Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Science does not predetermine it's outcome. How many times do you have to be told?

 

No one is suggesting that they have "gotten it wrong", what we're discussing is the context within which the information effects the conversation about AGW. As in, the effect of H2O directly influences as well as amplifies warming. As in, CO2 isn't the only influencer, or cause of atmospheric warming, or climate change. As has been concluded by the sources supplied. So, it isn't about what's wrong with the observation, just the communication that some have associated with it.

 

I've always wondered why, if the "science is settled" why additional research is still required....

 

What anybody "says" is not Science. Science is only what they can prove. And the only way to prove anything in Science is with Peer-reviewed scientific research.

You might not like peer-review but it is fundamental in Science. That's how the Scientific Method works. If you can tell us about some other way to discriminate between real Science an wishful thinking, let us know

We have been through this before and yet, other than pointing out that we have been through this before, you haven haven't been capable of producing that single one peer-reviewed study that undermines any of the basic precepts.

Here we have another example of how the right wing evades a simple test by sending a long pointless message. Very simple::. one peer-reviewed study is all I ask. Not 10, not 100 ... Not 2. Just one

 

Name calling AGAIN? I'd say from your nonsensical posts it is you who is the troll.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas...yes. And CO2 is also. The effect of water vapor is increased by an increase in CO2. Added heat (from CO2 Greenhouse effect) means more water vapor and more greenhouse effect.I believe the term is "positive feedback loop". It's not that complicated but you seem to not want to understand it. That's your problem.

Take it up with actual scientists of which you are not one.

 

This is one of those posts that I find most amusing. Amusing in that it really isn't favorable to the side of the argument the poster is on. First of all CO2 and H2O have nearly identical heat trapping capacities. If one agrees water vapor traps heat then one must accept that CO2 also traps heat. Secondly, some of those so-called scientists, that global-warming/science deniers rely on, use, as central to their argument, the cooling effect of clouds, it is one of those things that discredits them.

But then anyone living in the Northwest knows that when the clouds roll in a warm night is coming, and when the clouds move on, the night will be cool.

 

If the 'science is settled' the $$$$ spigot gets turned off.

 

WE THE PEOPLE

Are Speaking Truth to Power!
​

Americans are not surrendering to climate change and are not conceding global leadership to China in addressing it.

​

 

The first statement is saying WV has a feedback relationship with temperature. The second statement is saying WV is not a forcing mechanism for temperature. Let me make sure I understand your argument. You are saying that you don't know how WV behaves with respect to temperature except that WV is either 1) both a feedback AND a forcing mechanism with respect to temperature or 2) neither a feedback nor a forcing mechanism with respect to temperature. But, that it definitely is not 3) in a feedback ONLY with respect to temperature because #3 is BS? That's your argument right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I am saying that WV can't be both a sustained factor *and* a temporary factor. It has to be one or the other.

Once that is established then we can discuss its feedback relationship with temperature.

 

No, that's just baldly false. I have been proved absolutely right. Temperatures have been flat for nearly 20 years, as I predicted, and AGW screamers claimed was impossible but later admitted had happened. What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

No, you only have credibility among yourselves. Ordinary people can look around them and see that your absurd, apocalyptic predictions have all failed to materialize.

I was proved right. Even AGW nonscientists admitted it: "It's a travesty that we can't account for [the hiatus]." Remember?

No, I have merely observed that all the temperature data that purport to show significant global warming over the last 19 years have first been "adjusted," "smoothed," "weighted," "averaged," "reconciled," "corrected," etc.

So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your mind, there have never been any conspiracies, because if anyone says there is a conspiracy, then they are just "invoking conspiracy theories to explain the failure of their cult's dogma." Sorry, champ, but that is the fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

And the notion that common sense facts that everyone can see with their own eyes are a "cult's dogma" is just, well, terminological inexactitude.

LOL!! It is grotesque to claim that identifying common sense facts constitutes a "religion" or is "fraudulent."

 

Rick Perry explained the Paris deal to the reporters today like this.

Paris caused Obama to blow a billion dollars on Paris deal. He never explained who got the cash, but it is no longer in the USA.
Paris was an empty promise. And we are now out of the empty promise business. Thanks to Trump.

