Refuting global warming science is elementary

Gore v Polar Bear - Fuller

Chicken Littles pushing the Democrat global warming fraud pick whatever scientific fact they believe dumb people will believe.  When that is exposed they just move on to the next charade.  Meanwhile, the money they gather from fools easily parted from their money goes into the pockets of their friends and campaign donors.

Everything people learned to refute the proofs of scientists who declare that global warming is real they learned in elementary science class.  These global warming advocates with their Ph.Ds. rightly believe that the general public is so ignorant of science that they will believe what they are told, no questions asked.  They can get away with making claims they know the causes of global warming and can predict the future and the herd will follow them.

Most people do not understand that their science is based on computer models they designed “proving” that man is polluting the planet to death.  The “facts” with which they programmed these models are all based on assumptions that children, at least those who paid attention to their science teachers in eighth grade, know to be phony.  That most adults don’t know these elementary facts is a testament to the failure of our government run education system.

These scientists, who claim they understand the science of global warming because they have doctorates and you are just an ignorant boob, are living a lie.  If they are so smart, why do they say CO2, a heavier than air gas, is rising and accumulating in the upper atmosphere?  If they are so smart, why do they say the melting of the north polar ice, which is a giant ice cube floating on the ocean, will flood the world?  If they are so smart, why do they throw this sh*t at us like a bunch of dumb monkeys?

Everyone who has been promoting the global warming scam has been doing so for one reason – greed.  In order to make “clean, green energy” like wind, wave, and solar affordable they must make fossil fuels ultra-expensive.  The politico-economics of eco-terrorism is the driving force for Democrats to fund their friend’s green energy through crony government subsidies and defund their enemy’s friend’s (i.e. Republicans) subsidies through demonization.

The answer to all this government corruption is for the public to scream – ‘STOP THE CRONYISM!  No more subsidies for anyone!  Taxpayer money is not for you to give to your friends to make their business successful.’  Why should government be permitted to take money from successful people and give it to their unsuccessful friend’s businesses because they are campaign donors?

Let the free market decide who prospers and who fails and get government out of the socialism business.  It was bad enough when Robber Barons did it and their corruption had to be stopped by Theodore Roosevelt, Republican.  Whenever Democrats gain power in government they are a hundred times worse because they don’t just let businessmen run rampant, but help them by stealing from other businessmen making new Robber Barons.  Then they make tax loopholes so their friends don’t have to pay the crushing taxes they impose on everyone else.

STOP THE CRONY GOVERNMENT TAXES, LOOPHOLES, SUBSIDIES, AND REGULATIONS!

Refuting Global Warming science is elementary, part II

Climate Change Deniers vs. Chicken Littles

Climate change scams

America – the Spirit of 1776 vs. the spirit of 1968

LIBERALS BACKWARDS THINK

The Sucker Generation – Millenials not waking up to being duped

How Obama, Hitler, and the Star Wars Emperor are the same

Captain America and the New World Order

EXAMINER

The Battling Boys of Benghazi – Obama’s ‘bump in the road’

Conservative Republican vs Liberal Democrat economy

Main articles

Liberals Backwards Think

Young liberal wisdom; a series of unfortunate beliefs – Introduction

About dustyk103

This site is my opinion only and is unpaid. I am a retired Paramedic/Firefighter with 25 years of service in the City of Dallas Fire Dept. I have a B.A. degree in Journalism, and A.A. degrees in Military Science and History. I have spent my life studying military history, world history, American history, science, current events, and politics making me a qualified PhD, Senior Fellow of the Limbaugh Institute, and tenured Professor for Advanced Conservative Studies. 😄 It is my hope that readers can gain some knowledge and wisdom from my articles.
This entry was posted in Climate Change, Right vs. Left. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Refuting global warming science is elementary

