The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[wanton dwarf]

No, no and no.

I am not going to spend another few hours giving you information from papers published over the last 200 years for you to come back with remarks that do not reflect what I have posted. I disagree with your contentions, and you disagree with mine. So be it.

I could have said exactly the same in response to your first post.

All you've done is come back with the same Climate Propaganda that's been put out for decades .. the very first link you gave doesnt even mention water. Even if in your mind Water is not the dominant climate element .. it should exist as a major one at the very least. Yet it doesnt even exist.

All the elements mentioned only warm .. they don't cool and they don't explain how the system works. In fact you cannot explain climate without using water .. so why is it missing in your data ?

I'd also point out there are other elements which do cool such as silica which gets into the atmosphere from dust storms in deserts and volcanos - sulphur is another one. Again this data doesn't exist in your first example.

It's okay to just parrot information as if that is "Science" but science is about being able to repeat the same experiments and get the same results .. case in point the Climate Models of the past few decades have been proven wrong. The current excuse for this disparity has been the Oceans are a "Heat sink" ..

I'll continue reading your post when I have time but from what I've seen I'm not impressed - I don't even rate that first example as being scientific at all. It's just propaganda, I think it even says it's an "aid" to inform the public.

I had a look at the video at #1549 .. I'll give you a clear example of how bad this video is.

It mentions if radiation from the Sun increased you would expect increases in temperature in all layers of the atmosphere.

It then gives an example of how the Suns energy travels through the atmosphere, hits the ground and gets reflected as long wave infrared raidation - which then gets absorbed by CO2 and reflected again predominantly heating the lower atmosphere.

Fine.

So that Climate Change example of CO2 already wipes his own previous argument about the sun being hotter. The majority of the suns radiation passes through the atmosphere not getting absorbed at any level .. otherwise it wouldn't hit the Earth and get altered to long wave radiation and being reflected as in his later example.

Therefore an increase in the suns radiation would create a massively disproportionate increase in long wave radiation - because most of the suns energy gets absorbed at the Earth - which would predominantly heat the lower atmosphere because of CO2 (Using his words).

So there physically cannot be equal heating of the different levels of the atmosphere anyway .. as he himself points out.

Of course this is not totally correct either because Water vapour is 100x a better climate absorption gas than CO2. In the case of clouds a significant absorbtion occurs well above the planets surface. You can feel this on your face as a cloud passes infront of the sun.

Further, the sun is a fusion engine which continuously makes denser elements. As different elements are used by the sun as fuel different energy levels of radiation are emitted - this is why Astonomers know the age and makeup of stars and also planets orbiting them - spectral analysis of wavelengths each wavelength being a different colour and representative of the material that emitted that wavelength etc. This can be seen quite clearly from absorbtion bands by the various elements .. for example CO2 absorbs longwave infrared radiation. The same occurs within the same element as it is heated, hotter gives off one colour, cooler another. This is literally the energy levels of the atoms. Therefore as the sun fuses elements into heavier elements the very wavelength of energy hitting the Earth would change in colour and wavelength and therefore the rate of absorbtion by each element on the Earth would vary and each element is obviously at different levels in the atmosphereas well as on the sruface of the Earth and Oceans.

In other words the Colour of the sun means different materials are affected differently on the Earth.

I think that's pretty clear .. that example is pure jibberish. The first time he explains energy is absorbed equally from the sun at every level and then immediately changes his mind .. actually most is absorbed at the surface. Garbage.

 

[Old McDonald]

This graph doesn't mention water at all.

I'm sure there are other factors .. but it makes no sense to have water missing from any climate data.

All you've done is come back with the same Climate Propaganda that's been put out for decades .. the very first link you gave doesnt even mention water.

Since your two latest post are somewhat repetitive I will endeavour to follow them conjointly in the order in which you posted. I have quoted from both posts at the same time so far as reasonable in order to not repeat your repetitions. As I earlier posted, I am not again going to spend a few hours dealing with your posts, but it will not take me too long to deal with these, and it needs no research or checking other than watching wilber’s video post again.

I included the link as part of my explanation to you that CO2e is not a “trap”. Again you have quoted a post which tells you that, as well as ignoring that the index is intended to only show the change in these GHGs since 1979, and nothing more.

Of course it does not mention water. It is a short piece about the long-lived GHGs, and the AGGI; showing the climate warming influence of these GHGs. This, by definition, excludes everything except these GHGs.

“Because we seek an index that is accurate, only direct forcing from these gases has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included. Other spatially heterogeneous, short-lived, climate forcing agents, such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone, have uncertain global magnitudes and also are not included here to maintain accuracy.” NOAA

I have not come out with any climate propaganda. There is nothing propagandist in anything I have posted. I have produced actual records and scientifically researched and accepted information throughout the thread.

Yet water is the most significant factor in Climate bar none.

