A Skeptic's View

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
Obviously, you didn't ACTUALLY read the article ....
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
As usual FFI rises to the level of his own incompetence...

One; CO2 does indeed lose its ability as more of it is placed in the atmosphere. Its called a Logarithmic function of the gas.

Log CO2.JPG


Two; Solar wind and EME do indeed affect cloud formation and earths weather patterns as Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark works shown by empirically observed evidence.

Three; One area the article did not mention is that CO2 emissions are absorbed by low altitude water vapor and are released at or above cloud boundary to space making the slowing of the energy escape near surface a moot point. This is the reason no mid tropospheric hot spot exists and empirically falsifies the CAGW meme by being absent. No redundant loop of heat retention exits. Amplification does not occur. The hypothesis is falsified.

Fort Faun Idiot needs to read things before he pontificates his ignorance.
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Excellent Article....!!! He is dead center of target and has his facts straight...
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
Obviously, you didn't ACTUALLY read the article ....
Read the article. Not just a stupid article, but a fucking stupid article. Whomever wrote it had better go back to high school.

The increase in heat in the oceans and atmosphere is an observed phenomenon. As is the melting of the alpine glaciers and the continental ice caps. There is an observed and measured increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. One of the reasons that Greenland's ice cap is melting is that it is increasingly cloudy, and the clouds trap heat at night, so there is not the normal cool down at night as there was previously.

Again, a fucking stupid article, full of falsehoods and just plain idiocy.
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
Obviously, you didn't ACTUALLY read the article ....
Read the article. Not just a stupid article, but a fucking stupid article. Whomever wrote it had better go back to high school.

The increase in heat in the oceans and atmosphere is an observed phenomenon. As is the melting of the alpine glaciers and the continental ice caps. There is an observed and measured increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. One of the reasons that Greenland's ice cap is melting is that it is increasingly cloudy, and the clouds trap heat at night, so there is not the normal cool down at night as there was previously.

Again, a fucking stupid article, full of falsehoods and just plain idiocy.
As usual stuck on stupid.... Way to go.. Not one fact do you grasp.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
 
Quoted from an opinion piece in the Colorado Springs Gazette, January 10, 2018 - GUEST COLUMN: Skeptics have reasons to question man-made warming

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn't so clearcut, here's a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease, or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is "increase." After all, CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being "trapped."

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.'s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The panel explains that CO2 follows a "logarithmic dependence," which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the panel recognizes that the middle of this band is "saturated."

People who fret about man-made warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 loses "heat trapping" ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned panel admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear man-made warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question.are they right? The answer is "No."

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere - and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. To make its case, the panel theorizes that additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this "feedback loop" that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It's an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the panel admits that "an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation."

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The panel rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar "irradiance" (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun's output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind-which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the panel observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia "has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more." It's very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of man-made climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I think we must admit that the "science" is, at best, unsettled.

The real question is ---- how much are we willing to pay if the "science" is right, and how much are we willing to pay if it's wrong.
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.
Obviously, you didn't ACTUALLY read the article ....
Read the article. Not just a stupid article, but a fucking stupid article. Whomever wrote it had better go back to high school.

The increase in heat in the oceans and atmosphere is an observed phenomenon. As is the melting of the alpine glaciers and the continental ice caps. There is an observed and measured increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. One of the reasons that Greenland's ice cap is melting is that it is increasingly cloudy, and the clouds trap heat at night, so there is not the normal cool down at night as there was previously.

Again, a fucking stupid article, full of falsehoods and just plain idiocy.
Again, read the article --- read the FUCKING article.

It does not purport to deny global warming, but it DOES raise legitimate issues about the impact of man. Further, it demonstrates just exactly how nebulous the supposed "science" supporting the man-made assumption really is.

THAT is what makes it skepticism - it does not demonstrate blind faith, even in the light of contradictory evidence, in a supposed position.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
... and just what scientific facts do you consider DEMONSTRABLY false?

You did nothing more than attack the author.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
... and just what scientific facts do you consider DEMONSTRABLY false?

You did nothing more than attack the author.
Better go back and re-read the thread.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
... and just what scientific facts do you consider DEMONSTRABLY false?

