Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Turn the sun off. See what happens.

 

They can be if they are well founded.

So Newton's Principia Mathematica, the most important work in all of science, was not science???

ROTFLMAO!!

 

You are claiming that analysis of climatic conditions more than a few million years in the past is irrelevant because there were no people??!?

The quintessence of nonscience.

 

The global mean temperature anomaly went from about +0.5C in 1998 to +0.9C in 2016 so the Earth has warmed in the last 18 years. Also, the problems with the solar cycles are that the warming can't be adequately matched up with the cycles and that it doesn't explain the intensification of the vertical temperature gradient. Either way as we approach a Maunder Minimum the solar cycle argument should be refuted or confirmed in the not too distant future. I don't take issue with the argument that some CO2 increase could be net beneficial.

 

It's because the WV feedback is short lived. It stops within a couple of weeks of the initial temperature increase. The CO2 feedback doesn't stop...at least not for a really long time. I'm not sure how to communicate that in those feedback diagrams you have though. Is there some kind symbol or something that you could include to do that?

 

And to think you say this with such authority, with capital letters and everything. Of course, we both know that you can't back up it up.

 

I think we can all agree that doing that would certainly cause global cooling!

 

The global warming that scientists are talking about is not caused by solar radiation. If you notice, during the day, the greatest solar radiation occurs at noon, yet the hottest part of the day occurs around 4-5 pm. The reason is that radiation is not heat. Heat is the kinetic energy of particles. The heat is in the particles. CO2 has four times the heat capacities of most atmospheric gases. Thus it has four times as much motion, which also sets neighboring particles into motion. What we call global warming is in actuality, increasing retention of heat. Putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is equivalent to putting more blankets on one's self, to keep warmer at night.

 

In the past, before animals roamed the earth concentrations of CO2 were much higher than today, oxygen much less. It would have been impossible for humans to live in such an atmosphere.

 

I'm pretty sure our primate ancestors lived just fine with CO2 concentrations of several thousand ppm's and maybe you're not aware that our submarine crews live just fine with no adverse effects at CO2 levels of around 2000 ppm , 5x the atmospheric level . So your wrong !!!!

 

If the concentration of the WV is sustained then it is not short-lived. We had this discussion already. If the WV disappears there isn't enough CO2 to cause the warming by itself. Too much IR would escape into space.You *need* the WV to trap the heat. CO2 by itself won't do it!

That's why I need to know the feedback level for each of them, WV and CO2.

I'm not sure what you are looking for as far as a symbol. There are only so many feedback combinations available. I think I have covered them all unless you want me to show the WV feedback feeding into the CO2 feedback.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. *Something* caused that warming and it apparently wasn't man-made CO2. What's the other alternatives? Natural CO2? WV? Something else?

Here's a graph I found on the RSS site.


"Fig. 1. Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming. "

It *still shows that the climate models don't have it right. Even the lower bound of the climate models is diverging from the upper bound of the RSS data.

I would have to get the RSS data to run a mean on it to see if it is still a median change of zero from 1998 to 2015. It certainly appears to the eye, however, that the RSS is not showing much warming since 1998.

What is *really* funny is that CMIP-5 and RSS show pretty good tracking till 1998. It wasn't until 1998 that the two began to diverge. I have yet to find anyone that can explain that reasonably.

 

No. Never. You can fund them all you want. But the only knowledge that can be called "Science" is the one obtained following the Scientific Method.

There is a lot of Science in Principia. And there is a lot of Calculus, and there is a lot of Epistemology. That's why it was so important. It's, by far, the single book that most influenced how the world and society is today. It laid the foundation for what we now know as Science (which is usually referred to as "Modern Science") There were also errors. And Newton spent the rest of his life correcting them. After that, it was surprisingly accurate even though, for years, a small error here, another error there..... The last one wasn't discovered until the 1980s. More than 300 years after it was first published.

As one of the fathers of modern Science, Newton is, of course, dispensed with the requirements that Modern Science must comply with today.

But you, little man, are no Newton!

You either present real Science ... real peer-review... or you stay quiet in your little wingnut denialist corner and let the grown-ups handle the Science.

 

The only source of energy into the system known as Earth *is* from the sun. Your explanation of particles and heat are irrelevant. Without the energy input into the system known as Earth the system would would look like Saturn pretty darn quickly.

You missed the fact that the sun's radiation heats the earth, land and sea. That heat is then re-radiated as IR which is what the CO2 particles absorb. The fact that there is a time delay is meaningless to the energy in the system. It's still *in* the system.

And it is my understanding that if it weren't for the WV blocking the IR, the level of CO2 would not be enough to block all the IR. Much of the IR would escape into space and thus the earth would cool.

 

Here you are using another argumentative fallacy to try and bully people. Is that the *best* you got?

