Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming is a Scam
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 112 of 164 (672432)
09-08-2012 12:36 AM


Here is a paper that confirms what I have said previously. Less lower level cloud cover is the cause of warmer temperatures. Global cloud cover as decreased by an average of 1.56% from 1971 to 2009. Letting in 1.56% more sunlight is more than enough to cause the temperature increase seen during that period of time.
The paper can be found here:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/Full_Text_D1.pdf
After reading this I can just hear the AGW crowd already saying but that paper just confirms what we have said! ...."Global warming is causing the decrease in cloud cover". Actually, it doesn't. All it says is "it may cause" or "our models predict", "warming should cause". They never prove their case. They have the wagon pushing the horse when in reality, it is the horse pulling the wagon. The point is that this is strong evidence for low level cloud cover amount being a strong force in temperature increases.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2012 8:49 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 113 of 164 (672434)
09-08-2012 2:20 AM


Here is another example of how it is the Sun that is responsible for changes in climate. On mars, the changes in ice and dust accumulation is driven by changes in solar insolation according to the following article in icarus:
Redirecting

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2012 8:55 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2012 8:29 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 117 of 164 (677616)
10-31-2012 3:43 AM


Would someone with either a background in physics or chemistry please analyze the following paper; It makes the case that carbon dioxide has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect on the atmosphere.
Just a moment...

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 6:42 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 4:41 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 120 of 164 (677692)
10-31-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Taq
10-31-2012 4:41 PM


Not being reviewed in a professional journal nor being a climate scientist doesn't bother me at all when it comes to climate science. These people are so convinced that carbon dioxide is the culprit for recent warming and for all past warming that it is impossible for them to consider otherwise. Right now, the total greenhouse effect accounts for 57 degrees F of the earths temperature. The other sources of heat come from within the earth and from the sun. If you were to pull enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to where it was just 270 ppm, what would the temperature of the earth be. Once you give me that figure, can you tell me how you arrived at it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 4:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 9:10 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 11:11 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 160 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 12:01 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 122 of 164 (677701)
11-01-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
10-31-2012 9:10 PM


Any climate research that does not automatically jump on the carbon dioxide bandwagon or that only includes both positive and negative feedbacks and considers the influence of low level clouds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 9:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 11-01-2012 6:52 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 8:50 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 128 of 164 (677788)
11-01-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Taq
11-01-2012 11:11 AM


taq writes:
It shoud bother you as much as going to an unlicensed doctor who has never gone to medical school.
It doesn't because doctors who have gone to medical school are not pushing an agenda. Climate scientists who have graduated college, do have an agenda or already had their mind made up before they went to college, otherwise any paper they published that severely contradicted current CO2 dogma would be denied. Only climate scientists who have been in the field long before the carbon dioxide caused global warming scam took hold in the nineties actually disagree with the consensus and still hold onto their positions like lindzen from MIT and Roy Spencer from UAH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 11:11 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 1:39 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 11-02-2012 10:41 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 129 of 164 (677789)
11-01-2012 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
11-01-2012 8:50 AM


Why should I believe in anthropomorphic climate change? The only evidence for it is circumstantial. When there is another valid mechanism for the current warming trend and for past warming trends other than CO2, there is no reason for me to believe in AGW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 8:50 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 11-01-2012 12:44 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 12:49 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 2:21 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 5:07 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 138 of 164 (677828)
11-01-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
11-01-2012 12:44 PM


Not only will we survive it; we will thrive in it. There will be greater food production and a greater diversity of new species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 11-01-2012 12:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 6:42 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 142 by jar, posted 11-01-2012 6:46 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 11-02-2012 11:09 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 140 of 164 (677830)
11-01-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2012 5:07 PM


Re: "Circumstantial"
What I mean is that nobody can point to the evidence and show that every warming period was preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide. They also cannot show that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the result of warmer ocean temperatures. Until someone can show there are no periods of increased carbon dioxide that are not accompanied by an increase in temperatures, all evidence is merely circumstantial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 5:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2012 7:02 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 147 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 7:10 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 11-02-2012 11:15 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 141 of 164 (677831)
11-01-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Theodoric
11-01-2012 6:42 PM


Why would billions of people necessarily die? Plants thrive on CO2. More carbon dioxide, more plants, more plants, more food.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 6:42 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 7:11 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 152 by hooah212002, posted 11-01-2012 8:16 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 143 of 164 (677833)
11-01-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Taq
11-01-2012 12:49 PM


No, I don't. It temporarily absorbs long wave radiation then re -releases it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 12:49 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by NoNukes, posted 11-01-2012 10:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 158 by Taq, posted 11-02-2012 11:21 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 144 of 164 (677834)
11-01-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
11-01-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Thrive???????
All plants need CO2 to live. That is my evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 11-01-2012 6:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 11-01-2012 7:07 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 149 by jar, posted 11-01-2012 7:15 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2012 7:24 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 153 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2012 8:22 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024