Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[Diogenes]

Dio, what is your point....

My point is that if the carbon dioxide theory were correct, we would all be dead. Water vapor does a better job than Carbon Dioxide at absorbing and re-radiating solar energy, and so if that were the only effect in play, those billions of tons of water vapor floating around should have turned the planet into an 800 degree hellhole like Venus.


That's if the C02 theory is correct. Obviously there is a mechanism in place that prevents a runaway greenhouse effect, and that mechanism is the increased reflection of energy at higher altitudes by that very same water vapor.


Water vapor goes from being a positive feedback device (above 32 F) to become a negative feedback device at higher temperatures.


Whatever the capacity of C02 to heat the atmosphere, water vapor is more than capable of countering it by increased reflection of solar radiation. Water vapor drives the system, and the influence of C02 is too trivial to have much of an impact.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is far surpassed by the greenhouse effect of Water Vapor, and the cooling capacity of Water Vapor reflectivity far surpasses the heating ability of CO2.

[Diogenes]

right... i don't think that climatologists failed to take into account the physics of water in their climate models!

I don't think they failed, I think they deliberately ignored it so they could make their models demonstrate warming.

[Diogenes]

The problem with the AGW proponents is have a complete disregard for scientific method.
There are multiple factors influencing the global temperatures:

1. Periodic variations in the output of the fusion reactor called Sun.


2. Variations in dust contend of the atmosphere and its impact on global albedo. Primarily due to industrialization of agriculture. Also known as Global Dimming.


3. Variation of solar radiation reaching Earth due to changes in dust content reaching Earth as the Sun travels around the Galaxy.


4. Variations in cloud formation and albedo changes due to changes in cosmic rays.



5. Greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere, primarily water.

There is probably some impact here but it has a strong negative loop feedback.


....



Their church told them AGW is real, all their priests told them and scientific method be damned.

It is time to stop the assault on science and the billions wasted to support this fallacy. If only a fraction of this wasteful spending was directed to real science like the fusion research, we would be living in a different world.

Hopefully this will change soon.

Thank you. This is what rational people who have looked into the issue have already learned. Not so much the drones who cannot think for themselves, but instead must follow the latest pied piper trend setters.



Their affinity for Popular Science has a lot more to do with "Popular" than Science.

[happyjack27]

I should add that we are not the first species to have a significant impact on biodiversity by way of climate change.

I'm trying to recall exactly, but there was this organism - I think a bacteria or something like that's, that made the air toxic an ended up killing off something like 90% of the species. It was responsible for one of the 6 mass extinction events in the history of the planet.

Not all that glorifying to know that our partner in crime is a lowly mono-cellular organism.

[happyjack27]

The problem with the AGW proponents is have a complete disregard for scientific method.
There are multiple factors influencing the global temperatures:

1. Periodic variations in the output of the fusion reactor called Sun.


2. Variations in dust contend of the atmosphere and its impact on global albedo. Primarily due to industrialization of agriculture. Also known as Global Dimming.


3. Variation of solar radiation reaching Earth due to changes in dust content reaching Earth as the Sun travels around the Galaxy.


4. Variations in cloud formation and albedo changes due to changes in cosmic rays.



5. Greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere, primarily water.

There is probably some impact here but it has a strong negative loop feedback.


....



Their church told them AGW is real, all their priests told them and scientific method be damned.

It is time to stop the assault on science and the billions wasted to support this fallacy. If only a fraction of this wasteful spending was directed to real science like the fusion research, we would be living in a different world.

Hopefully this will change soon.

Thank you. This is what rational people who have looked into the issue have already learned. Not so much the drones who cannot think for themselves, but instead must follow the latest pied piper trend setters.



Their affinity for Popular Science has a lot more to do with "Popular" than Science.

You are welcome to do your own research and submit it to peer review.

[Diogenes]

pbeter, scientists account for all of these things.

No they don't, and can you not think for yourself? You need to look up the fallacies of "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam", and "Argumentum ad Populum". You are falling victim to both of these means of misleading people.