Even if in your mind Water is not the dominant climate element .. it should exist as a major one at the very least. Yet it doesnt even exist.

It matters not what is in my mind (or yours) about water. It is the effect which water has on global warming that matters, and that effect is small. Despite your protestations to the contrary.

You are acting in the same manner as banjo. Continuing to repeat your belief without providing a single piece of evidence to support it. Show us some research which gives the proof that water is a major forcer of rising temperatures.

I would emphasise the point too that what I have posted throughout the thread is the results of the work of others and which has been accepted over a very long period of time as being correct. If I have posted a personal opinion that might be misconstrued as settled science I have said so.

You then go on to chose to include water when it suites your case, for example Ice and melting. You can't have it both ways. Either the data should be in the graphs and examples or not. Not a mish mash of when it suites.

You also fail to acknowledge that Water has at least 3 states on the Earth. Soild, Liquid and Gas. There is of course a fourth which is clouds which is sort-of a mix of Liquid and Gas.

I included water in its various forms as and when appropriate to respond to your own earlier post. I believe I addressed it in sufficient detail and length as to supply a full response. I suspect you are trying to imply something, but I do not understand what it is. I gave a balanced response with the conclusion that wv has an overall slight warming effect. This appeared to me to be the point you were making – that wv raises temperatures. The reflection from snow, ice and some/parts of clouds has a cooling effect, but not sufficient to overcome the overall slight warming. If you read my post properly you will see that I did address all forms. You say so yourself in the first of the two immediately above quotes.

CO2 for the most part never turns into a Liquid nor a Solid. Therefore it never changes density enough to either raise nor fall through the atmosphere and therefore provides no cooling. It's pretty much static. In this sentance alone you should realise that CO2 is not dominant at all .. because if it was there would be runaway heating in the atmosphere already - because CO2 doesn't cool.

There is no logic in what you have posted. My understanding is thatCO2 readily mixes throughout the atmosphere. You have though, made statements that support the general consensus when you say that CO2 “provides no cooling” and “because CO2 doesn’t cool”.

How is it static? Again you are like banjo, making claims without any evidence. He has told us on several occasions that it is a heavy gas so it sinks and moves into the sea. Your notion of it being static suggests that it hangs about in “clumps”. At least banjo allows it to slither into the sea.

Dominance (although an incorrect expression in this context) is totally immaterial. I am sure you can think of a great number of situations where a lot of harm can be done by something that is not dominant. Fighting between animals is an easily given example. Weed seed contamination in an otherwise clean grain crop is another. One rotten potato in a sack in storage etc. etc.

The effect of doubling the level of CO2 would result in a few degrees added to our present global temperatures. There is no suggestion of “runaway heating” other than a reference in my post to it being a future theoretical possibility. The effects of increasing levels of CO2e GHGs under present and foreseeable future conditions would result in a continuing rise of temperature, but I would not expect it to create a Venus type scenario anytime soon.

I will have a read on what you have posted but I think already I've proved you wrong .. and I think you partially admit it when you talk about the reflection properties of Ice/Snow and melting.

You have not proved anything, nor did I set out to prove anything myself, I only provided information to show that there is no evidence water is a significant force in rising temperatures. I do not know which part of my post it is which you claim to have proved wrong. Here again you admit to me having discussed the different forms of water, despite your previous claim that I failed to acknowledge those states.

As I say CO2 can't be dominant simply because it heats the atmosphere only .. as you admit all the other gases do as well .. therefore Water and natural radiation are cooling and dominating all the other heating gases .. sorry but there's the facts.

If the bolded statement was correct we would have the reverse of “runaway heating” and be an ice planet. At least we would on the basis of your previous statement about dominance.

Have you missed the whole point that without an atmosphere the planet would have an average temperature way below the present? That average would include extremely hot maximums and extremely cold minimums.

All the elements mentioned only warm .. they don't cool and they don't explain how the system works. In fact you cannot explain climate without using water .. so why is it missing in your data ?

I'd also point out there are other elements which do cool such as silica which gets into the atmosphere from dust storms in deserts and volcanos - sulphur is another one. Again this data doesn't exist in your first example.

See again my response to what the AGGI is. You keep repeating that it should show other things. If it did, it would not be the AGGI would it?

It's okay to just parrot information as if that is "Science" but science is about being able to repeat the same experiments and get the same results .. case in point the Climate Models of the past few decades have been proven wrong.

Rather an odd statement to make in your position.

As posted above you have failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to support your claim that wv is a forcing factor in global warming. Conversely, I have given - in a parrot style if you wish to put it that way, information from a timeframe of 200 years of frequently repeated research which produced the same results and that is that global CO2 increases cause global temperature increases. I have asked you before, but do so again, are you disputing the findings of all these people? If so you absolutely must provide evidence to support your claim that wv is an important driver of global warming. If you are not disputing their work, then you must stop making the claim.