  1. CS says:

    These “scientific” assertions are absurd. Gas molecules diffuse to fill the space available (carbon dioxide into oxygen / nitrogen / air molecules) and are carried by convection currents also. Basically it mixes with the air and is carried by winds. If for example, a fire was pumping carbon dioxide into a house, the immediate area of an enclosed space with a constant source of carbon dioxide would create a temporary low hanging cloud, and area this would be the closest thing possible to your claim being correct, which has nothing to do with the basic and established fact of a gas such as carbon dioxide rising into the atmosphere. The polar ice caps are much more complex than a “giant ice cube” in the ocean. No one has claimed that their melting would flood the whole world, although sea level rise will flood many coastal regions (about half of the worlds population happens to reside in the coastal regions). A good and important place to start is with the albedo effect, which in a nutshell as it applies here is that ice is highly reflective and bounces a significant amount of sunlight back into space which has a cooling effect for our planet. Without any ice the planet’s temperature will steadily increase overall. This creates a feedback loop that causes even more greenhouse gases to be released when permafrost tundra areas melt and release methane. In the meantime this may cause local weather phenomena due to increased humidity or effects on air and ocean currents. Localized rain and snow and even cold temperatures or other short term weather observations do not mean the planet is not in a significant heating trend that will ultimately cause sea level rise and drought. Why are you talking down to people that understand science when your analysis is not even on a “middle school level” (which should of course be simple but factual), it is clearly not anything close to what actual science says and just plain wrong.

    1) http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-co2-is-so-heavy-why-doesnt-it-sink.html
    2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Debunking your refutations that you believe are scientifically sound is elementary;
      1) There is no scientific experiment that can prove CO2 can form a greenhouse bubble around the planet. All such “experiments” are computer models and, as with all computer models, this is a matter of “garbage in – garbage out.”
      2) Convection will not suffice to raise CO2 into the upper atmosphere. The atmosphere thins as it gets higher, and if global warming “scientists” were going to prove this was so they would be quoting weather balloon data of increasing levels, not surface output or temperatures that have varied for ages from the solar output of the sun which, while a stable source of heat, is not static.
      3) Your claim that ice sheets “reflect solar heat” lands flat when they only form at the poles that receive no direct sunlight. Lack of direct sunlight is the reason the poles ice over in the first place.
      4) Claims that sea levels rise with melting polar ice are not only proven false by the fact that levels have not risen even an inch since Al Gore made his movie claiming they would rise 25 feet by 2020. They have not risen or fallen in centuries of recorded history wherein temperatures have been significantly warmer or cooler than they are today.
      5) Lastly, that heating the planet will cause the sea levels to rise and droughts to become widespread is rendered ludicrous because this is a water planet. Such an assertion takes no account of how the climate works. Warming the atmosphere would cause more evaporation from the oceans making the atmosphere more saturated with moisture. More moisture means more rain. This is the entire reason the equatorial region is tropical rain forest, which would expand in such a scenario. Permafrost regions would retreat making a larger temperate zone. This is what happened when we entered this current warm period between Ice Ages and would continue. The Earth wouldn’t dry up and become a desert!
      6) If there was any truth to CO2 accumulation they would be measuring at the poles to find increases rather than around cities. Just like the new claim that methane is a greater greenhouse gas than CO2, their measurements are bogus. Methane was touted as cleaner burning than oil, and now it is more dangerous, not because of any proof, but because the U.S. is now the leading producer and the entire global warming agenda is about reducing U.S. energy to enable socialist nations like Russia, China, and Islamists to gain power.

      The joke of methane measurements is the global warming TV programs being produced where they imply rather than prove how much methane is in the atmosphere. When they start taking measurements around sewers and gasp at how high methane levels are it’s hilarious. Poor fools don’t know what comes out of their butts!

      Climate does not exist in a vacuum as global warming science clearly does. This makes global warming science as vacuous as young minds entirely ignorant of both the facts and scientific understanding. Only by actually learning science, and not just believing the Chicken Littles of the world out to swindle people of their money, will young people realize they are being duped. Understanding this is not complicated, but a failure of America’s education system and of parents teaching their children better morals. Recognizing that global warming science is a fraud dreamed up by charlatans to fool people into giving them their money to “save the world” just takes a little more knowledge and thinking on more than an elementary level.

