Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

[Old Rocks]

Sorry, but the dude is spot on. See in order to have a theory, the hypothesis must be proven. And unless you have that proof, which I know you don't, you have no theory. All you have is mumbo jumbo soup! So, let's have it, give us this experiment that proves that 120PPM of CO2 drives climate.

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

And has never been shown to be true. There is ZERO empirical data to support that thought.

And that is a lie.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Kosh]

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

And has never been shown to be true. There is ZERO empirical data to support that thought.

And that is a lie.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

 

[Crick]

From Wikipedia

Global warming views
Cunningham has been an advocate against the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In 2010, he published a pamphlet titled "Global Warming: Facts versus Faith" in which he states: "The current debate is not unlike Galileo's historic disagreement with the Catholic Church, or the battle over evolution versus creationism. In all three cases, facts are pitted against faith and science against religion. The conflict over global warming has deteriorated into a religious war between true believers in AGW and non-believers, the so-called "skeptics"."[2] This report was published by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank engaged in "dispelling myths about global warming". The Heartland Institute has, in its publications, made four points:

"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[3] "The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[17] "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[3] "The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."[3]

In an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle on August 15, 2010, Cunningham argued that the empirical evidence does not support the claims of global warming. The editorial, titled "Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods", stated his opinion that the global warming debate hinged on four key points. "About 20 years ago," he stated, "a small group of scientists became concerned that temperatures around the Earth were unreasonably high and a threat to humanity. In their infinite wisdom, they decided: 1) that CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels were abnormally high, 2) that higher levels of CO2 were bad for humanity, 3) that warmer temperatures would be worse for the world, and 4) that we are capable of overriding natural forces to control the Earth's temperature. Not one of these presumptions (opinions) has proven to be valid."[3]

If you've hung around this forum more than a week, you know my opinion of these contentions.

Cunningham, now 82 years old, is not a rocket scientist and never was. He has a masters in physics. He has never conducted ANY climate research and has no training in the field. His objections to AGW have been known for years and they've been refuted ages past.

 

[Kosh]

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it......climate alarmism has become highly marginalized. In fact, they way it is going, it will end up being viewed in scientific history as nothing more than a fad. Indeed......for 20 years of bomb throwing by these people, they have had virtually zero impact on policy-makers around the world.


ZeRo


For all intents and purposes, deliberating about the science is nothing more than drivel. Its akin to these AGW folks lecturing 2 year olds about Co2.


Obviously........either these dolts haven't made their case OR, and far more likely, the whole concept is a scam.

 

[jc456]

Who said the level of CO2 drives the Climate? If I put a NO booster on an gasoline engine does that make NO the primary driver of the engine? The extra CO2 gives the sun (the primary driving force for the climate) a little boost.

And has never been shown to be true. There is ZERO empirical data to support that thought.

And that is a lie.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Another link to material that again does not provide proof that an increase of CO2 will drive or cause a temperature increase. Exerpts from your link:

"The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading."

"Most damaging of all, Callendar's calculations of the greenhouse effect temperature rise, like Arrhenius's, ignored much of the real world's physics. For example, as one critic pointed out immediately, he only calculated how heat would be shuttled through the atmosphere by radiation, ignoring the crucial energy transport by convection as heated air rose from the surface (this deficiency would haunt greenhouse calculations through the next quarter-century). Worse, any rise in temperature would allow the air to hold more moisture, which would probably mean more clouds that would reflect sunlight and thus preserve the natural balance. Callendar admitted that the actual climate change would depend on interactions involving changes of cloud cover and other processes that no scientist of the time could reliably calculate."

"He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise."

"In the late 1950s a few American scientists, starting with Plass, tentatively began to inform the public that greenhouse gases might become a problem within the foreseeable future."

Again, Losing

 

[jc456]

From Wikipedia

Global warming views
Cunningham has been an advocate against the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In 2010, he published a pamphlet titled "Global Warming: Facts versus Faith" in which he states: "The current debate is not unlike Galileo's historic disagreement with the Catholic Church, or the battle over evolution versus creationism. In all three cases, facts are pitted against faith and science against religion. The conflict over global warming has deteriorated into a religious war between true believers in AGW and non-believers, the so-called "skeptics"."[2] This report was published by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank engaged in "dispelling myths about global warming". The Heartland Institute has, in its publications, made four points:

"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate."[3] "The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."[17] "A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."[3] "The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."[3]

In an editorial published in the Houston Chronicle on August 15, 2010, Cunningham argued that the empirical evidence does not support the claims of global warming. The editorial, titled "Climate change alarmists ignore scientific methods", stated his opinion that the global warming debate hinged on four key points. "About 20 years ago," he stated, "a small group of scientists became concerned that temperatures around the Earth were unreasonably high and a threat to humanity. In their infinite wisdom, they decided: 1) that CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels were abnormally high, 2) that higher levels of CO2 were bad for humanity, 3) that warmer temperatures would be worse for the world, and 4) that we are capable of overriding natural forces to control the Earth's temperature. Not one of these presumptions (opinions) has proven to be valid."[3]

If you've hung around this forum more than a week, you know my opinion of these contentions.