Climate models are, I agree, conjecture. No doubt based on the best information available to those giving a prognosis of the future temperatures of the planet, but conjecture nevertheless. As far as I am concerned they are at best interesting reading.

I'll continue reading your post when I have time but from what I've seen I'm not impressed - I don't even rate that first example as being scientific at all. It's just propaganda, I think it even says it's an "aid" to inform the public.

See yet again what the first link is about. Why are you not impressed? Did you expect me to post the equivalent of a PhD thesis along the lines of “Why the claims of those who propose water vapour as a major forcing gas in the increase of surface and near surface temperatures of the earth in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries cannot be taken seriously due to the works of scientists for almost exactly two hundred years which have consistently shown that a minor increase in the gases known as CO2e are the main forces driving the increase in temperatures and there is no work which does show water vapour as a major forcing gas”.

Do you dispute the figures in the index? Why is it propaganda? It is simply a recording of the atmospheric levels of several gases and is indeed supposed to be used as a means of helping non-scientists understand the rôle of these GHGs. What is your problem with that information being available in a form that “the man in the street” can understand?

I had a look at the video at #1549 .. I'll give you a clear example of how bad this video is.

It mentions if radiation from the Sun increased you would expect increases in temperature in all layers of the atmosphere.

It then gives an example of how the Suns energy travels through the atmosphere, hits the ground and gets reflected as long wave infrared raidation - which then gets absorbed by CO2 and reflected again predominantly heating the lower atmosphere.

Fine.

So that Climate Change example of CO2 already wipes his own previous argument about the sun being hotter. The majority of the suns radiation passes through the atmosphere not getting absorbed at any level .. otherwise it wouldn't hit the Earth and get altered to long wave radiation and being reflected as in his later example.

You have mixed up the order in which the video was presented. You have also failed to hear so many things the presenter said, and invented so many things he did not say, that I am not surprised you think it is a bad video. It would rank with those of banjo if your claims were correct.

No, he does not say the radiation is absorbed by CO2. He says that which is not reflected is absorbed by land and water. He says it is re-emitted as heat, which escapes to space; with some held in by the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.

No, he does not say the sun is hotter. In fact he makes the point that solar activity has reduced in the last 50 years. @banjo seems to agree with this from what he has posted about us being in a cooling phase. My memory of past readings is that it has been more or less constant – “the solar constant has been very constant” is a phrase I recall.

Therefore an increase in the suns radiation would create a massively disproportionate increase in long wave radiation - because most of the suns energy gets absorbed at the Earth - which would predominantly heat the lower atmosphere because of CO2 (Using his words).

So there physically cannot be equal heating of the different levels of the atmosphere anyway .. as he himself points out.

No, your last sentence is a misinterpretation of what was presented.

No, he did not point that out. He said there is not, not cannot.

Of course this is not totally correct either because Water vapour is 100x a better climate absorption gas than CO2. In the case of clouds a significant absorbtion occurs well above the planets surface. You can feel this on your face as a cloud passes infront of the sun.

Please explain how and why wv is 100 times better than CO2 at absorbing “climate”. You can feel less direct heat from the sun if you hold up a piece of paper between your face and the sun

Further, the sun is a fusion engine which continuously makes denser elements. As different elements are used by the sun as fuel different energy levels of radiation are emitted - this is why Astonomers know the age and makeup of stars and also planets orbiting them - spectral analysis of wavelengths each wavelength being a different colour and representative of the material that emitted that wavelength etc. This can be seen quite clearly from absorbtion bands by the various elements .. for example CO2 absorbs longwave infrared radiation. The same occurs within the same element as it is heated, hotter gives off one colour, cooler another. This is literally the energy levels of the atoms. Therefore as the sun fuses elements into heavier elements the very wavelength of energy hitting the Earth would change in colour and wavelength and therefore the rate of absorbtion by each element on the Earth would vary and each element is obviously at different levels in the atmosphereas well as on the sruface of the Earth and Oceans.

In other words the Colour of the sun means different materials are affected differently on the Earth.

I think that's pretty clear .. that example is pure jibberish. The first time he explains energy is absorbed equally from the sun at every level and then immediately changes his mind .. actually most is absorbed at the surface.

This part of your post is most certainly not “pretty clear” it is instead extremely obfuscated.

No argument with the bolded piece. My son’s career has so far revolved to a considerable extent around this, and he has published papers and given talks at conferences with reference to that very subject. If I needed to know anything about that sort of thing I would ask him. It is a very complicated subject that also involves many other things including emission by various gases, including emissions by CO2, and far too complicated to discuss on this forum.

Having said that, in what way does your first paragraph explain anything about the recent decades’ global warming situation? I accept there will be extremely long term effects, including that the sun will eventually cease to exist, but what you posted adds nothing to the current debate.

No, yet again, the presenter does not say what you attribute to him. So he cannot change his mind can he? As pointed out above, he does say that the radiation which is not reflected is absorbed by the land and oceans.

