Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

Only to the religious AGW cartoon believers.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how many will post sheer and utter embarrassing tripe and then when proven wrong repost it a little later

Google before you post - check your facts in case you cause overt hilarity in those who actually have researched the subject

 

Great example of cartoon-thinking.[/QUOTE]

Because it has been shown that cartoons have a bigger impact on denialists than scientific reasoning - unfortunately


Truth is many do not understand and will not understand the process of peer review and so fall back on simplistic conspiracy theories

 

Deleted

 

Because it has been shown that cartoons have a bigger impact on denialists than scientific reasoning - unfortunately


Truth is many do not understand and will not understand the process of peer review and so fall back on simplistic conspiracy theories[/QUOTE]

Only with leftist, progressive AGW dogmatic believers.

 

This is exactly what I said. Why are you repeating what I said?

 

So you only find credible those scientists who agree with warming, but not those that present scientific facts which contradict?

So tear down this scientist in the video and refute what he is testifying to.

And you do not have to be a scientist to understand what the science says. Not if the scientist is a good communicator and one has a decent education and possesses a rational mind that utilizes basic logic and reason. You are falsely attempting to disqualify all but an elite group, and that one must be an expert in order to agree with the science. I find that rather funny and an attempt to use a tactic, which reeks of something, not constructive.

 

Perhaps it is you who has self limited, by not listening to the scientists who understand this stuff, and who have contrary voices in regards to the co2 issue. So this is not just disputed by the general public, which you were not even aware of. Not your fault for MSM blacks out scientists with contrary voices. This is a propaganda tactic. It is very suspect anytime this happens. For things are being hidden that contradict the official story. If the evidence was indisputable you would not have scores of credible scientists....disputing the conclusions supposedly back up by this evidence. Yet these men exist. LOL Science? Or humans and money corrupting science?

 

So you understand that CO2 is a "forcing agent" that drives up the greenhose effect of WV.

Glad you came around after all those pointless posts

 

I don't think it's doing much forcing at less than 0.04% of the Green House gases and at a level of 400 ppm when CO2 has been as much 4000 ppm in the past with no harmful warming ! What's your explanation for this phenomenon ? INCREASED CO2 LEVELS ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE PLANET, The planet has seen substantial greening with the higher CO2 levels. If CO2 drops below 150 ppm all plant life on earth will die. Much of it is struggling now at 400 ppm.

 

CO2 accounts for up to 20% of Warming...with jut that small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.So yes..."that small amount" matters.

What you "think" doesn't.

And whether or not there was more CO2 in the atmosphere at some point in the past when humans weren't alive yet matters even less

 

CO2 can't be a forcing agent. Those that call it that don't understand what a forcing function *is*. Forcing agents inject something into the system. CO2 can't inject anything.

CO2 is just another FEEDBACK MECHANISM.

 

So help us understand. If WV and CO2 are both just feedback mechanisms and cannot force a change in the temperature then what is causing the global mean temperature to increase?

 

Well, that right there deserves a citation. We'll wait.

 

The only thing that can. Solar irradiation.

 

They are *positive* feedback mechanisms. Positive feedback causes the output to grow!

Do you know anything about op amps? They have a negative input and a positive input. If the feedback loop connects to the negative input then it tends to reduce changes in the output. A feedback loop connected to the positive input tends to increase the output.



The forcing function is the input, i.e a single +. You can see what the feedback does to the output.

CO2 is not a forcing function. It injects no energy into the system.

WV has to be one of these, either neutral (.e. no feedback at all), positive, or negative.

CO2 has to be one of these, either neutral, positive, or negative.

The *forcing* function is the radiation injected into the system by the sun.

So, either WV causes warming or it doesn't. Either CO2 causes warming or it doesn't.

If WV actually traps heat as radiation from the sun is injected into the system then the temperatures should rise and the amount of WV should go up. And more sun will cause higher and higher temperatures. If the WV disappears quickly, thus eliminating itself as a positive feedback mechanism, *and* if it is the main component trapping the heat, then temps should go down quickly as the IR escapes into space.

You could have this arrangment:




But even if CO2 disappeared you would still have be left with the positive feedback of the WV.

What do I have wrong here?

 

BRILLIANT OBSERVATION, upside222.

BRILLIANT.

You are more worthy of a Nobel Prize than Al Gore, Barack Obama, or Yassar Arafat ever were.

 

If that were true then the upper atmosphere would be warming as well...and it's not

 

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

 

Something has caused the warming of the planet since the last ice age. I suspect WV has been at least some kind of a factor. Certainly man wasn't around to create a lot of CO2.

 

Why is it that CO2 causes the temperature increase and not the WV? Both would appear to be positive feedback mechanisms.

In fact it appears that the WV traps more heat than the CO2 from what I am reading. If CO2 was the only feedback mechanism it would be a pretty small positive one. If the amplification factor in each feedback mechanism were to be labelled in my picture what would each be?

Or, better yet, how about in this configuration?

 

As you probably know the Sun goes through 11 year cycles and we are presently in a period of decreased solar activity so that's probably why we haven;t seen any warming in the last 18 years. Once again I want reiterate that CO2 is beneficial for the planet and if it falls below 150 ppm all plant life will die, There is evidence some plants and trees are struggling at the present levels.