      Like

      • dustyk103 – you are very close to the truth – permit me to correct you on couple of things – your English is brilliant, so you can give hell to the Warmist Organized Crime (WOC). Small corrections:
        1] when methane in the air during the day -> UV &IR burn it in a jiffy. methane has being concocted as bad gas, by the vegetarians – the post on CH4 will give you the truth

        2] yes, warm CO2 during the day ”does” go up – my post ”cooling earth” will give you details. I was flying hot air baboon – after 1h in the air – balloon is full of CO2, but still is lifting 670kg up! Read my post and prevent Warmist to find loopholes in what you stand for.- looks like you are a good fighter – BUT: must check your own weapons first. cheers!.

        Like

      • jesseli2002 says:

        I’d like to counter your arguments.
        1) You are, in effect, claiming that computer models are inaccurate. What makes you think so? Computer models have allowed us to predict many things, such as the paths of celestial bodies to the characteristics of sub-atomic particles. Thus, the only way computer models would produce inaccurate results would be from inaccurate data.
        Then, let us consider the source of this data. This data likely comes from a mixture of small-scale experiments and tested hypotheses. Thus, this data can be considered to be accurate.

        2) The thinning of the atmosphere does not affect diffusion of gasses. Sounding rockets can be used to go higher than weather balloons. Yes, the sun does vary in intensity, but that is a scale of much longer than what we’ve been seeing recently. I can’t be certain of the exact data, but the intensity of the sun and other such varying factors have periods of hundreds of thousands of years, while climate change has largely happened within the past hundred or so years. There is a significant difference.
        I will note, however, I did not fully understand the second sentence in this paragraph, so there may be points you have that I missed.

        3) I believe that your theory is correct that if sunlight were to hit the ice sheets flat on, there would be no reflection. However, the Earth, as you may know, is tilted by about 20 degrees; this allows the ice caps to have 24 hr solar radiation in the summer. Also note that since most of the light is reflected, little gets absorbed as heat. Furthermore, during the winter there is no light whatsoever, allowing it to regain any lost ice.

        4) Sea levels rise partly because of melting ice, but also partly because water expands as it heats up, as with many objects. Algore may have been exaggerating when he said sea levels would rise by tens of feet; furthermore, he may have been using data that is not as accurate as the data we have today. That being said, levels have risen by about 10 cm since 1993, as according to satellite data from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre.

        5) Consider a dry area that is far away from oceans, such as a desert. Since the oceans are a little far away, the evaporated water from them would not reach these deserts; furthermore, the little water they have would be dried up. Perhaps overtime, as the oceans expanded, the evaporated water would affect them, so you are right, to a certain degree. Yes, in history, average global temperatures have risen and fallen massive amounts, but never as rapidly as they are now. This causes some really strange things in climate that wouldn’t be seen in history; furthermore, the retreating permafrost would leave less habitat for the animals native to those areas, and thus potentially driving them to extinction.

        6) Turns out scientists do measure CO2 levels at the poles; they drill deep “ice cores”. Gases trapped in the ice allow scientists to calculate the composition of the atmosphere in ancient times, and they approximate the time by measured amounts of unstable particles.
        Natural gas, which comprises mainly of methane, does burn more cleanly (i.e. produces less CO2 per unit) than petroleum. However, if it isn’t burned, then it accumulates in the atmosphere as a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.
        I note that the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations in the world (I live in Canada – thought I might want to point that out if I’m going to discuss politics), and could probably significantly affect any such major decisions. Furthermore, China, Russia, and Islamic Socialism all mostly failed. Personally I think that socialism is more optimal than capitalism, since socialism allows the poorest section of the world to have a chance at a decent life; that being said, capitalism has to come before socialism because socialism requires a wealthy nation that can afford the massive investment. That’s actually probably why many of the socialist nations failed; because they couldn’t afford it, leading to famines.