Garbage

Is your final word a reference to your own post? It certainly fits your numerous inventions of what the video presenter said. As you posted...sorry but there’s the facts.

 

[Farmer Roy]

Change is scary though - unless you accept that change is vital

Would be interesting to know how many even on this thread are reducing their footprint and reliance to help create a future for our species - who talks the talk, and who actually walks the walk to reduce inputs, machine hours, travel, cultivation, bare soil or herbicided monocultures - I can tell a few of us do from the posts I have read.

Who actually comsiders themself as an educator, an environmentalist among us?

Who is creating and promoting new ways for future farming operations, this issue is not about scoring points but acceptance that people need to change what they do - and helping guide those changes through leadership and our deeds and our voices and our votes?

Who?

err, plenty of examples in North America & Australia of farmer educators & environmentalists, almost to the point of an acceptance of change & a willingness to look for new ways is becoming mainstream. Certainly, most thinking here is lead by established, commercial broadacre farmers, not sandal wearing hippies or out of touch politicians & remote academics . . . They cant keep up with the farmers on the ground

as I said, many examples of FARMER educators around the world, most of whom have really embraced social media in its forms to help spread their messages. The UK ? I don't know, doesn't seem to be much. Maybe the political, social, financial & climatic environments provide a bit more of a buffer to the harsh realities of life compared to the rest of the world ? Or maybe, after so many years, they just don't like thinking for themselves . . .

here is just one example, local to me http://www.theconsciousfarmer.com/climate-change-affecting-agriculture/

 

[banjo]

Just been listening to the blatant lying on the BBC bulls**t broadcasting corporation about arctic sea ice, what a crock of sh!t.
Had supposedly experts stating using measured data ( then let it slip that the measured data had then been modelled ) none of the data was correct and was made up, fact!
He started off by saying sea level was rising 6.2mm a year, then it slipped out that it was in fact 2.3mm a year ( 6.2mm was after modelling )
Sneaky twits trying to mix it up.
Then they didn't measure upto present day and stopped at 2013 ( funny how the drop started in the years following )
This is the correct measured raw data ( not modelled ) from their own measuring websites, nooa, NASA and others, don't listen to the propeganda on telly because it's all wrong

 

[wanton dwarf]

Long post ..

Let's start with your "experiment" about the atmosphere in your first reply where you say you tested an increase in gas volume and how slow they cooled. Trying to simulate an increase in atmosphere (BTW I dont think there has been any appreciable increase in atmospheric pressure).

CO2 = Carbon + 2 x Oxygen .. so in the atmosphere O2 existed before Carbon was burnt. Therefore the volume of gas is pretty much the same. There will be very little difference. For your experiment to be correct you need to increase the amount of CO2 as a ratio in one experiment and not the other.

For a 300ppm to 400ppm increase you are talking about a fraction of 5% of the atmosphere. So 3/4 to 4/4 that's 1/4 of 5% which changes from O2 to CO2. I doubt this increases volume to any real extent O2 has been removed and CO2 added - net effect is a change in the density of O2 to CO2.

For there to be more O2 in the atmopshere to allow an increase in atmospheric volume then water would require splitting into H2 and O. Then if you burnt those gases in Carbon you would get an increase in atmopshere volume.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-ice-sheet-million-years-earlier-thought.html

I included the Dailymail because this is the reason I decided to look at this thread today .. I knew about this at the same time I posted my previous thread but decided not to post it because I thought my previous post to be overwhelming enough ..

The previous Ice Age ended about 11,000 years ago. 30% of the Earth's surface was covered in Ice upto 1 Kilometre thick. Most of Europe was under an ice sheet. The sea level plummeted by up to 200 metres. Dust in the atmosphere from deserts was 20x thicker than today. The Earth's average temperature was 5 degrees cooler than today. Humans had to exist on the coast and were reduced to a few 1000s.

At this time CO2 was approximately 190 ppm whereas today it's about 400ppm. If the propaganda of "Climate Scientists" is true .. the Earth would NEVER have recovered. But the Earth did recover and has recovered multiple times from each Ice Age.

There is no logic in what you have posted. My understanding is thatCO2 readily mixes throughout the atmosphere. You have though, made statements that support the general consensus when you say that CO2 “provides no cooling” and “because CO2 doesn’t cool”.

No, he does not say the radiation is absorbed by CO2. He says that which is not reflected is absorbed by land and water. He says it is re-emitted as heat, which escapes to space; with some held in by the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.

If you don't already know Heat is radiation. an electromagnetic wave at a specfic energy level and wavelength. All elements absorb radiation. CO2 absobs and emits infrared radition which is lterally hot things. You see various energy levels in the colour of materials as they heat.

