22 Dec 2014, 10:38 pm
wittgenstein wrote:
Inventor wrote:
wittgenstein wrote:
AntDog wrote:
Yes Human-Caused Global Warming is a huge lie. The climate is going through it's multi-century cycles.
So who is behind this giant conspiracy that invoves EVERY scientific organization in the world? Bigfoot? Elvis? The Masons?
So NASA, the American meteorological Society, The Royal Academy, NOAA... are all controlled by Satan?
I'm sorry, your post is a joke.
....................
Actually, cycles do occur and that is more evidence of AGW. If it were not for man’s influence we would be getting cooler. However, as ALL the data shows we are getting warmer.
“Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)? The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle.”
FROM
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/enviro ... ural-cycle
CO2 has increased since before 1750, when few were burning coal, oil was far in the future, but the population was growing, and more land was being plowed more often. The only way for CO2 to leave the system is being taken up by plants that then die, and feed the Carbon Based soil lifeforms, and remain trapped until they form Carbonates. The plow is what blocked this part of the Carbon Cycle. Greenhouse gasses match the rise of industrial farming, and the curve does not change when later times use huge amounts of fossil-fuel.
I agree with the result, but not the cause. Now that it is warming, cubic miles of water have become vapor in the air, over hundreds of years, and stopping warming would release it as rain or snow. As is, water vapor holds the heat, it is the big greenhouse gas.
We have two problems, one is restoring the Carbon Cycle, the second is the runaway results of our Science. Its a hard rain gonna be a fallin.
“New Study Confirms Water Vapor as Global Warming Amplifier”
“Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.”
FROM
http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/ ... -amplifier
Yes, CO2 causes more water vapor which amplifies global warming. In other words, more CO2 released, more global warming.
Congress has exempted any discussion of farming and grazing from global warming. If they want funding, science will too. Both farming and grazing cause evaporation, warming of the surface, which causes more evaporation, no CO2 needed. Warming releases Methane from natural sources, a more potent greenhouse gas.
The warmest recent period was before the last ice age, no industrial CO2 involved. There was more water vapor in the air, but drought conditions pervailed. I have seen no measure of increased cloud cover rising with global warming. Nor any measure of cloud cover reducing global warming. Clouds are low events, the highest reach ten miles.
When a meteor hit Maruitania, blew a mile wide crater, kicked dust and ash up over a hundred miles, there was a sudden cooling, and water vapor in the air fell as forty-five miles of snow over the next few thousand years. No humans were involved, the energy exchange was vast, and the method is beyond our understanding, and ability to affect.
The white robed priests of science cannot make it rain, stop rain, or even predict rain.
Nothing has been proposed to deal with global warming, other than to blame CO2. Stop all production today, the problem continues. 98% of Climate Science believes it is a real science, and needs more funding.
23 Dec 2014, 9:45 am
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 2:05 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 2:22 pm
23 Dec 2014, 2:29 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 2:34 pm
23 Dec 2014, 2:35 pm
23 Dec 2014, 2:37 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 2:44 pm
“There was more water vapor in the air, but drought conditions pervailed. I have seen no measure of increased cloud cover rising with global warming. Nor any measure of cloud cover reducing global warming. Clouds are low events, the highest reach ten miles.”
Inventor
That confuses you?
23 Dec 2014, 3:03 pm
wittgenstein wrote:
“There was more water vapor in the air, but drought conditions pervailed. I have seen no measure of increased cloud cover rising with global warming. Nor any measure of cloud cover reducing global warming. Clouds are low events, the highest reach ten miles.”
Inventor
That confuses you?
Inventor
That confuses you?
In a forum where the norm is for quotes to be set apart in areas as a result of using quote tags and where the writer has run everything together, it can be confusing to deduce that something is intended as a quote.
Even in the days before the Internet, paragraph or larger sized quotes appearing in text would normally appear to be indented to make it clear to the reader that they were separate.
In your case, the text was all jumbled together only the quote marks around the text quoted. Perhaps if you had skipped lines before the quoted part and after the name quoted, then it would have been clear.
So don't try to blame your lack of clarity on anyone reading what you wrote. You are responsible for your own clarity, not others.
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 3:05 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 3:09 pm
eric76 wrote:
wittgenstein wrote:
“There was more water vapor in the air, but drought conditions pervailed. I have seen no measure of increased cloud cover rising with global warming. Nor any measure of cloud cover reducing global warming. Clouds are low events, the highest reach ten miles.”
Inventor
That confuses you?
Inventor
That confuses you?
In a forum where the norm is for quotes to be set apart in areas as a result of using quote tags and where the writer has run everything together, it can be confusing to deduce that something is intended as a quote.
Even in the days before the Internet, paragraph or larger sized quotes appearing in text would normally appear to be indented to make it clear to the reader that they were separate.
In your case, the text was all jumbled together only the quote marks around the text quoted. Perhaps if you had skipped lines before the quoted part and after the name quoted, then it would have been clear.
So don't try to blame your lack of clarity on anyone reading what you wrote. You are responsible for your own clarity, not others.
YAWN. You must be really desperate. To concentrate on something so anal?! Anyway, I am sure most people can tell that a quote is between quote signs (" ") and that the author of the quote is given below the quote on a single line.
23 Dec 2014, 3:26 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 4:23 pm
23 Dec 2014, 4:27 pm
wittgenstein
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull
23 Dec 2014, 4:34 pm
