[citation][nom]A Stoner[/nom]1) The formula used by scientist in the Global Warming Bandwagon sets the altitude of the atmosphere at infinity.[/citation]
Technically it's accurate: everything in the Universe is affected by Earth's gravity. HOWEVER! I would like to see a source for this, and I would like you explain why this is a problem for the models. The effect could be negligible if the model accurately incorporates the thinning of the atmosphere away from Earth.
"2) The government spends $BILLIONS$/year in research, they only fund projects that need to be funded, so how does a scientist make his research seem needed? he makes it sound as though there is a crisis coming that his research can shed light on. So, that is why scientists go along, it is a play to get pay."
Already pre-empted this. And besides, if this were true then the demonstrable ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES of the last Administration and its six years of Republican control of both houses would make the government A) at the very least, somewhat hostile to the idea of glboal warming and funding such research (think of what they did to research involving embryonic stem cells for examples of science that conflicts with their ideology), and B) Congress would have cut off funding once it became clear that the idea of global warming (which, remember, Republicans were already dubious about to begin with) was all just a trick to get money. C) This would mean that scientists would be wasting money on research that they know is a hoax instead of doing what they'd prefer to be doing, finding out how the natural world works. See what I wrote about scientists and the scientific community, and then figure out why this insinuation is not only insulting, it's also ridiculous on its face.
"3) Every single situation on this planet has what is called negative feedback, that is why on average for the known planets, earth has a very moderate and unchanging climate."
This statement doesn't make much sense. You seem to be implying that the environment is incapable of catastrophic swings in climate. We know this to be false: it can get both too warm and too cold for some species over time and they will die off because of changes in the climate. Again, please think about what you're saying before you say it.
"The only way that CO2 causes the doomsday climate crisis is if there is positive feedback. The problem is that if there was this positive feedback, humans would not exist, even dinosaur bones would not exist, life would have never existed on this planet."
There is positive feedback, and you provide the evidence for it later on in your collection of misconceptions. I'll get to that in a moment. For now, I'm just going to say that your claim is exaggerated on both fronts. 1) Nobody thinks that global warming will be a "doomsday" kind of thing. It will not kill off humans (though it may already be killing off some of the more environmentally sensitive species). It will, however, severely disrupt the conditions upon which our modern civilizations depend to provide us with abundant food and other resources. My home state is no stranger to droughts, but imagine if South Carolina actually became a desert? For a state that depends heavily on agriculture for its economy, that's devastating. It could happen even more readily to the continent's Breadbasket areas, which feed even more people than my state does. What if Nebraska stopped being able to produce so much corn and wheat? What if California's productive areas dried up? You will face a food shortage at least as severe as the last one when grain prices went crazy, and it won't be nearly as short-lived. That's just considering the possibility of desertification in ONE country, one that's already modernized and wealthy. Apply those same conditions to developing countries and watch the global economy tank as famine consumes millions more lives.
You not only exaggerate the claims of global warming advocates, you also exaggerate the effects of "positive feedback" on the planet. It's completely ignorant to say "if this were true life couldn't possibly exist!" Earth is not Venus, and we won't get to that stage in runaway global warming. There have been times when the Earth was apparently warmer than it is now (though not in the last 2000 years), and life managed to get by. The problem will be that this climate change might happen too quickly for us to adapt without cost, and certainly too quickly for some other species. Some are already suspected of dying off as a result of climate change.
"But for the modelers the positive feedback forcing is at a minimum 5 times the real value of CO2 forcing. In a nutshell positive feedback takes the direction of things and keeps it going."
I'd like to see a source for this "it takes five times more" stuff, and also, does this apply to the kind of warming that climate scientists REALLY expect, or just your imaginary Earth Sterilizing Heat Wave?
Also, you haven't provided me with any sources so far, even when I've asked for them. That's pretty rude. You also haven't really responded to anything I've said already, you just spouted off more and more stuff for me to address. Quit Gish-Galloping me and have a DISCUSSION, or shut up.
"Negative feedbacks slow or stop things from moving. Cloud cover is one of the things that science has yet to understand well enough to model, and the Global Warming Modelers use this ignorance to advantage, it is the primary positive feedback they use."
Aren't you the one who claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere is more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? What do you think clouds are made of?
"While it is used in models, global warming scientist have never actually gone out into the world to find out if it is real, it works for their agenda."
You're telling me nobody (excuse me, no "global warming scientist," whatever THAT means) has gone out and studied the effects of clouds on climate? You're full of crap. Climatologists and atmospheric researchers are ALWAYS studying the clouds. Just because they have enormous amounts of data and very little firm conclusions from it doesn't mean they are ignoring clouds and surreptitiously fudging them in as forcings for warming. Again, please give the scientific community SOME credit here. It's ridiculous how malicious, dishonest, and incompetent you assume they are. Show me some evidence that climate scientists are lying about the role of clouds in their models.
"4)CO2 increases ALWAYS follow temperature increases by hundreds of years."
And now we get to the positive feedback I talked about before. What you don't realize is how this CO2 is released, and what it does once it is released. The CO2 starts being released once things warm up, especially as permafrost melts, oceans warm up and hold less gases in solution, and bogs release more gases from decaying detritus. So in the paleoclimate past, the initial warming releases more CO2. What happens there is that the CO2 perpetuates the warming by acting as a greenhouse gas. In this case, the CO2 is a positive feedback mechanism which contributes to further warming.
That's how it USED to work, anyway. Nowadays it's not the climate warming up that releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, it's the fossil fuels we're digging up out of their underground lock-boxes and burning for power. All the carbon that was locked away beneath the ground as coal and oil and natural gas is retrieved, turned into CO2 through combustion, and pumped out into the atmosphere where it hasn't been since before humankind first walked upright. So instead of the climate leading the CO2 increases, now what we OBSERVE to happen is CO2 increase leading the climate change. The difference between paleoclimate changes and modern climate changes? Human activity.
"I did some calculations one time using government numbers and I came up far short of the amount of CO2 humans emited and the actual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere."
What 'government numbers?' And why is it 'government this, government that?' Surely you realize that until just a couple of years ago, the US government was far more sympathetic to the interests of industry than environmentalists, right? That may still be the case even today, but at least the evidence and scientific support for climate change have become so overwhelming that even the government is starting to respond (albeit with fits and starts and foot-dragging).
Facebook
Twitter