--------------------------------------
"Point 4: Scientific dogmatists increasingly play the “peer-review card” to silence scientific dissent.
Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, “peer-review” serves as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints. In scientific debates, we often hear sneers like “Does your criticism appear in a peer-reviewed journal?” before it will be taken seriously. It’s hypocritical when scientists push their views upon the public through non-peer reviewed venues like the media, but then try to shut down critics for responding in non-peer-reviewed venues."
-------------------------------------

 

Yep! Newton is the best I got!

I don't care what side of the debate you're on. You have to agree that comparing yourself to Newton as an excuse for not showing scientific evidence, the way that guy did, is the most ridiculous argument you will ever hope to hear.

And you know why that is? Because peer-review is the only way (if you know another... show) you can know how to tell the difference between real science and psudo-scientific wishful thinking..

Unless your name is Newton...

 

The amount of water vapor in the air only increases with temp

Essentially yea. Who gives a crap what the temp was a million years ago or what it will be a million years from now. That's just stupid

 

If you're tired of being lied to about Global Warming and are against the recent and future onerous proposed regulations and policies proposed by the EPA and Congress that will do nothing but raise fuel prices thereby raising consumer prices on everything for a non existent problem.
Call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them, the # is 1-202-224-3121

 

That's stupid. Water Vapor is not going to disappear as long as we have surface water . That was a false example from the beginning

 

Linky???

 

For those who claim that water vapor is or should be a forcing agent in warming I have one word for you

RAIN ....stupid.

CO2 does not leave the atmosphere other than by photsynthesis...and that;s a far slower process

 

Don't you know the climate is like underwear

It can change all by itself

 

I'm pretty sure our primate ancestors lived just fine with CO2 concentrations of several thousand ppm's and maybe you're not aware that our submarine crews live just fine with no adverse effects at CO2 levels of around 2000 ppm , 5x the atmospheric level . So your wrong !!!!

Daniel J. Hardt et al.

Inhalation Toxicology

Published online: 13 May 2015

The inhalation toxicity of submarine contaminants is of concern to ensure the health of men and women aboard submarines during operational deployments. Due to a lack of adequate prior studies, potential general, neurobehavioral, reproductive and developmental toxicity was evaluated in male and female rats exposed to mixtures of three critical submarine atmospheric components: carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2; levels elevated above ambient), and oxygen (O2; levels decreased below ambient). In a 14-day, 23 h/day, whole-body inhalation study of exposure to clean air (0.4 ppm CO, 0.1% CO2 and 20.6% O2), low-dose, mid-dose and high-dose gas mixtures (high dose of 88.4 ppm CO, 2.5% CO2 and 15.0% O2), no adverse effects on survival, body weight or histopathology were observed. Reproductive, developmental and neurobehavioral performance were evaluated after a 28-day exposure in similar atmospheres. No adverse effects on estrus phase, mating, gestation or parturition were observed. No developmental or functional deficits were observed in either exposed parents or offspring related to motor activity, exploratory behavior or higher-level cognitive functions (learning and memory). Only minimal effects were discovered in parent-offspring emotionality tests. While statistically significant increases in hematological parameters were observed in the offspring of exposed parents compared to controls, these parameters remained within normal clinical ranges for blood cells and components and were not considered adverse. In summary, subacute exposures to elevated concentrations of the submarine atmosphere gases did not affect the ability of rats to reproduce and did not appear to have any significant adverse health effects.

The above study showed 0.1% CO2 = 1000ppm & 2.5% =25000ppm with no adverse effects

https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5
Occupational and Epidemiologic Studies
In a review by Schulte (1964), exposure to CO2 at 30,000 ppm caused dyspnea at rest. Exposures at 20,000-30,000 ppm for several hours caused headaches on mild exertion, and the headaches at 30,000 ppm were more severe than those at 20,000 ppm (Schulte 1964). CNS depression developed after several hours of exposure at 50,000 ppm (Schulte 1964). A CO2exposure at 30,000 ppm for 8 days in a working submarine crew (unknown number of subjects) led to clinical observations of euphoria and troubled sleep on day 1 and poor attention, erratic behavior, confusion, and motor skill impairment on days 2-8 (Schaefer 1949a,b). Schaefer (1958, 1959, 1963) reported that some crewmen of a German submarine exposed to CO2 at 30,000-35,000 ppm in 15-17% oxygen during a 2-month underwater patrol in World War II suffered from impaired attentiveness. The authors did not consider confounding contaminants or the low oxygen concentrations aboard the submarines, and thus it is problematic to rely on these uncontrolled studies.

Note above study shows no adverse effects of CO2 untill 20,000 ppm

 

"It’s hypocritical when scientists push their views upon the public through non-peer reviewed venues like the media, but then try to shut down critics for responding in non-peer-reviewed venues."

You are a hypocrite of monumental proportions. Here you are, on a public forum, criticizing people for responding to you when you leave a message on a public forum.

Peer review this!



And explain why the divergence between the satellite record and the land/sea record since 1998!

 

So what's your point. Are you saying that WV trapping IR radiation can't increase the temperature?

Then why are the climate scientists so interested in it?

 

Wait a minute. You say in one post that WV never leaves the atmosphere and here you are saying that it does?

Which is it?