        The media is actually somewhat corrupt; many news stations are trying to get money instead of presenting factual information. As a result, some inaccurate results are blown out of proportion, such as the levels of methane gas coming out of sewers and the number of scientists denying global warming. But science isn’t about the media, it’s about what’s going on; the media can distort the world as much as it wants, the world will still do its thing.

        In your conclusion, you claim that global warming science is not a science. I don’t think so; the basic idea of science is to use evidence to make predictions, and to test those predictions against new evidence. Climatologists do collect evidence, from historical records to ice cores, and they’ve made the prediction that climate change is happening. They have been testing this hypothesis against incoming evidence, and so far the vast majority of it matches out; the rest is likely from a statistical fluke. Also, fossil fuel companies stand to make a profit by denying climate change, so your argument that climate change was invented by people to make a profit can be used against yourself.

        Before I end, however, I would like to commend you on using that thing in your head called a brain. Many people don’t use it, simply taking in whatever they see in the media instead of evaluating it for its accuracy. You have taken evidence to draw conclusions, and that is a feat worth applauding in this society. However, I must state that occasionally, we draw inaccurate conclusions, or the evidence we found is not representative or inaccurate. As a result, I think that you must reevaluate your conclusions.

        I quite enjoyed writing this, and I hope that you will respond.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dustyk103 says:

        >1) You are, in effect, claiming that computer models are inaccurate.

        No, I’m not. I’m saying that some people are putting in phony data to promote lies. As any programmer knows, computers are only as good as their programmers. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

        >2) …but the intensity of the sun and other such varying factors have periods of hundreds of thousands of years, while climate change has >largely happened within the past hundred or so years.

        Then explain the multiple ten thousand year warm periods between each of the ninety thousand year Ice Ages.

        >3) Furthermore, during the winter there is no light whatsoever, allowing it to regain any lost ice.

        I think you answered your own question.

        >4) Algore may have been exaggerating when he said sea levels would rise by tens of feet.

        No, he didn’t. He outright lied. The stupidity of it was that he said it would happen within a few short years – and it hasn’t.

        >5) Consider a dry area that is far away from oceans, such as a desert.

        Deserts are not caused by global temperatures but by geography and latitudinal meteorology.

        >Yes, in history, average global temperatures have risen and fallen massive amounts, but never as rapidly as they are now.

        Are you aware that global warming scientists are finally admitting the Earth is in a cooling phase (that they just can’t seem to explain).
        http://lidblog.com/study-shows-global-warming-thawed-antarctica-128k-years-ago-before-fossil-fuels/

        >6) Turns out scientists do measure CO2 levels at the poles; they drill deep “ice cores”.

        Yes, it is this data that Algore tried to use saying ultra-high CO2 levels eventually led to climate crash causing the Ice Ages. Of course, he cannot explain how it happened in the past before we had cars and industry. The fact is the CO2 levels occurred AFTER the Ice Ages due to decreased foliage in the frozen over regions.

        On your observation about socialism, yes it always fails unless sustained by someone rich, which is what Margaret Thatcher said. Socialism doesn’t equitably distribute wealth, its leaders steal wealth and make everyone poor. Only capitalism has ever created enough trade and industriousness among people that everyone could prosper and rise out of poverty to create a Middle Class. Socialism never created anything except poverty. Most media outlets support those in power in government just as many businesses do because they want to 1) avoid being marked for destruction by the regime and, 2) get a piece of the action.

        >In your conclusion, you claim that global warming science is not a science.

        No, I did not say it is not science. I said it is science being corrupted by those who seek to dupe others into giving them power and money.

        I appreciate your taking the time to ask your questions and the opportunity to set things straight. It is unfortunate that I cannot make everything I know clear and concise in all ways or include all pertinent information to expound upon my viewpoint. That is why I continue to write and continue to read to learn more and uncover more of the truth. But I do believe the conclusions I have reached based on observation and knowledge of the facts to be as close to correct as can be reasonably assumed.

        Like

    • terbreugghen says:

      I agree that the original post contains some basic errors. I never heard the claim that CO2 is rising vertically in the atmosphere. The CO2 content of the atmosphere is increasing, and most of this is due to human activity. This is clear because the carbon in the CO2 is mostly C12, the old stable isotope of carbon. Fossil fuel use is shifting the composition of the atmosphere. CO2 content has increased about 30% over the last 100 years.