Cunningham, now 82 years old, is not a rocket scientist and never was. He has a masters in physics. He has never conducted ANY climate research and has no training in the field. His objections to AGW have been known for years and they've been refuted ages past.

Wikipedia again.....hahahahaahahahahaahahahahahaha...............................Losing

 

[Crick]

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

Do you have some reason to believe atmospheric water vapor levels have increased over the last 150 years?

 

[IanC]

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

Do you have some reason to believe atmospheric water vapor levels have increased for some reason over the last 150 years?

y

That's the point. Increased water vapor iis supposedly one of the main positive feedbacks. While more cloud formation can affect albedo, the timing of cloud formation also has a large effect on how much solar energy reaches the surface. Clouds are poorly understood and difficult to model on small scales. That is yet another assumption that has to be guesstimated in climate models. And yet another example of unknown variable error in estimating the correlation of CO2 to temperature rise.

 

[Taz]

I thought the moon landings were the biggest fraud? Who knew?

 

[Crick]

The importance of water vapor and clouds can be seen in the day/night temperatures between desert cities and deep south humid cities. In this example the desert gets much hotter because their is less water vapor in the atmosphere. For the same reason, the temperature can drop as much as 45oF during the night during the summer. On the other hand, the humid city does not get as hot, but the temperature does not drop as much at night because the water vapor holds the heat. Clouds can not only hold the heat close to the earth, but during the day, much of the solar radiation reflects off of the clouds, preventing the solar energy from reaching the earth's surface to heat it. Otherwise it would become unbearably hot.

Do you have some reason to believe atmospheric water vapor levels have increased for some reason over the last 150 years?

y

That's the point. Increased water vapor iis supposedly one of the main positive feedbacks. While more cloud formation can affect albedo, the timing of cloud formation also has a large effect on how much solar energy reaches the surface. Clouds are poorly understood and difficult to model on small scales. That is yet another assumption that has to be guesstimated in climate models. And yet another example of unknown variable error in estimating the correlation of CO2 to temperature rise.

You guys act as if anything that is not completely understood is completely unknown and that the very informed opinions of the experts who have spent years studying these specific issues are more likely to be 100% wrong than even partially correct.

I do not see anywhere in your comment a reason to believe water vapor levels have increased over the last 150 years.

 

[jc456]

Do you have some reason to believe atmospheric water vapor levels have increased for some reason over the last 150 years?

y

That's the point. Increased water vapor iis supposedly one of the main positive feedbacks. While more cloud formation can affect albedo, the timing of cloud formation also has a large effect on how much solar energy reaches the surface. Clouds are poorly understood and difficult to model on small scales. That is yet another assumption that has to be guesstimated in climate models. And yet another example of unknown variable error in estimating the correlation of CO2 to temperature rise.

You guys act as if anything that is not completely understood is completely unknown and that the very informed opinions of the experts who have spent years studying these specific issues are more likely to be 100% wrong than even partially correct.

I do not see anywhere in your comment a reason to believe water vapor levels have increased over the last 150 years.

Dude, there you go again expecting someone to do something for you and for months you haven't done what you want others to do show the evidence. Why not first show that 120 PPM of CO2 actually increases temperature or drives climate? Anything other than that is separate from the main issue. So nice deflection try, but you first, you prove that 120 PPM drives temperature and climate.

 

[Crick]

Experiments have already been posted on this forum that demonstrate 120 ppm CO2 will cause temperatures to increase. That experiment was first done two centuries back and has been repeated thousands of times. Graphs of CO2's absorption spectra are the quantitative results of such experiments. The vast majority of climate scientists are fully convinced that the warming we've experienced is due to the CO2 that human activity has added to the atmosphere. So, if you want anyone to take seriously the idea that the warming we've experienced is due to water vapor, you need to provide data showing that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have increased sufficiently over that time period to have caused the observed warming. Lacking such data - pro or con - you could identify some mechanism that would have led to sufficient increased atmospheric levels.

