Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[piasabird]

If you put a lot of moisture in the air, you just get more snow in winter. Zip, Bang, Boom. More snow on the ground lowers the temperature of the earth. So what I am supposing is that if you melt too much ice, it causes more clouds, clouds block the sun and rain cools down the earth. Eventually, you get more and more ice and cloler temps.

My guess is as the water heats up to a certain point, it creates a rain and snow cycle and constantly overcast skys. It is impossible to heat up the atmosphere past this saturation point.

So the next time you get a heavy rain and overcast sky what do you think happens? Hint: You see this all the time. Clouds form, the sky turns dark, and you see a marked lowering of temperatures. Just imagine that everywhere.

 

[Throckmorton]

You have that backward, piasabird. Warmer air holds more water vapor. Clouds are condensed water, not vapor.

 

[Throckmorton]

right becuase plants don't breathe co2. If we had a higher level of oxygen content humans would grow to larger sizes.Why the dinosuars were so big.

More dinosaurs isn't so good for the animals that dinosaurs eat now is it?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Time to decrease the level of mud throwing and increase the level of information.



This documentary is about man made global warming by the use of CO2 (only ?). I am dissappointed at David Attenborough to let himself be used for this scam.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#docid=2408951936415169196

This documentary is about the evidence against the hypothesis where global warming is caused by human industrial activity.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

This documentary explains about the how the ipcc is a purely political organ.
Every international organ is purely political and has as such always an agenda. If that agenda favours you or not, depends on the agenda.

The first 37 minutes is explaining about the effect the sun has.
From 37 minutes on, the obvious political issues become apparent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#docid=-5576670191369613647


One perspective i find interesting is that the whole Co2 scam is an political agenda where the developing countries are forced to slow down development.
Another perspective is that it is more easy to control people when there is a common enemy.

Have you people noticed that sinds the economic crisis, there will be an increase in coal electric power plants and that CO2 scrubbers or any other forms of filtering are optional in a large part of the EU and in the Netherlands in particular ? How a lot of green electricity in reality is produced in coal plants in other countries ?

Another example : People in the Netherlands are encouraged to separate the waste. Paper separate, bottles separate, biological waste separate all for the good cause of the environment. But for example in the city Amsterdam in the Netherlands, the separated paper and biological waste are burned together with the other waste to generate electricity.
The policy makers claim that this is more efficient. Because now only 2 percent of the material remains ?
Laws like the law of conserving energy are new to politicians it seems.
Where did that other 98 percent go ? In the air perhaps when burning while leaving filtering optional ?
Only a fraction is used for the heat, where the heat is used to produce steam, to produce electricity.
And that is only the case when electricity is produced...
It shows once again the level of intelligence of the average politician.

Now once again i must make clear that there is a real problem : man made global pollution. Humanity is perfectly able to make closed cycle systems where every byproduct is captured and controlled only to be used for something else.
It is my opinion however that the only problem is that this phrase "man made global pollution" is not very popular and especially not popular for the IPCC because of conflict of interests. And all those anti global ,anti USA, anti industrial hippies (and anti work but want it all) protestants need something to be angry at as well. And for them there is a new common enemy : CO2.


When it comes to the effect of the sun :
Here is an idea what big means in the context of stars and planets.

EDIT:
Forgot to mention one thing, all the investments for example in the Netherlands and the EU have greatly been reduced when it comes to pollutant free electricity production since the economic crisis that has been caused by the greed and the mortgage scams of the USA banks(mortgage bundle swindle was started by Goldham Sachs). When there was political debate over what to build : Gas ,coal or nuclear electricity power plants. Coal and gas where favoured. And in the same agreement, it was clearly stated that filtering of CO2 or other pollutants was optional. Not mandatory.
Now is that not strange ? So much environmental taxes for the people, but this just is ok ?
Are there such examples present in the USA as well ?
I would like to know.

 

[Throckmorton]

William, I can't watch your videos but I can tell you that the sun hasn't gotten brighter over the past 100 years to go along with the warming. But greenhouse gas concentration has increased to go along with the warming.