[Diogenes]

The problems with your reasoning is that scientists already take into account everything you mentioned.

[Diogenes]

Of course the this prediction did not came to pass and theories that predict things that then don't happen are either false or likely false.
And that brings me to your next point that the lack of AGW falisifiability is " very asily disprovable"

If temperatures on Mars fluctuate the same way as on Earth and predictions of AGW scientists did not come to pass, and that does not falsify AGW, then how can one falsify it?

What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.

[Diogenes]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

It probably does not fit the narrative.

[happyjack27]

pbeter, scientists account for all of these things.

No they don't, and can you not think for yourself? You need to look up the fallacies of "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam", and "Argumentum ad Populum". You are falling victim to both of these means of misleading people.

Actually I'm just saying scientists already take therse things into account. You can look at the research yourself, it's publicly available.

Your statement "no they don't" is easily disproven by all the publicly available data and research in which they do.

(Speaking of falsifiability!)

[happyjack27]

On a side question, about two years ago they launch a satellite that could examine the full dayside or night side sphere and magically determine how much energy the earth absorbed and radiated back out into space on a day to day basis.
anyway I have not heard of any data from it. Has anyone?

It probably does not fit the narrative.

Diogenes, scroll back in the forum - he was refering to CERES and I posted a link to some of the things they learned from it. (Including a rather colorful graphic.)

[TDPerk]

Yes, the evidence that you have provided for that extraordinary conspiracy claim is overwhelming. And there is, of course, no evidence to the contrary.

Overall that seems like the simplest explanation (okham's razor) - a massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data, and the burden of proof for it is well met by the mountains of absolutely no proof.

That was sarcasm.

Are you trying to be ridiculous?!?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... -increase/

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/n ... e-a-farce/

I am not merely not trying to appear ridiculous, I am not.

You however, evidently are not aware enough of the facts to play even at this rudimentary level.

To reduce the the paroxysmal laughter floating at you, you could shut up and stop digging, or you could produce unimpeached evidence of global warming owing to magically powerful humans released CO2.

[TDPerk]

When I said "there is no debate", that included:
,,,
* whether or not humans are a significant contribution to these changes, to what extent, and to what end.

So, everything, from "is gas a thing?" to "are humans causing the climate to become hotter", is a thoroughly answered question, for which there is no debate.

Actually there is quite a lot of debate.

The planet is in fact at a stable temperature for the last twenty years, over which temperature the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has no discernible influence. There is no evidence of AGW except for fraudulently curated amendments made to the temperature record, or where a subtraction should be made, and amendment refrained from.

[happyjack27]

When I said "there is no debate", that included:
,,,
* whether or not humans are a significant contribution to these changes, to what extent, and to what end.

So, everything, from "is gas a thing?" to "are humans causing the climate to become hotter", is a thoroughly answered question, for which there is no debate.

Actually there is quite a lot of debate.

The planet is in fact at a stable temperature for the last twenty years, over which temperature the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has no discernible influence. There is no evidence of AGW except for fraudulently curated amendments made to the temperature record, or where a subtraction should be made, and amendment refrained from.

That was a very strongly opposed statement. Do you have any evidence to support it?

I invite you to gather evidence in support of your claim and submit it to a reputable peer reviewed journal.

[happyjack27]

Yes, the evidence that you have provided for that extraordinary conspiracy claim is overwhelming. And there is, of course, no evidence to the contrary.

Overall that seems like the simplest explanation (okham's razor) - a massive worldwide conspiracy to fabricate data, and the burden of proof for it is well met by the mountains of absolutely no proof.

That was sarcasm.

Are you trying to be ridiculous?!?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... -increase/

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/n ... e-a-farce/

I am not merely not trying to appear ridiculous, I am not.

You however, evidently are not aware enough of the facts to play even at this rudimentary level.

To reduce the the paroxysmal laughter floating at you, you could shut up and stop digging, or you could produce unimpeached evidence of global warming owing to magically powerful humans released CO2.

The evidence abounds.

It's just a matter of you acknowledging it.

Which is proving exceedingly unlikely, if not altogether impossible.