Nature says global warming is real

Your silly Warmist attempts to refute the FACT that they deliberately try to misrepresent the facts about the Earth's greenhouse gases are laughable. The hydrocycle produces more NEGATIVE, than POSTIVE thermal feedback, as the article I cte clearly shows.

Water vapor hasn't changed.

Still waiting for you to show us all the "New Great Lakes", of the LAB TEST ( as opposed to a ridiculous "computer model") proving the thermal effects of less than 400ppm TOTAL CO2 concentrations.

You come up with either, yet?

Didn't think so; until you do, everything else you post is bird cage liner....

 

It is not this. The article claims sattelite. The pic. is random not from a sattelite. Totally different things. Basic trick of lazy and snoby journalists. They know warmist public eat anything.

On top of that neither from the sky nor from the ground there is "before" and "after"
On top of that there cannot be a resonable sattelite estimate of the green and trees "before" and "after". It is urealstic. Thus it is another machination, another fraud.
On top of that I wonder what the residents of the area would say. (Trees and bears and green have been there as long as they remember.

I can continue. But enough is enough. Another lie, another manipulation another deception. Let's see how it will go.

When I was an atheist one of my favorite authors was R. Feynman. He is still my favorite atheist. At least he accepted that his opinion on religion was as dumb as the next door gay's.
He said: For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_p_feynman.html#Bo8vzXrVvp7s3DJM.99

Atheists may fool other atheists, atheists may fool other people, but let's see them trying to fool Nature and it's laws. Let's see how it will go.

 

shakes head in complete disbelief

mixing bad journalism with good science

This gets better than creationism and the expanding earth theory no wonder Americans think Australia is full of drop bears and ring snakes

Ok From the top

DO not confuse bad journalism with good science

The scientist who did the orginal research is NOT the same fellow who wrote THIS article - you know the article with the more than one page? And I just happen to know the denialists have not read pages 2 and 3 yet

Shakes head again at the obtuseness of believing that a research paper has been debunked because denialists THINK the photo MIGHT be a stock photo that has been published in an article about the research paper in a different magazine authored by someone not even distantly related to the original scientists?

All I can say is

- - - Updated - - -

And another confusion between bad journalism and good science

 

Bit thin on the old proof there eh?

Did a quick google - the ones that come up with water vapour and negative feedback are Junkscience (which always lives up to it's name) and Droyspence - but if you have another source I would be happy to read it.

And the water vapour - good old cherry pickin Anthony Watts

Tell us, was that water vapour decrease worldwide or just over certain land masses?

 

Nah, just a demonstration of your ignorance. Flaming moderate is the one that believes the warming can be stopped.

 

Its true, quit being a denialist.

Latest Evidence:

NASA scientists and astronomers around the world routinely scan the sky for large asteroids that could pose an impact threat to Earth. While small asteroids sometimes zip by the planet unseen, about 100 tons of material - mostly grains of dust - fall harmlessly into Earth's atmosphere each day, NASA scientists have said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/11/four-asteroids-buzz-earth-in-single-week/#ixzz2NQSQgdHH


Earth is getting bigger.... and it cant be denied....

 

I am surprised you agree with me.

 

That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the degree to which man is responsible for an accelleration in climate change. We've been pumping noxious gases and industrial effluent into our atmosphere for centuries-most notably since the Industrial Revolution. That stuff clearly does have an effect on our atmosphere and climate, as demonstrated by the Montreal Protocol.

 

Which nobody is suggesting-except you. It's the at which warming is accellerating, and the degree to which man is contributing to this accelleration which is the issue.

 

Lol. A bunch of papers demonstrate a physical effect.

Mentality of ignorant: We add CO2 to atmosphere therefore amount of CO2 in atmosphere increases. Logic of overwhelming majporities of the scientific community is on the level of kindergarten.

 

Really? So the majority of experts in their field are on the level of kindergarten infants?

 

Mentality of ignorant: We add CO2 to atmosphere therefore amount of CO2 in atmosphere increases.

I like how each believer in evolution thinks of himself as of the majority of experts. Such a mentality cannot be reproduced in a healthy mind, but it is very entertaining.

 

People talk like Harvard having a part in this study is an endorsement of its validity but Harvard recently told conservatives to not bother attending their liberal school if they were going to complain about it being liberal. Harvard has lost all credibility and the fact that they played a role in this so called study makes it null and void junk science, propaganda even.

 

Ive never suggested we could stop global warming, silly, and Flaming Moderate who I quoted in the post of mine you just responded to DID so

 

I'm not saying man could not have some effect on the climate but the climate is such a huge and complex machine that our role in it is minuscule. We may ever so slightly tweak things but we are a bit player here and the earth will run us over like a steam roller and do what it is going to do regardless of our puny input.

 

Please please please calculate how much "expansion" that adds up to over millennia and while you are at it please also calculate the loss from solar winds

However I am pleased to note you are now talking about rational numbers and ways in which we have always known the mass has increased and not some bat(*)(*)(*)(*) theory about expansion from inside

 

Well, I hardly think the level of CO2 would go down if we added CO2 to the atmosphere - especially when we are doing such a great job of destroying the means to remove said Co2 back out of the atmosphere

- - - Updated - - -

Bacteria have altered the atmosphere in Earths past - google up "archean period"

 

Thank you for proving my point. Many things effect the climate some we know about and God only knows how many we don't know about.

 

Solar wind is adding to the mass of Earth, not the other way around.

100 Tons * 1000 years = 100,000 Tons

100 Tons * 67,000,000 years = 6,700,000,000 Tons Since the dinosaurs rulled the earth.

and This doesnt include water created by the interaction between earths oxygen rich atmosphere and the solar wind/solar mass ejections.

 

You see, sweetheart, you are using the scientific method of thinking.
My method of thinking is in my sig.
CO2 has been added to atmosphere and removed since Biblical time.
Why now all over suddenly adding CO2 to the atmosphere would increase amount of CO2 there?
Why would the amount of it which should be there by the design of nature all over suddenly change, - increase or decrease?

But since you are such a sweetie, and have this idea fix, why don’t we do a simple thing, - why don’t we compare measurements – before and after?

 

The United States alone adds enough development to this country to fill a city the size of Chicago every year. That is land that used to grow crops, trees, grass...etc. To say that man has little influence on the earth is wrong...just pain wrong.

Indiana and Ohio were once called the forest primevil...what happened???

 

I was specifically talking about weather. We are as important to the climate as a bit player with one line in Gone With The Wind, we make a very tiny contribution to the overall picture.

 

Do you have a research paper that has identified what is causing the current change??

BTW the cyanobacteria that added the oxygen to Earth's atmosphere are still around today but in nowhere near the same numbers

 

Isn't climate a bunch of weather events all strung together?

 

83 million barrels of oil per day is "little" and that is not counting coal that is burnt, burning of forests for agriculture, logging, animal husbandry, alteration of microclimate and albedo etc etc etc etc