Common sense tells you that if there is a factor that causes warming, and that factor increases while none of the others do, that is the cause of warming.

I'm going to post an analogy again. You are standing outside in the cold. You put on a coat and you feel warmer. Do you then say "The sun just got brighter, that's why I'm warmer, it couldn't possibly be because of the coat"??? No, because that is asinine!!!

Burning of paper and biological waste doesn't add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They are made of carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere recently by plants. If they weren't burned, they'd just decay at some point, putting the same or more greenhouse gas into the air.

 

[William Gaatjes]

William, I can't watch your videos but I can tell you that the sun hasn't gotten brighter over the past 100 years to go along with the warming. But greenhouse gas concentration has increased to go along with the warming.

Common sense tells you that if there is a factor that causes warming, and that factor increases while none of the others do, that is the cause of warming.

I'm going to post an analogy again. You are standing outside in the cold. You put on a coat and you feel warmer. Do you then say "The sun just got brighter, that's why I'm warmer, it couldn't possibly be because of the coat"??? No, because that is asinine!!!

Burning of paper and biological waste doesn't add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. They are made of carbon that was pulled out of the atmosphere recently by plants. If they weren't burned, they'd just decay at some point, putting the same or more greenhouse gas into the air.

There are so much influences. And only CO2 is used as the largest contributor. In the documentaries there are several explanations that are more probable. Again, i am against man made global pollution. But my concern is that this CO2 scam will make people weary and blind for the hurting effects humanity does have on this planet. Because if CO2 does not seem to be the global adversary as it is pointed out to be, science will loose it's credibility, when a real problem pops up.

This may be dated but it gives an example :
What i find amazing is that the ipcc mentions names of scientists that clearly do not want to be mentioned on the 2500 list only to be removed after threatening with legal action and law suits.
I know of the silencing and ignoring of scientists with very probable causes of global temperature variations. I know of the ridiculing those same scientists.
This only happens when money is involved.

Further more, when looking at overall data for thousands of years it seems that the climate gets colder and warmer periodically. It is not just the sun alone. The earth has a massive amount of seawater that acts like a flywheel causing a delay when it comes to temperature changes or activity of the sun. I agree with ModestGamer that precession has a large effect as well. The reason man made global co2 warming has lost it's credibility for me is because of the data that the people who try to give an explanation other then CO2 for global temperature change use data sets of 4 to 100 centuries ago by using a large dataset. Others use the same time line but other sources of data. Again other scientists use data that is over million years old.
All this from icecores from varies parts of the planet, sedimentary depositions
and rock formations. And tree rings.

The CO2 scientists used to have 100 years of data but that was shortly changed to the last 30 years... Now how can you honestly take that serious. How long does it take for the ocean's to adapt to temperature changes ? Maybe even the panama canal may have more influence then CO2 as has been produced so far. But i still agree with that CO2 releasing is not a good thing because there will become a point where all real pollution effects become clear. But when that happens, other polluting materials will already have done their dirty work. And that only because the human world is changing into a throwing away and burn away society. And that is just wrong.

Time for a good song for all those co2 ipcc proponents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaswrveqIwo&feature=related

 

[Throckmorton]

Everybody studying climate change takes into account the Milankovitch cycle. It's not the cause of warming.

The oceans have experienced most of the current warming, and they've also absorbed about half the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere. The result is that the ocean is like a rubber band storing CO2 and storing energy. That heat increase also reduces the CO2 capacity, which means at some point the CO2 stored in the water will be released like a stone from a slingshot and we'll experience the full effect of our atmospheric chemistry experiment.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It will be released when it has been cold for a long time. Not sooner. ^_^


I think when you take everything into account you will see that it has an effect.
I am not stating that the Milankovitch cycle is the sole cause. But is part of the equation.
As is CO2. But there is a lot more pumped then just CO2 into the atmosphere and that is conveniently forgotten. If everything is taken into account then the effect of CO2 will be less, meaning that more CO2 is needed. This does not mean we have a free pass to keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Because when we get a sudden vulcanic eruption on some places all that extra CO2 combined might just make a difference in a certain scenario. But what i worry more about is the biological balance. We live here by the grace of micro organisms that have a way of functioning that is beneficial to us and other multi cellular life. I fear that balance may be disturbed. What will happen i can only guess.