I would love to update on the findings of Dr. Richard Muller of Cal Berkeley. Branded a skeptic by the alarmist cult, he decided to assemble an expert team to find out what is going on.

His expert team actually examined every last bit of evidence.

They found the following.
1. Earth has warmed 0.64 degree during 50 years.
2. Humans played a role in this.
3. After a complete study, he is on record as saying humans caused 100 percent of this.
4. Further he blames China and India and says since we do not control either, we are out of luck.

We had a role in the past. China and India and others will be in charge of the future. We are actually declining in CO2 output so we are on the correct path.

Let me explain it in his graph.

 

So you agree that I was right and you were wrong. That is an auspicious start.

It's a natural recovery from an extreme natural event.

No, because the long-term secular warming trend may have ceased in 1998. It also may resume in 10-15 years. We don't understand climate -- especially the sun, whose influence on climate AGW screamers ignore -- well enough to say.

I would say it is a typical recovery from a strong El Nino event that AGW screamers have incorrectly claimed was long-term warming caused by CO2.

The earth was warming in the ~150y following the LIA, especially in the periods roughly from 1910-1940 and 1970-1998, which also occurred during a multi-millennium high in solar activity. It was also warming for nearly two years during the recent El Nino, but has now returned to the post-1998 normal temperature range, where I predict it will remain for the next ~10y.

 

And their CO2 isn't even the problem. China and India together produce a pall of darkened, brownish air (CO2 is invisible) that moves east over the Pacific with the prevailing winds, and can be seen clearly from space, reducing the earth's albedo. AGW screamers of course just ignore this, because it is not advanced Western countries producing it.

 

The source is UAH. As you know perfectly well.

 

Gotcha. So what's being described is that as temperatures go up the amount of WV that gets suspended in air also goes up. That increase is sustained because the new equilibrium level is also higher and stays higher because the temperature is higher and stays higher. The short time period being discussed is the lifespan of an H2O molecule in the air. Because the residence time of WV is so short there isn't enough time for it force the temperature (either positively or negatively) long term. The average lifespan of WV in the atmosphere is very short; on the order of days. CO2 has residence times on the order of decades and centuries. So "sustained" and "short time" are phrases used in that article that are talking about two different things.

WV is in a limited feedback with temperature that causes it to increase/decrease when temperature increases/decreases and which in turn causes the temperature to increase/decrease further until a new equilibrium is achieved at which point the feedback stops. But, WV all by itself can not force a change in the temperature which limits its feedback behavior.

Contrast this with CO2 which is both a feedback and forcing mechanism for the temperature. So CO2 causes temperatures to increase while more CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere which in turn causes the temperature to increase further and on and on.

This is why WV results in the greenhouse effect, but CO2 results in a runaway greenhouse effect. In other words, WV does not have the concept of a tipping point whereas CO2 does. Although it is hotly debated by climate scientists it is believed we are very close to the CO2 concentration tipping point. Some think we've already reached the tipping point.

 

Wrong. Peer review is a system that has only evolved in the last few centuries. It is good, and quite effective in most fields; but it is not identical to science, which proceeded without it for thousands of years. Peer review has also had some distinct failures, such as in economics, where the neoclassical school has produced a miasma of meaningless, unempirical garbage reminiscent of nothing so much as medieval scholasticism. Peer review has also given us the deconstructionists and post-modernists, who were so conclusively refuted and humiliated by Sokal. No one who is familiar with the progress of science could claim that peer review is an infallible guarantee of scientific validity. When Newton submitted "Principia Mathematica" -- by far the most important scientific work in history -- to his peers for publication, they rejected it in favor of a treatise on South American fish.

 

If your argument is that the UAH data shows that the Earth has cooled somewhat over the last 12 months then yes I wholeheartedly agree! Just keep in mind that this dataset is only representing atmospheric temperatures and not ocean temperatures and that it happens to be a dataset that shows one of the least amounts of warming. Do you want to put all of your eggs in this one basket?

I agree with you here too!

This is where we part ways. If the long term secular warming trend ceased in 1998 then why did it continue to get warmer? Let's say our warming "pauses" for a period of years and then rises rapidly again. Will you then repeat the same argument after the new record?

