Global Warming Lies

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]100meters wrote:

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models. [/quote]

The difference is that there are two kinds of water vapor - the kind produced by CO2 and the kind produced by ordinary water. That was the difference.

And, of course, you still have unresolved issues:

1. Your source indicates temperature increases are overestimated, which means that someone can actually come to a rational conclusion that perhaps anthropogenic GW is not quite what the alarmists suggest it is without being a (fill in ad hominem attack: corporate shill, creationist, wingnut, enemy of science).

2. Cockburn is one of your own kind ideologically, and yet he disagrees with you on GW. Yet no peep from you that he has been bought off or is an idiot or any of the other nonsense - so if he can differ from your conclusions in good faith (a genuine belief the science is wrong), why can’t others who happen not to share your ideology?

Oh no - is 100meters nothing more than a partisan hack?

[lucasa]

[quote]100meters wrote:

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models. [/quote]

So prior to 2004 the models didn’t include water vapor as a factor?

I couldn’t care less how vigorously the water is included, I’m more interested in how accurately it’s included and what that says of future predictions. Given that we can’t forecast hurricane seasons or El Nino/La Nina phenomenon very well suggests that our understanding/modeling of up translations of “local” (hemispheric effects like El Nino are hardly local) weather phenomenon is poor (assuming equal complexity up and down). Otherwise, it wouldn’t take 100 yrs. to figure out if the Earth is going to warm by 1-5 degrees.

You posted (maybe on the other thread) that there were 61 “scientists” who dissented with global warming. Could you please print or cite that list so when I (we) use data to disagree with you, we can know whether it’s officially sanctioned by you or not?

BTW- Have you ever engineered and prototyped anything? Have you ever overseen a clinical trial? Have you ever programmed a computer to simulate or mathematically model either? Just curious as to where you gauge our cognitive abilities to be wrt other sciences vs. climatology and why you gauge them as such.

(I hope you don’t think because a group of scientists looked at data and wrote computer models means that they are automatically right.)

[100meters]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models.

The difference is that there are two kinds of water vapor - the kind produced by CO2 and the kind produced by ordinary water. That was the difference.

And, of course, you still have unresolved issues:

1. Your source indicates temperature increases are overestimated, which means that someone can actually come to a rational conclusion that perhaps anthropogenic GW is not quite what the alarmists suggest it is without being a (fill in ad hominem attack: corporate shill, creationist, wingnut, enemy of science).

2. Cockburn is one of your own kind ideologically, and yet he disagrees with you on GW. Yet no peep from you that he has been bought off or is an idiot or any of the other nonsense - so if he can differ from your conclusions in good faith (a genuine belief the science is wrong), why can’t others who happen not to share your ideology?

Oh no - is 100meters nothing more than a partisan hack? [/quote]

1.Again, the point is we are very much aware of water vapor, and whilst models maybe imperfect, it doesn’t mean vapor is disregarded. Besides that’s only one aspect of many that are just wrong with cockburn-herzberg’s premise.The most glaring is that co2 levels don’t have a relationship with global temperature. Any chart of temperatures since the industrial revolution can point to that.(And the bit about the great depression decreases in CO2–uh, hello Cockburn? CO2 atmospheric levels aren’t magical, they are uh…cumulative—see the pause in increases in global temps post depression?) And uh…also at odds was global dimming over the last several decades not leading to lower temperatures as theorized by Cockburn-Herzberg. Basically he/they ignored anything inconvieniently factual in their theory.

2.He is not of “my kind ideologically” As obviously my beliefs are of the mainstream variety. Also I would note that non-experts don’t have to be paid by exxon to be dead wrong factually–note Zap Branigans postings etc.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models.

The difference is that there are two kinds of water vapor - the kind produced by CO2 and the kind produced by ordinary water. That was the difference.

And, of course, you still have unresolved issues:

1. Your source indicates temperature increases are overestimated, which means that someone can actually come to a rational conclusion that perhaps anthropogenic GW is not quite what the alarmists suggest it is without being a (fill in ad hominem attack: corporate shill, creationist, wingnut, enemy of science).

2. Cockburn is one of your own kind ideologically, and yet he disagrees with you on GW. Yet no peep from you that he has been bought off or is an idiot or any of the other nonsense - so if he can differ from your conclusions in good faith (a genuine belief the science is wrong), why can’t others who happen not to share your ideology?

Oh no - is 100meters nothing more than a partisan hack?