But for now, the common understanding among climate scientists is that the only thing that causes atmospheric levels of water vapor to increase is increased temperature. Water vapor follows temperature, it does not lead it. And since it's lifetime in the atmosphere is no more than a few days, you would need a strong and constant driver to keep those levels elevated. What have you got?

Just as an FYI, I'm not demanding an experiment. I'm asking you to simply explain to us what you believe to have happened.

 

[Kosh]

Do you have some reason to believe atmospheric water vapor levels have increased for some reason over the last 150 years?

y

That's the point. Increased water vapor iis supposedly one of the main positive feedbacks. While more cloud formation can affect albedo, the timing of cloud formation also has a large effect on how much solar energy reaches the surface. Clouds are poorly understood and difficult to model on small scales. That is yet another assumption that has to be guesstimated in climate models. And yet another example of unknown variable error in estimating the correlation of CO2 to temperature rise.

You guys act as if anything that is not completely understood is completely unknown and that the very informed opinions of the experts who have spent years studying these specific issues are more likely to be 100% wrong than even partially correct.

I do not see anywhere in your comment a reason to believe water vapor levels have increased over the last 150 years.

Wow! The AGW cult will make up anything they must to protect their religion..

 

[Kosh]

Experiments have already been posted on this forum that demonstrate 120 ppm CO2 will cause temperatures to increase. That experiment was first done two centuries back and has been repeated thousands of times. Graphs of CO2's absorption spectra are the quantitative results of such experiments. The vast majority of climate scientists are fully convinced that the warming we've experienced is due to the CO2 that human activity has added to the atmosphere. So, if you want anyone to take seriously the idea that the warming we've experienced is due to water vapor, you need to provide data showing that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have increased sufficiently over that time period to have caused the observed warming. Lacking such data - pro or con - you could identify some mechanism that would have led to sufficient increased atmospheric levels.

But for now, the common understanding among climate scientists is that the only thing that causes atmospheric levels of water vapor to increase is increased temperature. Water vapor follows temperature, it does not lead it. And since it's lifetime in the atmosphere is no more than a few days, you would need a strong and constant driver to keep those levels elevated. What have you got?

Just as an FYI, I'm not demanding an experiment. I'm asking you to simply explain to us what you believe to have happened.

CO2 does not drive climate, never has..

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Again we always stuck the AGW religious dogma vs actual science.

 

[Crick]

y

That's the point. Increased water vapor iis supposedly one of the main positive feedbacks. While more cloud formation can affect albedo, the timing of cloud formation also has a large effect on how much solar energy reaches the surface. Clouds are poorly understood and difficult to model on small scales. That is yet another assumption that has to be guesstimated in climate models. And yet another example of unknown variable error in estimating the correlation of CO2 to temperature rise.

You guys act as if anything that is not completely understood is completely unknown and that the very informed opinions of the experts who have spent years studying these specific issues are more likely to be 100% wrong than even partially correct.

I do not see anywhere in your comment a reason to believe water vapor levels have increased over the last 150 years.

Wow! The AGW cult will make up anything they must to protect their religion..

What statement or contention in that text do you believe to have been made up?

 

[Crick]

Experiments have already been posted on this forum that demonstrate 120 ppm CO2 will cause temperatures to increase. That experiment was first done two centuries back and has been repeated thousands of times. Graphs of CO2's absorption spectra are the quantitative results of such experiments. The vast majority of climate scientists are fully convinced that the warming we've experienced is due to the CO2 that human activity has added to the atmosphere. So, if you want anyone to take seriously the idea that the warming we've experienced is due to water vapor, you need to provide data showing that water vapor levels in the atmosphere have increased sufficiently over that time period to have caused the observed warming. Lacking such data - pro or con - you could identify some mechanism that would have led to sufficient increased atmospheric levels.

But for now, the common understanding among climate scientists is that the only thing that causes atmospheric levels of water vapor to increase is increased temperature. Water vapor follows temperature, it does not lead it. And since it's lifetime in the atmosphere is no more than a few days, you would need a strong and constant driver to keep those levels elevated. What have you got?

Just as an FYI, I'm not demanding an experiment. I'm asking you to simply explain to us what you believe to have happened.

CO2 does not drive climate, never has..

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Again we always stuck the AGW religious dogma vs actual science.

You don't seem to have read my post. I am asking you to explain the mechanism by which you believe water vapor to be responsible for the warming we've experienced.