      But I agree with the post that the link between CO2 and global warming has not been established, and all computer modeling has been based on flawed assumptions thus the models have failed to predict current temperature curves. The latest research suggests that the global climate is much less sensitive to CO2 increase than originally theorized.

      Finally, the albedo effect cited by CS is indeed real. But due to the expansion of the Antarctic ice cover which is now at record levels, the overall albedo of the globe has been getting brighter and more reflective, not the opposite. Inconvenient facts, those. . .

      Like

      • terbreugghen, first of all, there is NO global warming! #2: the more pollution increases in the atmosphere -> the more of it is washed down by the rain! The good Lord made water to wash things, your dirty hands, ass and the atmosphere! Reason crops are much more prosperous from 2 inches of rain, than from same amount of irrigated water; – because rain washes CO2, nitrogen and SO2 from the air onto the crops and trees – reason after rain, air smells different!

        IF too much CO2 is washed into the soil -> water evaporates, as ”distilled” co2 stays and fertilizes the soil – if ”carbonated water” sinks deep, creates mineral water; beautiful! My friend, stop wetting the bed from fear of the phony global warming! b] Any isotope of carbon is good for the trees, crops, they are not fussy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dustyk103 says:

        Thanks, Stefan, for posting even more scientific facts about the fraud that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas.

        Like

      • dustyk103 some bacteria survives without oxygen, nothing living can survive without carbon. b] if you shake the bottle of beer and release – will see the amount of CO2 going out; but better drink it and be a carbon sink b] yeast is in bread, to release co2 and make bread spongy – all those bubbles in bread are 100% CO2. c] Arthur exhales CO2 from his lungs – uses that same CO2 for his vocal cords, to badmouth CO2 = hipocricy! (his body is made 23% of carbon)

        Liked by 1 person

      • dustyk103 says:

        What I have found to be true about liberals is that they are so ignorant of science while claiming the repositories of scientific truth. Few of them understand that all life on Earth is carbon based and relies on the consumption of carbon for survival. All organic life forms consume organic molecules for sustenance. But if you asked on of them they wouldn’t understand that the human body is made up of 70% water and 23% Carbon. They think we are flesh and blood and bone without a clue about the actual chemical composition of their own bodies. They are like those who turn up their noses at catfish because they are “bottom feeders” – they obviously don’t know what farmers use to fertilize their vegetables.

        Like

  2. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    Have you ever been into astronomy, Dusky? It’s actually much more entertaining than Rush Limbo.
    .
    “3) Your claim that ice sheets “reflect solar heat” lands flat when they only form at the poles that receive no direct sunlight. Lack of direct sunlight is the reason the poles ice over in the first place.”
    .
    So you are not only a denier of global warming, you are denying the albedo effect also? When I look at Mars through a telescope, why am I able to so clearly see the Martian polar ice cap? I don’t have an infra-red telescope, but I can guarantee you that if I were to observe Mars in infra-red, the polar ice cap would be reflecting heat energy just as much as it reflects visible light. Why would the albedo effect apply to other planets, but not to the Earth?
    .
    I would also be interested in your explanation of the planet Venus, where the greenhouse effect is so extreme that day and night temperatures on Venus frequently are higher than those of Mercury, a planet much closer to the Sun. Note that if the atmosphere of Venus had a different composition, that planet could very well have had a climate very similar to our own.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Reflecting light is not the same as reflecting heat, so you should try your infra-red viewer. In any case, the amount of heat reflected back will still be minimal. Venus can get hotter than Mercury because it has an atmosphere. An atmosphere helps retain heat. No greenhouse effect required.

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Try my infra-red viewer? Are you for real? Try it yourself and see! Please do an experiment, or at least look it up on an astronomy website, because you seriously do not know anything and you are going to make your sixth grade science teacher cry. You think that the albedo effect is a hoax, and the greenhouse effect is also a hoax, and that we must put Galileo under house arrest. You are working backwards from a conclusion and simply dismissing all evidence you don’t like in the most facile way possible.