Okay first I suggest you go back, watch and understand the video you posted. What it says is that energy from the sun pretty much freely passes through the atmosphere. Strikes the Earth which warms up. This emits infrared radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by CO2 which then re-emits some energy back to the Earth. Therefore according to your video little energy gets absorbed by CO2 until the Earth acts like a mini sun - which is pretty much correct otherwise we'd be frozen. There are multiple reasons for this .. mostly because CO2 is not very dense compared to solids or liquids.

So let's debunk that one immediately. If you are under a cloud the sunlight gets absorbed by water vapour which you can feel on your skin. Everyone in the world can feel this .. therefore you assertion that water vapour has very little effect is wrong. The difference between being in sunlight and within the shade of a cloud is in the order of 10 degrees .. the same for cloud cover overnight.

Further if the ground has moisture upon it then it acts as a cooling agent. How do we know this ? What happens in ciites during a heat wave ? how do cities cool down ? They spray sidewallks, roads and even have fountains to reduce city based temperatures. In fact it is well known and publicised that cities on average have a temperature difference of at least 5 degrees. So again water has a major effect on ground temperatures.

CO2 does not change state therefore CO2 may heat up, it may rise at a few mph up the atmosphere and cool and then lower but relative to liquids and solids it is slow if not static.

Water evaporates limiting the heating of the Earth therefore reducing the amount of infrared radition emitted by the Earth .. that water vapour condenses into clouds further limiting the amount of energy that reaches the Earth. Energy which is absorbed by the clouds gets radiated as thermal energy higher up the atmosphere profile .. in some cases this is 10,000s of feet. Already that absorbtion has occurred above 10,000s of feet of CO2.

Because water is FAR more dense .. ie 1kg of water is 0.001 of a cubic metre. 1kg of CO2 is 0.5 of a cubic metre. Not only does it require far more surface area for CO2 to interface with hot materials as a gas .. water can actually be within a material such as soil or even rock.

As CO2 is a gas it moves relatively slowly, it's movement is not dominanted by gravity but by other gases adjacent to it. If they are rising then CO2 will rise. If they are falling then CO2 will fall. We all know wind speeds and we all know they are not purely vertical ? At least I hope so.

Rain, which is condensed and cooled water vapour will fall at a significant rate because it is dominated by Gravity. Ice the same. This is because water has at least 3 states as I mentioned.

Clouds, Rain and Ice has the further property to reflect sunlight .. therefore not all energy is even absorbed and therefore never gets converted to Infrared radiation and therefore CO2 cannot absorb that energy. A similar action occurs for seas, glaciers and of course snow.

You could attempt to justify that water vapour, rain and snow is a certain %age of the atmosphere .. but that would be a ridiculous argument because water vapour is not static. Billions of tonnes of water, as vaopur, clouds, rain and snow is constantly moving up and back down the atmospheric profile moving thermal temperatures with it. CO2 is pretty much static, it remains in the atmosphere and it's thermal profile is pretty much the same relating to its local position. Water does not have a static profile it is inherently mobile. Water does not act like CO2 in any form, action, profile, dynamic, thermally and timeframe.

Therefore you argument about water being insignificant or generalised in a general CO2 figure is ridiculous.

Show us some research which gives the proof that water is a major forcer of rising temperatures.

I gave a balanced response with the conclusion that wv has an overall slight warming effect. This appeared to me to be the point you were making – that wv raises temperatures. The reflection from snow, ice and some/parts of clouds has a cooling effect, but not sufficient to overcome the overall slight warming. If you read my post properly you will see that I did address all forms.

No I didn't say this.

I never said water is a major force in rising temperatures. What I said was water is the major climate gas in the atmosphere bar none. As I keep pointing out Water literally acts as a climate control system. CO2 will never be able to dominate the climate whilst significant amounts of water exists on the Earth - that's because water has at least 3 states on the Earth.

Given you say CO2 is the major force in rising world temperatures please explain how 11,000 years ago 190ppm of CO2 removed 1km of Ice over 30% of the Earths surface with average temperatures 5 degrees lower at that time ?

I'd also point out that rising temperatures are not a bad thing. We are coming out of an Ice Age where a significant amount of life including vegetation ceased to exist.

The "Science" you put forward constantly ignores not only the majority of Earths history, fails to included obvious climate actors like water (unless the shoe fits) and is observably wrong in the fact climate models simply are unscientific to extent they had to be adjusted by accepting the Sea was a heat sink. As I keep saying "Climate Science" takes some facts in isolation whilst ignoring others.

I'll make another example here: George Monbiot used a White Paper to state a massive amount of water usage by cows .. just so happened the "Scientist" used the rainfall in the Amazon as a basis for water consumption on an Amazonian beef farm. Monbiot being the good environmentalst dutifully failed to report those facts, he just reported the sensational mathmatical calculation - he wasn't factually incorrect because of maths but he was morally corrupt by using data which did not correspond to the reality.

You are acting in the same manner as banjo. Continuing to repeat your belief without providing a single piece of evidence to support it. Show us some research which gives the proof that water is a major forcer of rising temperatures.

