Koch funded climate skeptic declares global warming is real

[Max E.]

LOL, this is priceless, futurecurrents even eats his fellow progressives alive, all in a misguided effort to save the world from a non existent threat.

blah blah blah The earth's core? Really? I'm starting to think you are nuts. Using terms like "thermal flux" may impress the right wing dolts here but not me. Let me remind you that I have a degree in Env Sci.


The level of CO2 in the atmosphere controls the temperature of the earth all else being equal. And the increase of this by 40% has and will continue to raise the temperature of the earth. CO2 is the most important ghg because it is a long term driver of the water vapor feedback mechanism in addition to acting by itself to contain heat on the earth.

On this 97% of all the world's climatologists and virtually all the world's science organizations agree.

 

[futurecurrents]

so when co2 creates clouds... how do you know if it makes high clouds are low cooling clouds. (cloudy days are cooler).

until science learns what type of clouds co2 creates science has no idea if co2 would be warming or cooling.

 

[Lucrum]

Well I'll grant you this much: We always believe we have the facts on our side.

Raising the question, how does one really know for sure. Particularly with some of the more complicated issues. What with all the agenda driven lies myths and misinformation we're constantly bombarded with.

 

[jem]

I can see the troll needs some remedial work.

1. go look at the lacis study you and piezoe were speaking of....
you know the idea that co2 amplifies its effect by causing the creation clouds....

and then factor this is in... since you have trouble with teh real studies have presented, I will go to NASA kids.

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/nasa-research/

2. Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.

Summary...

so troll... you again see

1. that greenhouse gases can cause cooling in our atmosphere
2. we don't know if adding more clouds causes warming or cooling.

so therefore you have no idea if adding man made co2 causes cooling and neither does science.

 

[jem]

here is the paper on the topic of co2 adding clouds

FC, I have read that 2010 Lacis paper from Nasa.

Here is a another quote from it: "carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect.

(underlining is mine.) He is referring to Water here as accounting for the bulk of the "total terrestrial greenhouse effect."

You have read the Lacis statement you quoted, as you wanted to, ignoring all the while its true message. Specifically, you ignored this part of your own quote: "... the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect..." This is Lacis saying this! Not me!

Are far as I can tell, based on our current knowledge, it is simply wrong to go around saying CO2 is the dominate greenhouse gas. It isn't! What Lacis has said very clearly is that CO2 is a critical component in the overall temperature control mechanism and that it works in conjunction with water. But he has also made it clear, as have I, that water is the dominate greenhouse gas.

I'll summarize my opinion once more for you:

"I believe the critical error that the early investigators made, besides letting the issue be turned into a political football and becoming emotionally involved, was to look at CO2 on too short a time scale and not pay enough attention to changes in incident radiative flux plus thermal flux from the earth's core. They treated CO2, or at least the popular press did, as you would if it were the energy source, but of course it is not. This led to incorrect statements such as "CO2's main effect is to increase temperatures," when clearly that is only an incidental effect under specific conditions.

It is not incorrect to say: "CO2's effect is to increase temperatures," but such a statement can be too easily misinterpreted by non-scientists. Why? Because it is easy to jump to the conclusion that if CO2 goes up the temperature must go up as well. But we scientists know that is NOT true. CO2 can go up and temperature can go down, just not as much down as it would if there was not as much CO2! Furthermore such a simple minded statement doesn't mention any of CO2's other critically important effects! If you, however, insert the word "main" into that statement above, then the statement is incorrect! CO2 has more than one very important "effect"!!!

These silly arguments here on ET are what happens when a very complex mechanism gets distilled down into sound bites, as one might hear on CNN or read in USA today.

It is far better to put it this way; "One of CO2's effects, among several important other effects, is to help moderate temperature, in conjunction with water, by altering the rate of heat dissipation from the Earths surface."

It seems what I have written in this post more or less summarizes the entire problem with the current misunderstanding of CO2's role promulgated by the media and non-science climate enthusiasts.

 

[futurecurrents]

I can see the troll needs some remedial work.

1. go look at the lacis study you and piezoe were speaking of....
you know the idea that co2 amplifies its effect by causing the creation clouds....

and then factor this is in... since you have trouble with teh real studies have presented, I will go to NASA kids.

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/nasa-research/

2. Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.

Summary...

so troll... you again see

1. that greenhouse gases can cause cooling in our atmosphere
2. we don't know if adding more clouds causes warming or cooling.

so therefore you have no idea if adding man made co2 causes cooling and neither does science.

 

[jem]

exactly when faced with science fraudcurrrents would rather retreat back into the moron cave.

 

[gwb-trading]

exactly when faced with science fraudcurrrents would rather retreat back into the moron cave.

Where everyone is still smarter than he is.

 

[futurecurrents]

exactly when faced with science fraudcurrrents would rather retreat back into the moron cave.

No, you are the denialist fool who is saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, because that's what a greenhouse gas does. Warm. They don't call it a cooler gas. The very definition of GHGs is that they warm. So the burden of proof is on you to prove that somehow CO2 will somehow cool the planet.

If anything clouds may increase warming and water vapor certainly does. Fool,

.

 

[piezoe]

So, no need to control emissions of CO2?

How could one possibly conclude that from what I have posted. ??? Can we allow for those climatologists, meteorologists and atmosphere physicists who say, "I'm not sure." Let's do some more work and see what we can find out.