        Like

    • Arthur W. DiMatteo
      #1: albedo effect has nothing to do with the earth’s temp – it has been concocted; to scare people about Arctic waters losing ice.
      b] the truth: water has ”mirror effect” reflects light better than white ice! Look into 2inches puddle of water on the road – you will see upside down trees and 7km deep down clouds moving (nothing reflects more light than mirror)
      c] 6 months of a year is no sunlight to reflect on arctic BUT: without ice as insulator -> water collects much more of the unlimited winter coldness = the Carbon Molester’s (CM) theory is not only wrong, but back to front as well.
      d] creating CH4 (methane) is the best thing for the earth, because: 2H2O +CO2 => CH2+4O In other words: to create one molecule of methane -> releases 4 oxygen atoms from CO2+H2O – we have plenty water in the sea, BUT: extra oxygen is needed for many different reasons – one of them is: reverse the depletion of oxygen, done by burning natural gas – read the truth, will be shocked from what the Warmist Organized Crime (WOC) is doing and misleading ::https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/methane-ch4/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Arthur W. DiMatteo
      If you read the post I gave you the link; you would have learned the differences between earth, Venus, the moon and mercury – otherwise, as it says there: nobody can accuse you of comparing apples with oranges, because you are comparing apples with a watermelon! I challenge you, and the rest: to read my post, ”every sentence” – you ”peer review it”, with the most critical eye; but be objecting.

      Because that post makes the Warmist to panic!

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        The albedo effect is not concocted: it is a real thing that can be measured.

        Comparing the Earth with Mars or Venus is not apples to oranges or apples to watermelons. They are all planets that are heated by the sun and subject to exactly the same forces. Both Earth and Mars have polar ice caps that reflect heat and light back into outer space in the same way.

        No, the surface of the sea is not more reflective than glacial ice. The ocean is not like the surface of 2 inch puddle of still water: it is turbulent and quite dark. Take another look at your mirror-like puddle, then go out in the bay in a boat and compare.

        And I am not in a panic right now, in fact I feel rather calm.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        The Albedo Effect’s existence does not make it significant. Since the sunlight that hits the poles comes in at extremely steep angles, no real heat is being absorbed. It’s why the ice occurs in the first place, so what is reflected is no loss.

        Like

      • Arthur, not much sun to reflect on the polar caps at best of time. On the other hand; you start sneezing as soon as you look at distance at the surface of the sea. I’m here in the tropics – have lots of problem on the boat from sun glare – which is every day of the year..

        Somebody was showing me from Wikipedia; all illustrated: ice has 80% albedo – forest 40% and water 8%. Well that kind of tricks they use, to trick the ignorants… I pointed that to him – and pointed that: -” an 8 minutes old turtle knows the reflection of the water, and darkness in the forest”’

        Arthur, no need to go to polar caps – fresh snow in winter has same reflection as ice 2] then; if you are on the east-coast go in the morning / if on west-coast, go in the evening and look at the sea surface (from aircraft water surface looks as aluminum foil}
        Arthur, you have being duped by the apparatchiks and the politburo / called IPCC! be fair to yourself and read my post, every sentence; then we can discuss the reality, be a good spot!

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        These facts result in simple math. If ice reflects 80% but is only hit by sunlight at less than 45 degrees and covers from 5-10% of the Earth’s surface, and water reflects 8% but is hit by sun at greater than 45 degrees and covers 70% of the Earth, water reflects far more than ice. If the Earth warmed it would result in more tropical rain forest, more temperate zones, and less permafrost. The Chicken Little hysteria that the Earth will become a desert is tripe.