Lets make this clear. If your science was correct the climate models would follow the real world closely .. they don't .. therefore they are not scientifically credible. I don't have to prove what climate science is .. they have to prove their science correct. Science is performed by anyone - even without qualifications - qualifications do not mean any paper is scientifically correct. Science stands on it's own credibility .. it's not a bit correct or a bit wrong, it's either correct or not.

Climate scientists don't have a moratorium on science .. they have made a fool of themselves repeatedly and they stand as not correct - to say otherwise is literally unscientific. They may produce papers in isolation about effects or properties, some parts may be correct but from what I have seen they exclude many items which don't fit their belief system. This is where politics has used propaganda.

I also don't accept the political ideology that todays climate should be static .. we are coming out of an Ice Age, therefore the Earth should be warmer and given the Earth warmed whilst in the worst Ice Age the Earth has ever seen to todays climate with CO2 levels far lower .. it's pretty obvious the Earth warms by the sun or some other cyclic agency.

CO2 is all about politics and you've provided examples especially in that ridiculous video which hide real facts - such as when CO2 was 190ppm the Earth was a living hell - and CO2 was not a major player in heating the climate which happened for over 11,000 years .. nor was mankind a player. Never mind the previous 4.5 Billion years.

How is it static? Again you are like banjo, making claims without any evidence. He has told us on several occasions that it is a heavy gas so it sinks and moves into the sea. Your notion of it being static suggests that it hangs about in “clumps”. At least banjo allows it to slither into the sea.

Gases are relatively static .. even when we get wind the movement is relatively slow. Pickup a rock and drop it. It accelerates at almost 10 metres a second. Falling liquids and solids (rain & ice) are only limited in their speed by friction of the atmosphere and that acceleration is downward - I think people falling in free air terminate about 250 mph. The same affect does not happen with CO2 because as I said it doesnt change state. Even when gases move they don't move straight up and down, they move sideways or in spiral patterns and CO2 as you rightly say is not a clump. Rain & Snow IS !!!!!!

You failure to understand concepts just shows you inability to even question the "Climate Science" or the willingness to follow a belief system.

I would emphasise the point too that what I have posted throughout the thread is the results of the work of others and which has been accepted over a very long period of time as being correct.

This is such a weak statement, unspecific and unverfied. What science ? The only science I have seen which is accepted is the absobtion patterns for materials, climate science is fixated on CO2 which isnt even in their own sources that strong a climate gas. All materials absorbs and emit energy not just CO2.

The effect of doubling the level of CO2 would result in a few degrees added to our present global temperatures. There is no suggestion of “runaway heating” other than a reference in my post to it being a future theoretical possibility. The effects of increasing levels of CO2e GHGs under present and foreseeable future conditions would result in a continuing rise of temperature, but I would not expect it to create a Venus type scenario anytime soon.

It's a common theme of scare mongering runaway heating which literally cannot scientifically happen whilst any material which boils and changes state exists on planet Earth. Until those elements have been boiled off the planet Venus cannot happen.

There are several points to be made here, firstly the Climate models are wrong. What temperatures they did state would occur by now have not occurred. In fact I think they are a degree out at least - until the latest propaganda attempted to "adjust" the figures because they forgot the sea was made up of water and acted like a heat sink .. am I getting through yet ? You see a gas cannot heat up a solid or a liquid fast nor does it absorb as much energy because it literally is not as dense.

I'll make a point here. 10,000s of "Climate Scientists" who have had £billions spent on them and cost everyone else £billions if not £trillions in taxes and jobs .. deliberately avoided the obvious and again to make it very clear - existing science. They only used the sea because they were forced to and even those figures were "adjusted".

You keep failing to account for facts and reality.

Despite CO2 increasing there has not been any increase in average temperatures to the extent climate models have stated .. to get the increase the existing figures have to be adjusted and then absorbtion into the sea accounted for as if this overrides the science of how climate works.

The temperatures are as they stand because the sea has manipulated temperatures for Billions of years not just the past 20 years you want to justify extreme claims .. it's ridiculous .. it's literally fake science to do so. If you want to make an adjustment then ALL temperatures quoted for Billions of years need to be adjusted .. which will just end up back where you started with your climate models being wrong again.

Climate Science = Catch 22 .. the answer is always that regardless of what happens Climate Scientists are right .. they aren't.

Having said that, in what way does your first paragraph explain anything about the recent decades’ global warming situation? I accept there will be extremely long term effects, including that the sun will eventually cease to exist, but what you posted adds nothing to the current debate.

My whole point is that CO2 is a minor climate gas. It is not the major dominant factor in climate. Climate science is not correct and has - even admitted by climate scientists - over exagerrated the effects of CO2 and temperature rise.