 

[Throckmorton]

What makes you say that?? And what reason do you have to believe the current warming trend will reverse?

 

[shira]

Good news for the doom and gloomers!
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrat...eleases/2010/pressRelease201007041/index.html

Max Planck Society Press Release - July 6, 2010

"Some earlier investigations at the ecosystem level resulted in threefold to fourfold accelerations, which would enhance the greenhouse effect. It was not possible to reconcile these data with global models and atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations and their seasonal variations, however. "We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies," says Miguel Mahecha, who played a crucial role in coordinating and evaluating the new measurements on ecosystem respiration. His colleague Markus Reichstein adds: "Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic."

“We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”

"The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global biogeochemichal cycles and their importance for long-term developments."

So, when scientists make statements that indicate that models need to be re-evaluated, those scientists are obviously highly credible. But when scientists make statements that indicate doom and gloom, then those scientists are obviously not credible.

And your criteria for determining which scientists are credible and which are not are?????

 

[William Gaatjes]

What makes you say that?? And what reason do you have to believe the current warming trend will reverse?

()

 

[shira]

What does MMCC mean ?

Besides, i do not believe in man made global warming either. I do think man made pollution is something to worry about and should be something that should be high on the international agenda. And with pollution i do not just mean that trace amount of CO2 but all the other pollutants as well.

But that is what you fundamental MMGW people never want to think about because it does not fit with your interests or limited thinking. You think in terms of biodegradable but that is just a load of crap as well. The MMGW fanatics are just as worse as MMGW deniers are. You both serve only your interests. Closed cycle systems are the way to go.

Those who believe in MMCC aren't fanatics. Their beliefs are backed by the cumulative research of 95+ % of climatologists.

Compare this with MMCC-deniers: Their beliefs are based on exactly nothing except their ideological need to reject anything that requires action by big government. There's virtually no science to back their views; thus, they have to cherry-pick papers to erect their conspiracy-based house of cards.

MMCC-believers put their faith in science. MMCC-deniers put their faith in conspiracy theories. And you think both sides are "just as worse"???

 

[chucky2]

Yes, science that is so strong data needs to be manipulated, deleted, not provided when requested, and can't be used to generate models that predict anything with real accuracy.

Oh, btw, please hand us Billions each year to fund our research and affect the World economy by Trillions on whatever we end up telling you.

That's some d@mn good science!!!

Chuck

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, when scientists make statements that indicate that models need to be re-evaluated, those scientists are obviously highly credible. But when scientists make statements that indicate doom and gloom, then those scientists are obviously not credible.

And your criteria for determining which scientists are credible and which are not are?????

Science marches on shira...this is good news! If you somehow think that the Max Planck Society society lacks credibility on this issue...have at it. One by one, the MMGW alarmist scenarios are being shot down as we learn more. Be of good cheer...this is very good news about the resiliency of our planet!

Does the fact that I bring this to your attention bother you in some way?

Gavin accepted my comment at Real Climate...surely you can too...preferably without your baseless accusations.

 

[ModestGamer]

c02 actually would lower the tempature of the ocean. Not riase it. basic chemistry. the real concern should be the effect is has on raising water vapor levels which does cuase far more atompsheric heat storage then co2 by factors of 100 or more.

Co2 rejects as much heat as it stores. CO2 is a insulator. not a storage medium.

Why do the global warming and cooling trends follow the milankovitch cycle ?

Everybody studying climate change takes into account the Milankovitch cycle. It's not the cause of warming.

The oceans have experienced most of the current warming, and they've also absorbed about half the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere. The result is that the ocean is like a rubber band storing CO2 and storing energy. That heat increase also reduces the CO2 capacity, which means at some point the CO2 stored in the water will be released like a stone from a slingshot and we'll experience the full effect of our atmospheric chemistry experiment.

 

[ModestGamer]

for a few thousand years the best scientists of the day though the earth was flat to.