Fair enough. It's a prediction that is falsifiable. I can respect that. But, even if it does pause again for the next 10 years that doesn't mean the secular warming trend has ceased. We've had a 100+ year secular warming period. I don't think 10 years is enough to call an end to that. Just curious...how long of a pause do you think is necessary to call an end to global warming?

 

True. Which is why AGW screamer models that ALL assume absurdly exaggerated WV feedback will never produce accurate temperature predictions.

Temperature increases CO2 much more than CO2 increases temperature.

No, that's just objectively false. CO2 has been orders of magnitude greater in the past, and temperature just hit a ceiling. WV is the probable mechanism.

In incorrect theories that assume CO2 caused higher temps rather than vice versa.

No one who knows any climate science believes in the existence of a CO2 tipping point. The paleo record flat-out forbids it.

Absurd.

It's just evidence. There's more, but I don't think there is any point in belaboring it.

It didn't.

Maybe, depending on the period's length, because it might just confirm that CO2 is not the cause of the warming.

I agree, because we do not know what the sun is going to do. We only know that in the 20th century secular warming period it WAS the most active it has been in millennia.

I agree. But current temperatures are close to the typical interglacial maximums. Probably not much room left to the upside.

~50 years. On form, we're talking about century-to-millennium-scale fluctuations.

 

She has persuaded me it is entirely Australia's fault. They even are killing their native reefs.

 

"The average lifespan of WV in the atmosphere is very short; on the order of days. CO2 has residence times on the order of decades and centuries. So "sustained" and "short time" are phrases used in that article that are talking about two different things."

Now you are doing the same thing. The terms "sustained" and "short" were used about WV, not about CO2.

WV can't be sustained in the atmosphere while also being short lived.

If WV raises the temperature then how can it *not* be a forcing factor?

Think about what you just said. If WV is too short lived to affect the long term temperature then how does the long term temperature stay high when the WV concentration goes down after a short period? As I tried to point out earlier, if the WV blanket isn't there then the long wave radiation can escape past it and the earth would cool. And apparently the CO2 alone isn't enough of a "blanket" to maintain the temperature over the long term.

Now if the WV blanket *does* stay there to keep the Earth temperatures high over the long term then it can't be short-lived.

The other confusing issue here is the use of the terms "feedback" and "forcing function".

In electronics a forcing function is an input to the system. Feedback then determines what happens to the forcing function. It's not obvious how CO2 can be a forcing function. It has no energy of its own to force the system of earth to do anything. A forcing function would be like energy input from the sun "forcing" the system known as earth to react. How the system reacts is determined by the feedback in the system.

Here's another question also. Doesn't water vapor form clouds? I thought clouds reflected sunlight thus decreasing the forcing function made up of energy from the sun. This *should* cause the earth to cool. It's a form of negative feedback. So you would have less long wave radiation being released to warm the atmosphere.

Now, if the water vapor, including the clouds, prevent the escape of long wave radiation then the WV *has* to be there on a sustained basis or the long wave radiation will escape.

Bottom line? I just don't see the consistency in theory here. it seems like whatever is needed at the time is being said. If the climate models are based on the same kind of BS it's no wonder their results don't match reality!

 

Still flailing away, still can't deal with the fact all the AGW models ,predictions ,projections, and fairy tales don't match real world data and you don't institute public policy and laws affecting everyone on Earth on CRAP SCIENCE PAL- REVIEWED OR NOT !

 

Did you watch Easterbrooks and Ball's videos they explain the data and answer every conceivable Question!








h

https://youtu.be/dIvLEwGS-70

 

Did you watch Easterbrooks and Ball's videos they explain the data and answer every conceivable Question!

 

And you cannot bypass truth which is that 190 countries signed the Paris agreement and when Trump pulled out even CEOs of companies like Exxon were saying it was a foolish thing to do. Like the fakery around tobacco not being harmful the industries have moved on and diversified. The Easterbrooks of this world are finding it harder to get sponsorship and they cannot publish in even crap on line journals like Energy and Science - not because it has gatekeeping but because thier theories are CRAP!!

If you are going to believe every blog on the internet you better look up the real killer - DHMO

It even causes increased temperature readings globally