There is no debate IMHO .. most of it is propaganda paid for by governments to justify moving massive amounts of money into the 3rd world. It was tried even before Climate Change was used as a tax on the West but was found to be unworkable as people would not vote for losing their jobs .. now it's being forced through. Billionaires which include Al Gore and many others have made vast fortunes based on the misery created by "Climate Science".

I don't have to prove anything .. I'm not paid to prove anything .. but I did receive an education, I'm not thick and I like most farmers observe science around me not propaganda like Krebs for example.

See yet again what the first link is about. Why are you not impressed? Did you expect me to post the equivalent of a PhD thesis along the lines of “Why the claims of those who propose water vapour as a major forcing gas in the increase of surface and near surface temperatures of the earth in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries cannot be taken seriously due to the works of scientists for almost exactly two hundred years which have consistently shown that a minor increase in the gases known as CO2e are the main forces driving the increase in temperatures and there is no work which does show water vapour as a major forcing gas”.

As I stated before.

Science is about repeatable experiments which prove observable facts which any person can reproduce. Even on that simple test the climate models do not follow existing temperature readings without they are adjusted by "Climate Scientists" for unscientific arbitary reasons.

You make an assertion that 200 years of science has been proved when it has not.

You don't adjust temperature readings for the past 20 years just because it doesn't fit your theory and ignore 5 billions years of the Earth including a time when the Earth was practically an ice ball with CO2 at 190 ppm.

It's a scam which relies on the lack of interest in science by the majority.

I don't have time to go through everything you have said so far. But I have seen other research about water and even some which does state its the major factor in climate - I dont tend to keep links. I dont know if I will get time to read it. But I do read around the subject anyway. I will do my best to ignore this thread for a bit .. I have far too many problems to deal with but I hope I have cleared up my point of view.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Long post

I don't seem able to edit my previous post so I'll add it here:

Let's start with your "experiment" about the atmosphere in your first reply ..

Methane CH4 burnt in atmosphere gets CO2 + 2 times H2O or water .. that's a net loss of O2 to the atmosphere. Reducing the volume of the atmosphere not increasing it. Of course when the steam created by the burning falls as rain that will increase sea levels eventually.

 

[Farmer Roy]

If you're old, white and racist, you're more likely to be a climate change denier
Posted about 21 hours ago by Jack Webb in news

• 
  

              

Picture: Getty Images / SAUL LOEB / Contributor
Climate change deniers tend to be racist, white and old, according to a study.

Researchers found that American voters with some serious racial resentments were - and this might come as a shock to literally no one - far more likely to question an irrefutable truth like climate change.

Using information from American National Election Studies, researcher Salil Benegal at DePauw University found Republicans with high racial resentment scores were 84 per cent likely to dispute and argue with man-made climate change.

If being more inclined to racial resentment wasn't enough, research conducted by Pew found that climate change deniers tend to also be... Wait, can you guess? That's right, old and white.

People involved in the research were measured on how strongly they agreed with statements such as: 'If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites".

The data showed white Republicans with high scores for racial resentment were very likely to disagree with a statement that climate change was real opposed to white Republicans with lower scores.

Talking of the research, Benegal says:

I’m not trying to make a claim in the study that race is the single most important or necessarily a massive component of all environmental attitudes.

But it’s a significant thing that we should be looking out for.

The sad, crippling reality is that climate change is real and causes extraordinary damage to our planet.

Whether you do or don't believe in it, climate change is happening regardless and melting ice caps stand as a horrifying reminder.

The use of fossil fuels and other factors is causing untold and sometimes irreversible harm to our pale blue dot of a planet

 

[Farmer Roy]

11 images from Nasa that show climate change is real
Posted 10 months ago by Joe Vesey-Byrne in discover

              

Arctic sea ice in 1984 (L) and 2012 (R). Picture: Nasa


Nasa has released a gripping photo series documenting the state of flux planet Earth currently finds itself in.

The 'Images of Change' series shows the effects of climate change, urbanisation, and damage down by fires, floods, and other natural hazards.

Shrinking glaciers in New Zealand

12 January 1990, Southern Alps, New Zealand. (Picture: Nasa)

29 January 2017. The Mueller, Hooker, and Tasman Glaciers have all retreated since 1990. (Picture: Nasa)

Retreating Arctic ice

Summer sea ice in the Arctic, captured 1984. (Picture: Nasa)

2012. (Picture: Nasa)


Snow in the Sahara Desert

19 December 2016. In a rare ocurence for the Algerian community of Ain Sefra, snow fell for the first time since February 1979. Within a week it had melted on all but the mountain peaks. (Picture: Nasa)


Melting ice in Canada is changing the flow of rivers

3 August 2015. The melting of the Kaskawulsh Glacia in Yukon Territory, Ontario, has altered the ecosystem further downstream after just one year. (Picture: Nasa)