Those who believe in MMCC aren't fanatics. Their beliefs are backed by the cumulative research of 95+ % of climatologists.

Compare this with MMCC-deniers: Their beliefs are based on exactly nothing except their ideological need to reject anything that requires action by big government. There's virtually no science to back their views; thus, they have to cherry-pick papers to erect their conspiracy-based house of cards.

MMCC-believers put their faith in science. MMCC-deniers put their faith in conspiracy theories. And you think both sides are "just as worse"???

 

[Throckmorton]

c02 actually would lower the tempature of the ocean. Not riase it. basic chemistry. the real concern should be the effect is has on raising water vapor levels which does cuase far more atompsheric heat storage then co2 by factors of 100 or more.

Co2 rejects as much heat as it stores. CO2 is a insulator. not a storage medium.

Why do the global warming and cooling trends follow the milankovitch cycle ?

I didn't say CO2 raises the temperature of the oceans. I said the oceans have absorbed half the CO2 we put out, and at the same time the oceans have gotten warmer because of global warming, which reduces the capacity for storing CO2.

The current warming trend DOESN'T follow the Milankovitch cycle, that's the whole point.

 

[sandorski]

for a few thousand years the best scientists of the day though the earth was flat to.

This is incorrect. Fact: Ancient Egyptian Science, at least for a period, knew the Earth was not Flat. What was "Science" in those days was a very infantile version of what Science is today. However, along the way a few stood out, unfortunately some of those who did stand out were more Philosophers than true Scientists. For various reasons the decent Science and simply non-Science masquerading as Science were passed on for Centuries often, especially in Christian Europe, as Dogma.

The beauty of Modern Science is that it is a Procedural Practice rather than just Intellectual Exercise.

 

[Throckmorton]

for a few thousand years the best scientists of the day though the earth was flat to.

The Ancient Greeks realized during the classical era that the earth was a globe thanks to observation. Actual scientists have never at any point in time believed that the earth was flat. Mythologists did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

 

[Drako]

the beauty of modern science is that it is a procedural practice of data manipulation rather than just intellectual exercise.

ffy

 

[sandorski]

ffy

fail

 

[Cotswolds]

The lie behind anthropologic global warming is that atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures DO IN FACT CORRELATE. But correlation does not mean causation. If you raise the temperature of a body of water (like the oceans) it's capacity as a solvent for CO2 is diminished. Ergo more CO2 in the atmosphere.

While it is true to say that most of today's scientists believe in global warming, it is untrue to say that most of today's climatologists are convinced of AGW.

 

[Throckmorton]

The lie behind anthropologic global warming is that atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures DO IN FACT CORRELATE. But correlation does not mean causation. If you raise the temperature of a body of water (like the oceans) it's capacity as a solvent for CO2 is diminished. Ergo more CO2 in the atmosphere.

While it is true to say that most of today's scientists believe in global warming, it is untrue to say that most of today's climatologists are convinced of AGW.

We know how much CO2 we've put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. It's not some mystery that lets you to say "We don't know where all that CO2 came from!!!". The oceans have absorbed half of what we've put out thanks to biological processes.

 

[bfdd]

We know how much CO2 we've put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. It's not some mystery that lets you to say "We don't know where all that CO2 came from!!!". The oceans have absorbed half of what we've put out thanks to biological processes.

We don't know exactly 100% how much CO2 we've put into the air. There's absolutely no way to track that. You can only make good guesses based on estimates of resources. So you're trying to guess how much CO2 we put into the air based on estimations on how many resources we've used. Do you not see the problem with basing this whole thing on a guess based on another guess?

 

[Throckmorton]

We don't know exactly 100% how much CO2 we've put into the air. There's absolutely no way to track that. You can only make good guesses based on estimates of resources. So you're trying to guess how much CO2 we put into the air based on estimations on how many resources we've used. Do you not see the problem with basing this whole thing on a guess based on another guess?

Whether it's 99% or 90%, it's a good enough estimate to know for a fact that we put a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere, and about half that amount was absorbed by the oceans.

The CO2 in the atmosphere and the sea didn't come from some magical source. Do you know something the rest of us don't?