1.Again, the point is we are very much aware of water vapor, and whilst models maybe imperfect, it doesn’t mean vapor is disregarded. Besides that’s only one aspect of many that are just wrong with cockburn-herzberg’s premise.The most glaring is that co2 levels don’t have a relationship with global temperature. Any chart of temperatures since the industrial revolution can point to that.(And the bit about the great depression decreases in CO2–uh, hello Cockburn? CO2 atmospheric levels aren’t magical, they are uh…cumulative—see the pause in increases in global temps post depression?) And uh…also at odds was global dimming over the last several decades not leading to lower temperatures as theorized by Cockburn-Herzberg. Basically he/they ignored anything inconvieniently factual in their theory.

2.He is not of “my kind ideologically” As obviously my beliefs are of the mainstream variety. Also I would note that non-experts don’t have to be paid by exxon to be dead wrong factually–note Zap Branigans postings etc.[/quote]

Please explain why elevated CO2 levels often trail elevated global temperatures since you think you have a clue as to what is happening.

[bigflamer]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models.

The difference is that there are two kinds of water vapor - the kind produced by CO2 and the kind produced by ordinary water. That was the difference.

And, of course, you still have unresolved issues:

1. Your source indicates temperature increases are overestimated, which means that someone can actually come to a rational conclusion that perhaps anthropogenic GW is not quite what the alarmists suggest it is without being a (fill in ad hominem attack: corporate shill, creationist, wingnut, enemy of science).

2. Cockburn is one of your own kind ideologically, and yet he disagrees with you on GW. Yet no peep from you that he has been bought off or is an idiot or any of the other nonsense - so if he can differ from your conclusions in good faith (a genuine belief the science is wrong), why can’t others who happen not to share your ideology?

Oh no - is 100meters nothing more than a partisan hack?

1.Again, the point is we are very much aware of water vapor, and whilst models maybe imperfect, it doesn’t mean vapor is disregarded. Besides that’s only one aspect of many that are just wrong with cockburn-herzberg’s premise.The most glaring is that co2 levels don’t have a relationship with global temperature. Any chart of temperatures since the industrial revolution can point to that.(And the bit about the great depression decreases in CO2–uh, hello Cockburn? CO2 atmospheric levels aren’t magical, they are uh…cumulative—see the pause in increases in global temps post depression?) And uh…also at odds was global dimming over the last several decades not leading to lower temperatures as theorized by Cockburn-Herzberg. Basically he/they ignored anything inconvieniently factual in their theory.

2.He is not of “my kind ideologically” As obviously my beliefs are of the mainstream variety. Also I would note that non-experts don’t have to be paid by exxon to be dead wrong factually–note Zap Branigans postings etc.

Please explain why elevated CO2 levels often trail elevated global temperatures since you think you have a clue as to what is happening.[/quote]

I’d sure like hear how 100m is going to respond to this.

[Ren]

there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming. There is some conjecture that it does, mostly due to them pulling out icecaps from the arctic and extrapolating temperature and CO2 levels from that. But that doesn’t not tell us whether higher CO2 levels caused global warming, or that CO2 levels rose in response to global warming.

Put it this way, greenhouses have 3 times the CO2 concentration the atmosphere does, to maximize plant growth. Clearly rising CO2 levels will cause a problem for our oxygen producers…

[100meters]

[quote]Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming. [/quote]

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Uhh excluding water vapor feedback from models still leads to global warming from co2. The study did confirm there is a watervapor feedback eventhough it may be less than thought in 2004 adjusted models(Hey guess what? It’s 2007 now!)er obviously still point to global warming—(or you think NASA has bailed on global warming?).

The point of course, water vapor is vigorously factored into models.

The difference is that there are two kinds of water vapor - the kind produced by CO2 and the kind produced by ordinary water. That was the difference.

And, of course, you still have unresolved issues:

1. Your source indicates temperature increases are overestimated, which means that someone can actually come to a rational conclusion that perhaps anthropogenic GW is not quite what the alarmists suggest it is without being a (fill in ad hominem attack: corporate shill, creationist, wingnut, enemy of science).

2. Cockburn is one of your own kind ideologically, and yet he disagrees with you on GW. Yet no peep from you that he has been bought off or is an idiot or any of the other nonsense - so if he can differ from your conclusions in good faith (a genuine belief the science is wrong), why can’t others who happen not to share your ideology?

Oh no - is 100meters nothing more than a partisan hack?

1.Again, the point is we are very much aware of water vapor, and whilst models maybe imperfect, it doesn’t mean vapor is disregarded. Besides that’s only one aspect of many that are just wrong with cockburn-herzberg’s premise.The most glaring is that co2 levels don’t have a relationship with global temperature. Any chart of temperatures since the industrial revolution can point to that.(And the bit about the great depression decreases in CO2–uh, hello Cockburn? CO2 atmospheric levels aren’t magical, they are uh…cumulative—see the pause in increases in global temps post depression?) And uh…also at odds was global dimming over the last several decades not leading to lower temperatures as theorized by Cockburn-Herzberg. Basically he/they ignored anything inconvieniently factual in their theory.

