Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[Exsubmariner]

Now, after the water is in the air, and it collects heat (because water collects a lot of heat because it is an IR absorber), wouldn't that water rise into the upper atmosphere and form clouds?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I think he is making the point that the most IMPORTANT greenhouse gas (H2O vapor) makes man-made CO2 look like a mosquito...... A fact the MCGW Cult chooses to ignore... They ignore the most important greenhouse gas and focus on man-made CO2 whose effects are miniscule compared to H2O vapor....

To paraphrase HDT, 'For every 100 men hacking at the tree-of-evil, only one has the wisdom to attack the roots.'

[Felix_Nietzsche]

<Sigh> You are not a school master and I am not your student.
Find someone else to play your game. Either state your point or find someone else to play these games with. In my first post attached to this thread I linked to my supporting evidence backing my point......it is no surprise to me that you are unable to refute my BRILLIANT LOGIC..... Good-Day...

Now I will leave this discussion and use my valuable time to look at half-naked women on the internet....

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

You all can argue all you want. All I know, is that I have been able to get a darker tan, every year since 2000, laying out in my backyard the same amount of time every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanning is a reaction of melanin in your skin to sunlight. Global warming should not increase this in the slightest.


[ QUOTE ]
Add to that, the fact that the Arctic Circle is smaller this year

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see a source for this one.

[Exsubmariner]

That water is a much more potent greenhouse gas is part of my point.

The other part of my point is that water has a sort of self regulating effect on the climate. A negative feedback into the whole equation. The oceans evaporate huge quantities of water which in turn form clouds. Cloud cover blocks the energy delivered to the earth on the order of 75 watts per square meter of cover. CO2 only increases energy retained per percent increase by something on the order of magnitude of three watts per meter. So, a warmer planet equals a wetter atmosphere which equals more clouds cancelling the effect.

But even more than that is the widely ignored fact that RAIN TAKES CO2 OUT OF THE AIR. A WARMER WETTER PLANET HAS MORE PRECIPITATION AND REMOVES THE CO2. CO2 was once 13% of the atmosphere. Now it is .04 %. Meaning there are more processes going on biologically and weather wise that remove CO2 than all the volcanos and chinese diesel electric and coal burning power plants can ever hope to put into the atmosphere.

Global Warming is bunk. It's a cult, like you say. It's based in a celtic religion going back to before Rome invaded Britain that believes the old way is better than civilization.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used the word scrutiny you replied with a post about denial and lying not mentioning the word scrutiny once. What else are people to think other than you make the conclusion that the scrutiny is an attempt to deny and lie. Just read what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, you are right. I should have been more clear. Still, as far as legit scrutiny goes who has entered the debate that wasn't going full steam in 2001? What scrutiny were you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

what I wrote originally that you responed too.

Just my perception could be wrong.

Apparently you don't think so, fine.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
....Now I will leave this discussion and use my valuable time to look at half-naked women on the internet....

[/ QUOTE ]

Not too much argument that this is a much better use of valuable time than continuing in this thread. You see there is no legitimate position other than that climate models are accurately predicting a future disaster for mankind. Be that as it may here's a link that claims that climate models could benefit from refinement:

Sandia Lab News

Meanwhile, Sandia has had a long-term presence in Point Barrow, Ala., working with researchers from many national labs, federal agencies, and universities to better understand high-latitude atmospheric phenomena and how those phenomena may impact or indicate trends in global climate change. The DOE Office of Science-sponsored work is generating data that are helping refine existing global climate models.

Do we need a more accurate date for when the impending disaster will occur? Is Sandia Labs yet another tool for the oil industry (I worked at Sandia for 9 years btw)?

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
The sun is NOT the cause of recent global warming.



[/ QUOTE ]

So it is not possible for the sun to be a partial cause of atmospheric warming because there is a recent downturn trend in the sun's output?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I used the word scrutiny you replied with a post about denial and lying not mentioning the word scrutiny once. What else are people to think other than you make the conclusion that the scrutiny is an attempt to deny and lie. Just read what you wrote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, you are right. I should have been more clear. Still, as far as legit scrutiny goes who has entered the debate that wasn't going full steam in 2001? What scrutiny were you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

what I wrote originally that you responed too.

Just my perception could be wrong.

Apparently you don't think so, fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think your perception is correct that the scrutiny has gone up by leaps an bounds. However, I think the only increase in scrutiny is the denial tactics. There really haven't been any new entries into the legitimate scrutiny arena. At least not that I'm aware of. All the major players that come even remotely close to legitimate scrutiny have been around for about a decade.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> You are not a school master and I am not your student.
Find someone else to play your game. Either state your point or find someone else to play these games with. In my first post attached to this thread I linked to my supporting evidence backing my point......it is no surprise to me that you are unable to refute my BRILLIANT LOGIC..... Good-Day...

Now I will leave this discussion and use my valuable time to look at half-naked women on the internet....

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. You are simply incapable of admitting anything that doesn't fit your ideology. All you had to do is type one number "1998" or one letter "A or B" to admit that 1998 was warmer on the global scale than 1934. Ironically you would write post after post claiming that it would "just be easier to state your point" than type one freaking letter A or B. You wrote more posts avoiding the answer than there are numerals in the year 1998. You wrote post after post claiming 1934 was the hottest year but didn't state that was for the US only. When specifically asked what was the hottest GLOBAL year you repeatedly refused to answer the question.

Your lack of integrity should be crystal clear to others.