IPCC and Michael Mann and others.
A quick reminder for Franky: I never said their calculations were correct.
Actually, referring to the observed data, I said their predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
You are getting closer.
Now, can you tell us the difference between water vapour's feedback and CO2's forcing effect on the climate?
If you can master this very basic difference, you might actually have hope of understanding what you are talking about.
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.
There you go again, lying. You've long since realized that you don't have any valid point to make so you lie.
Why don't you show us that quote of mine again so everyone can see the word "if" in it. Whatever you do don't let anyone realize YOU were the one making that claim and I was just responding with "if that's true".
I think it's pretty hard for you to live with yourself. You obviously know you're a total fraud which is why you intentionally lie like that.