2.He is not of “my kind ideologically” As obviously my beliefs are of the mainstream variety. Also I would note that non-experts don’t have to be paid by exxon to be dead wrong factually–note Zap Branigans postings etc.

Please explain why elevated CO2 levels often trail elevated global temperatures since you think you have a clue as to what is happening.[/quote]

Uhmmm…Nobody is saying that co2 levels can’t lag global temperatures due to natural sources and feedbacks—the problem clearly is the rapid rise recently which only aggravates the natural feedbacks etc…you’re doing what cockburn-herzberg did conflating things…

[lucasa]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.[/quote]

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.

[Ren]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.[/quote]

I was going to ask what the fuck Venus has to do with earth? I mean, the abundance of life, plants that absorb CO2 and the dozens of other similarities it has with Earth make it a great example…

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
…Uhmmm…Nobody is saying that co2 levels can’t lag global temperatures due to natural sources and feedbacks—the problem clearly is the rapid rise recently which only aggravates the natural feedbacks etc…you’re doing what cockburn-herzberg did conflating things…[/quote]

Since you don’t know it is because CO2 didn’t force many (or even any) temperature fluctuations in the past.

Frankly because CO2 is such a small component of the greenhouse effect we really don’t know what manmade emissions are doing and because past global warming and cooling do not appear to be caused by CO2 we rely on bad computer simulations to predict the future.

We will not have enough decent data for 20 to 50 years to come up with meaningful predictions so we certainly find ourselves in a quandary.

We can act now on poor data or we can wait until we have good data and make a decision. If the alarmists are correct it will be too late. (It may already be too late.)

My biggest problem is the alarmists keep distorting data (such as trying to suppress the MWP, doctoring the IPCC’s reports to push worst case scenarios) so it is hard to trust them.

Should we do what untrustworthy alarmists tell us?

Perhaps they are lying to us for our own good. This is possible but it doesn’t sit right with me.

[100meters]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.[/quote]

I’m responding to this:
“there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming”.

(seriously he said that)

And of course Mars has nothing to do with it, I said Venus. Mars’ atmosphere is how thick? And albedo is reflectivity. The temperature err, uh, would be uhmmm colder without the atmosphere, instead its “hotter” than mercury. So you see “moron” seems ironic.

[100meters]

[quote]Ren wrote:
lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.

I was going to ask what the fuck Venus has to do with earth? I mean, the abundance of life, plants that absorb CO2 and the dozens of other similarities it has with Earth make it a great example…[/quote]

…of CO2 warming a globe. I know.

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…Uhmmm…Nobody is saying that co2 levels can’t lag global temperatures due to natural sources and feedbacks—the problem clearly is the rapid rise recently which only aggravates the natural feedbacks etc…you’re doing what cockburn-herzberg did conflating things…

Since you don’t know it is because CO2 didn’t force many (or even any) temperature fluctuations in the past.

Frankly because CO2 is such a small component of the greenhouse effect we really don’t know what manmade emissions are doing and because past global warming and cooling do not appear to be caused by CO2 we rely on bad computer simulations to predict the future.

We will not have enough decent data for 20 to 50 years to come up with meaningful predictions so we certainly find ourselves in a quandary.

We can act now on poor data or we can wait until we have good data and make a decision. If the alarmists are correct it will be too late. (It may already be too late.)

My biggest problem is the alarmists keep distorting data (such as trying to suppress the MWP, doctoring the IPCC’s reports to push worst case scenarios) so it is hard to trust them.

Should we do what untrustworthy alarmists tell us?

Perhaps they are lying to us for our own good. This is possible but it doesn’t sit right with me.[/quote]

Your right, Earth should always rely on Cockburn and Crichton and the 6 guys on swindle. Even if they are factually wrong, admitting to distorting data, or making up data and or conflating existing data and are just dead wrong on several matters or lying about their credentials—despite that We ALL as a globe should trust them.

Why should we trust scientists anyway, what with their sciencey agendas and all.

[Ren]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.

I was going to ask what the fuck Venus has to do with earth? I mean, the abundance of life, plants that absorb CO2 and the dozens of other similarities it has with Earth make it a great example…

…of CO2 warming a globe. I know.[/quote]

Bullshit.

Fact: Venus has more carbon dioxide than earth buy a factor of, wait for it, wait for it, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND (170 000).

