Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


those were brilliant points!
Man I wish those so called "scientists" were aware of this simple phenomenons.
I sincerely believe that is a shame that they claim to be specialists in their fields and did not think of the fact that water evaporation was responsible for a large part of Greenhouse gazes.
You should write in scientific reviews to open their eyes, maybe it could stop this hippie propaganda!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas yet they are a negative feedback? Do you realize that statement contradicts itself?

BTW, the cloud theory was put forth by Richard Lindzen. It is formally called "the iris effect". Even he claims that theory is wrong.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You wrote post after post claiming 1934 was the hottest year but didn't state that was for the US only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you bother to click on the link?
Did you bother to read JUST the title of the link?
Obviously you did NOT because it said it was US temperatures were affected by these changes. I guess reading comprehension is not your forte'. That is your problem.....not mine. Also the US temps are used to calculate global temps so these were affected as well. And of course after the fall of the USSR much of the Russian temp data was not taken due to closing of their weather stations.....so even more data was lost. Now the burden of proof is on the MCGW Cult to PROVE their temp data is accurate......which I doubt they can do...

[ QUOTE ]
Your lack of integrity should be crystal clear to others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh? Because I post a link that says UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) temperatures have to be revised. All you have to do was click the link and read the title. Sorry.....I'm not going to hold your hand and click the mouse for you. You have to make some effort....


[ QUOTE ]
My point is simple. You are simply incapable of admitting anything that doesn't fit your ideology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? I was thinking the same thing about you.
You are quite adept at engaging in ad hominem attacks with people that disagree with you.....It is a clear sign that you lack even a child's reasoning skill. After all, if you can't refute them....attack them. Yes?
But lucky for you that your name is in <font color="green"> GREEN </font> so you can attack other posters freely without consequences. I would be much more impressed if you could present a logical and thoughtful argument rather than engage in ad hominem attacks......

Now.....I will go back to looking at half-naked women on the internet.
It is clear you are incapable of having a rational discussion with those with differing views....
To other posters may I suggest going to youtube and doing a search under 'booty dance'. I highly recommend it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[wacki]

I read both the link and your posts. Nowhere (previous to my last post) have I seen you make the distinction between US and global temps with regard to 1998 and 1934. You maintained this ambiguity despite multiple requests for clarification.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the US temps are used to calculate global temps so these were affected as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since you bring this up I can only assume you are trying to imply there were massive revisions. Would you mind showing a graph that illustrates the difference? Or at least tell us the magnitude of the change (in a distinct quantitative number plz) for global temps?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
oh really. Would you mind showing a graph that illustrates the difference? Or at least tell us the magnitude of the change on global temps?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why change the subject?
You made a false statement questioning my integrity and when I show that you are wrong....you change the subject. I think you need about 72 hours to cool off. You have demonstrated you can not keep your emotions in check and argue in a civil manner..... I think it would just be best to cut my losses with you and find someone who perfers to argue with logic as oppose to the adhominem attacks.

Besides to answer that question properly.....I will need the lost Russian temp data due to the lack of funds after the fall of the USSR. Just PM me this data...so I can entered it in my MS Excel spreadsheet....

PS
The title of my spreadsheet is Dr-Felix-Nietsche-PhD-Super-Duper-Most-Excellent-Climate-Model-Spreadsheet.xls

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Why change the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not change the subject. You made the assertion. I merely quoted you and asked for clarification and proof. Again, the answer is freely available on the web. Why is it that every time I quote you and ask for clarification/proof you repeatedly refuse to show your cards? In this thread alone you are zero for 3. All I'm doing is asking you to either clarify your statements or show evidence supporting your statements. It's not that hard.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
So water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas yet they are a negative feedback? Do you realize that statement contradicts itself?


[/ QUOTE ]

Rain takes CO2 out of the air. That is the negative feedback I am talking about.

Water does serve as an important regulation mechanism in the Earth's climate.

[Exsubmariner]

BTW, There's actually a documentary about this. I suggest you watch it.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[No you are correct. Right-wing neo-cons get more and desperate as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you are derailing...

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wrote out a massive reply answering this (it's not a simple yes/no answer), and then the power cut out. Bottom line is that higher temperature does indeed increase the total water content of air, which can increase cloud, but it depends a great deal on how different elements interact. But let's assume I agree that cloud cover increases overall, which is reasonable. As for your subsequent post:

[ QUOTE ]
So, a warmer planet equals a wetter atmosphere which equals more clouds cancelling the effect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dumb question:

1. Why was the earth once significantly hotter (many millions of years ago), if what you say is true?
2. How did we ever get out of ice ages if the cloud feedback cancels out any heating?

[ QUOTE ]
RAIN TAKES CO2 OUT OF THE AIR. A WARMER WETTER PLANET HAS MORE PRECIPITATION AND REMOVES THE CO2.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain this graph:

Monthly CO2 trends at the Hawaii weather station
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Ind...Print=true&amp;