You did nothing more than attack the author.
Better go back and re-read the thread.
I did ---- you didn't make any sense the first time.

I was hoping you actually had something tangible. Clearly, you don't. Had you ACTUALLY read the article you would have noticed that he didn't try to discount the 'greenhouse effect'. In fact, he acknowledged it directly. He merely states that the scientific hypothesis, to which you so blindly cling, is not supported by the facts.

Facts are such an inconvenience, aren't they? Then again, it would appear you wouldn't recognize a fact if you stumbled over it.

You can leave now.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
... and just what scientific facts do you consider DEMONSTRABLY false?

You did nothing more than attack the author.
Better go back and re-read the thread.
I did ---- you didn't make any sense the first time.

I was hoping you actually had something tangible. Clearly, you don't. Had you ACTUALLY read the article you would have noticed that he didn't try to discount the 'greenhouse effect'. In fact, he acknowledged it directly. He merely states that the scientific hypothesis, to which you so blindly cling, is not supported by the facts.

Facts are such an inconvenience, aren't they? Then again, it would appear you wouldn't recognize a fact if you stumbled over it.

You can leave now.
Haha....is that going to be your presentation when you speak at the major scientific societies of the world? Sorrry idiot....you are an uneducated , ignorant slob who would get laughed out of a high school science course.
 
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.
... and just what scientific facts do you consider DEMONSTRABLY false?

You did nothing more than attack the author.
Better go back and re-read the thread.
I did ---- you didn't make any sense the first time.

I was hoping you actually had something tangible. Clearly, you don't. Had you ACTUALLY read the article you would have noticed that he didn't try to discount the 'greenhouse effect'. In fact, he acknowledged it directly. He merely states that the scientific hypothesis, to which you so blindly cling, is not supported by the facts.

Facts are such an inconvenience, aren't they? Then again, it would appear you wouldn't recognize a fact if you stumbled over it.

You can leave now.
Haha....is that going to be your presentation when you speak at the major scientific societies of the world? Sorrry idiot....you are an uneducated , ignorant slob who would get laughed out of a high school science course.
So, let's see ....

In order, you:

1) Post falsehoods and misinterpretations
2) When challenged, you attack the author
3) When asked for facts to support your position, lacking a scintilla of a cogent or coherent response, you attack me.

Go away --- your immaturity should embarrass you.Go back to the basement. Frankly, you're a waste of time. Let the adults discuss it.
 
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
LOL

Are you reading and brain impaired? Do you have cognitive thought problems too? He brought up simple observable FACTS that disprove your AGW BS..

And all you have is name calling..... You have lost any credibility and shown you are a partisan puppet.
 
Last edited:
Let's be clear:

The OP does not represent skepticism. Skepticism is an honest assessment of the facts, evidence, and arguments. A akeptic would not insist things are true which are demonstrably false and can be learned to be so by even the most cursory effort spent on research.

The OP is DENIAL and DOUBT, not skepticism. You guys insult skeptics and skepticism to call yourself skeptics.
Can't refute the facts ... attack the source.

Childish.
I already refuted the main ideas of the garbage article. Pay attention!

And I did not attack the source, I addressed the idea of calling this, "skepticism". I was clear as to why.

You refuted NOTHING...

You have shown no evidence of anything..

The only thing you have done is spout off talking points that are demonstrably lies...
 
‘The 97% climate consensus’ starts to crumble with 485 new papers in 2017 that question it

The wall is crumbling now with over 485 papers last year alone calling into question every premise of CAGW..

A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.

Its going to take a week or more to read through many of the more prominent papers but its going to be real interesting to get many of their points of view...
 
Who is the moron who wrote that article?

You see, even if a greenhouse gas starts to lose it's ability to store heat, the greenhouse effect continues. And the greenhouse effect isnt merely the action of heat beong stored, but also energy being reflected back to the surface. Oh, and, as it turns out, our oceans also store heat.

Stupid article that no scientist would even bother to debunk, unless it was an exercise in a class.

And the wait continues for a single piece of observed, measured data, made with an instrument at ambient temperature which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...no experiment supports this claim..it is entirely derived from an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...

Now feel free to run away, or engage in one logical fallacy or another...or call some names, or any combination thereof...we both know that you won't be slapping me down with actual data because none exists....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top