Fact: Venus’ atmosphere is nearly PURE CO2. Earth’s atmosphere? 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition about 1% water vapor.

Fact: Earth has plants that convert CO2 to oxygen, Venus? Not so much.

I see the point you are trying to make 10meters. But at the end of the day all it gives us is an example of the very extreme end of the spectrum of CO2 effects.

There you go people, this is how you dissect a weak-ass argument. Please note that I am not against protecting the environment. In fact I think that more effort needs to be made but the assholes over-hyping global warming are taking the focus to something that we really have very little understanding of.

There is no need to rush to reduce things like CO2 emissions when there are other more poisonous gases that are getting pumped into the atmosphere.

You will find that people like myself and Zap agree that being more energy efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels should be our goals. But we still need a few years to finalize the products for wind, solar, and water turbine energy. Solar energy is literally becoming cheaper and more efficient by the month, give it 5 years and it will be exponentially cheaper and more efficient than it is now.

This has been an interesting conversation, let’s keep it going.

[100meters]

[quote]Ren wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.

I was going to ask what the fuck Venus has to do with earth? I mean, the abundance of life, plants that absorb CO2 and the dozens of other similarities it has with Earth make it a great example…

…of CO2 warming a globe. I know.

Bullshit.

Fact: Venus has more carbon dioxide than earth buy a factor of, wait for it, wait for it, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND (170 000).

Fact: Venus’ atmosphere is nearly PURE CO2. Earth’s atmosphere? 78% nitrogen, (normally inert except upon electrolysis by lightning[1] and in certain biochemical processes of nitrogen fixation), 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition about 1% water vapor.

Fact: Earth has plants that convert CO2 to oxygen, Venus? Not so much.

I see the point you are trying to make 10meters. But at the end of the day all it gives us is an example of the very extreme end of the spectrum of CO2 effects.

There you go people, this is how you dissect a weak-ass argument. Please note that I am not against protecting the environment. In fact I think that more effort needs to be made but the assholes over-hyping global warming are taking the focus to something that we really have very little understanding of.

There is no need to rush to reduce things like CO2 emissions when there are other more poisonous gases that are getting pumped into the atmosphere.

You will find that people like myself and Zap agree that being more energy efficient, less reliant on fossil fuels should be our goals. But we still need a few years to finalize the products for wind, solar, and water turbine energy. Solar energy is literally becoming cheaper and more efficient by the month, give it 5 years and it will be exponentially cheaper and more efficient than it is now.

This has been an interesting conversation, let’s keep it going.[/quote]

“there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.”

was the argument…Venus was my factual response to that falsehood. Note: I didn’t say earth and venus were the same–which you accurately(yet needlessly) debunked.

[Ren]

[quote]100meters wrote:
“there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.”

was the argument…Venus was my factual response to that falsehood. Note: I didn’t say earth and venus were the same–which you accurately(yet needlessly) debunked.[/quote]

I’ll be sure to be deadly accurate and next time use the phrase “there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming on
Earth”

Despite the fact that Venus has no bearing on the argument at hand.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
lucasa wrote:
100meters wrote:
Ren wrote:
there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.

Err…there is. It’s called Venus.

Yeah, the fact that it’s 1/3 of the way closer to the sun has nothing to do with it. The fact that it’s albedo is nearly twice that of earth has nothing to do with it. You might as well have said matches emit CO2 and heat things up so CO2 causes global warming.

The only reason Mars’ CO2 concentrations aren’t higher than Venus’ (95.7% vs. 96.5%) is because it’s fucking frozen you moron.

I’m responding to this:
“there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming”.

(seriously he said that)

And of course Mars has nothing to do with it, I said Venus. Mars’ atmosphere is how thick? And albedo is reflectivity. The temperature err, uh, would be uhmmm colder without the atmosphere, instead its “hotter” than mercury. So you see “moron” seems ironic.[/quote]

Funny you bring up Mars because it has been undergoing global warming without any man-made CO2.

[EdwinBoyette]

I keep seeing the phrase " the majority of scientists."

Do you have some statistical data showing the number and type of scientists who believe that man made carbon emissions are causings the earth to warm?

[100meters]

[quote]Ren wrote:
100meters wrote:
“there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming.”

was the argument…Venus was my factual response to that falsehood. Note: I didn’t say earth and venus were the same–which you accurately(yet needlessly) debunked.

I’ll be sure to be deadly accurate and next time use the phrase “there is no proof rising CO2 levels cause global warming on
Earth”

Despite the fact that Venus has no bearing on the argument at hand. [/quote]

1.ok
2.unless someone says"there is no proof…"