4 July 2016. The melting causes 'river piracy', when one stream's headwater is diverted into that of another. In Kaskawulsh it means the meltwater now flows east into the Alsek River and to the Pacific Ocean, rather than north into Kluane Lake and eventually the Bering Sea. (Picture: Nasa)


Ice avalanche in Tibet

June 24 2016. A glacier tongue collapses in Tibet's Aru mountain range, killing nine people in the village of Dungru. (Picture: Nasa)

17 July 2016. The ice avalanche, which took place in July, left debris as much as 30 metres thick across 10 square kilometres. (Picture: Nasa)

A glacier in South America is gaining ground

4 October 1986, Southern Patagonia Icefield, Chile. (Picture: Nasa)

22 October 2016. The Brüggen Glacier (also known as the Pio XI Glacier) had advanced 594 metres to the south and 351 to the north. (Picture: Nasa)
For the full series, visit Nasa's climate tracking series 'Images of Change'.

 

[Ashtree]

Just sayin ......

https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/20/climate-change-deniers-tend-old-white-racist-study-finds-7645670/

 

[Farmer Roy]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1295221623947761

 

[linga]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1295221623947761

ah yes but it only goes up to 2016 and as we have been told its been cooling since !!

 

[banjo]

The sun is the key, but in global warming measurements it's only 2% to blame

 

[banjo]

By the way thanks for calling me a white racist for having a differing opinion to you on the climate, that makes sence

 

[Farmer Roy]

 

[Dave645]

I don't seem able to edit my previous post so I'll add it here:

Let's start with your "experiment" about the atmosphere in your first reply ..

Methane CH4 burnt in atmosphere gets CO2 + 2 times H2O or water .. that's a net loss of O2 to the atmosphere. Reducing the volume of the atmosphere not increasing it. Of course when the steam created by the burning falls as rain that will increase sea levels eventually.

I cannot say I have read your long post fully , but I agree clouds block the suns heat from getting to the ground but not the suns heat entering the atmosphere, so it’s not clear to me if that effects positively or negatively any warming effects the sun has. And how you account for that in your mind.

Next burning anything in our atmosphere changes it’s compersition, so burning billions of gallons of fuel every year and massive volumes of gas is going to have an effect, including pollutants and other nasties,
So why not spend are hard earned money on stopping doing that, regardless if it will effect our climate possativly or negatively weather climate change is man made or not, you make pointless arguments that are nearly unprovable only with observation and time, mean while the move to renewable energy is having an effect, as is electric cars and other innovations, regardless to weather they will have any effect on what you believe is effecting our climate they are still positive changes, and can get more of the worlds population out of power poverty than traditional power ever could.
the old saying you can give a man a fish, he can feed his family for a day give him the means to catch fish he can feed them for life, give than man a gallon of fuel, or a solar panel which is the most sensible, which stands the better chance of stopping climate change.

regardless of your opinions their is a chance your wrong, their is a chance we are wrong and you are right, but their is also a chance we are right and you are wrong. Why gamble when we can lay off the bet by taking up renewables and electric cars. Which are getting Economically more viable every year. It will soon be more expensive to by a cheap petrol car than an electric one if you include running costs. The tech is maturing every year, it becomes a no brainier if you can charge them with solar,

So I find these arguments over climate change pointless you believe or you don’t. Time will give us the answer.....

But I don’t advise we sit on our hands until the writings on the wall is obvious to everyone even people who think it’s just natural.

what you should believe regardless, is in the benefits of renewable energy and electric cars, can have a massively positive effect on our environment and world far better than sticking with oil, and coal. As primary power forever. Just for the simple fact they will not last forever..... sure a long time but not forever, never mind the negative impact on the atmosphere of burning all of it. Especially with cars in our cities. Their is no long term down sides to using renewable power. But their are lots of positives.
Where fossil fuels have some positives these are being eroded by new tech,

 

[banjo]

a man is handed a pig by the government minister and told it is a cat, he's not happy so gives it back,
the man is then told he has to have the pig because his evidence shows it's a cat.
The man hands it back again and sais your evidence is incorrect because this is a pig and I know that for a fact and all past data proves it !
The man is then again forced to take the pig and told to shut up because he is not alowed to use his own judgment and measured evidence.
Man gives pig back again and sais the scientific evidence proves your wrong and I can prove it.
Government minister then sais no debate is alowed on this subject, you can only use my hand picked adjusted evidence and the argument is over take the pig !

 

[banjo]

Evidence that a cat is actually a pig !

 

[Dave645]

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

http://www.karstenhaustein.com/climate

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html

It’s always nicer to provide actual inks to the data.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[ollie989898]

Is this still going?

Read my lips- SOLAR ACTIVITY HAS MINIMAL BEARING ON THE CLIMATE.

 

[marco]

Is this still going?

Read my lips- SOLAR ACTIVITY HAS MINIMAL BEARING ON THE CLIMATE.

The sun has minimal bearing but a gas that is 0.04% of our atmosphere does. That's hard to believe.