        Like

      • Arthur the surface of the sea reflects sunlight, as much as calm water =only difference – ruff see reflects sunlight like mirror broken in 1000 pieces, in every direction!
        you relay too much on google for basic informations. Remember: anything on google connected with badmouthing CO2 is concocted lies!!!
        Example: Mars never had ”dense” atmosphere!!; for dense atmosphere needs strong gravity – to pull the air down and create that ” dense pressure /” Mars always had same gravity strength as now! Stop listening to Warmist Organized Crime *WOC) they just make up stories, not based on science!!!

        Like

    • Arthur, IF Venus had ”one atmosphere pressure” same as on the earth, AND was on the same distance from the sun = would have had SAME temperature as the earth
      BUT: concentration of sunlight on Venus is greater, because of proximity to the sun.
      2] because of proximity and larger sun – on Venus both polar caps are under permanent sunlight, unlike on the earth, where one or the other polar cap is in darkness
      3] the ”cold vacuum” that the earth and Venus are traveling trough – penetrates in the earth’s atmosphere, but not much on Venus, where the density of the air is greater

      Arthur, don’t be a chicken – read my post, and learn all the details, here,for you again: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        The south pole of the planet Venus is completely obscured by a vortex of swirling clouds. The polar regions of Venus are not “under permanent sunlight,” in fact very little sunlight ever reaches the surface of that planet due to the composition of its atmosphere. Again, I can look at Mars with my telescope and observe all sorts of physical terrain on its surface, but with Venus I cannot because the clouds cover the entire planet at all times and reflect nearly all visible light.

        Not wanting to “peer-review” that other website doesn’t make me a “chicken” and I resent being called that. First, I actually am not qualified to peer-review anything and don’t know why you assume I would be. Second, your syntax is abysmal to the point of being unclear. If you are not a native speaker, I understand, but you need to have someone proofread and edit your article, rewrite it in clear sentences that express complete thoughts, and only then can you reasonably solicit criticism. It would actually be unfair to you if I went ahead and disputed an argument that had not even been expressed properly. Third, even if you could write legibly, you have already proposed multiple “facts” that are trivially easy to prove untrue, in a demonstrable way, and I have given you written explanations to show that they could not be true. Right now I already see at least one other pretty remarkable error that I can’t even be bothered to expound upon right now. So I am actually not inclined to take anything else you say very seriously, and can only urge you to enroll in some remedial classes in the physical sciences.

        Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says: ”The south pole of the planet Venus is completely obscured by a vortex of swirling clouds”

        Arthur, happy Easter!
        Venus with vortexes is a mythology – not what you see! – winds are calm; because of long day / night and polar caps less difference in temp with equator. 2] you can see clearer mars than Venus – because: when you look at mars – is same as looking at full moon / when looking at Venus, is same as looking at ”new” moon – if you don’t know why; ask me.

        you don’t like my bad English, because I’m proving that is NO global warming and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (other people can understand why I say – are you less capable than the rest?) you didn’t point at any subject that I ‘m wrong = I’m correct 100%. b] in Warmist circles ”peer reviewing” is: ”if you don’t believe him – ask his brother, the other liar” Honest peer reviewing is; when is reviewed by a extreme opponent, reason i asked you.

        Arthur, trying to portray somebody as ”inadequate” is because: you don’t have a case!!! That ”other post” proves all the Warmist propaganda, not just wrong, but back to front also = you are wasting your life on cheap lies, concocted by people that should be in jail, for profiteering under false pretense. You should read that post, for your own bnefit

        Like

    • terbreugghen says:

      Please explain the absence of the greenhouse effect on Mars, a planet in which 96% of the atmosphere IS CO2.

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Of course it exists on Mars. Carbon gas has a greenhouse effect in any atmosphere it happens to be present in. It is not absent, in fact there is some solid evidence that the atmosphere of Mars was once dense enough that the temperature rose to the point that liquid water may have flowed over the surface of Mars. And since you said please then I will say you’re welcome for the explanation.

        Like

  3. dustyk103 says:

    No, I’m calling you out of your bogus claim that you can look at ice through an infra-red viewer and see heat being reflected. When you look at ice in infra-red you see cold.

    Like

  4. gentlemen, can I join the conversation? #1: if CO2 had anything to do with the climate – deserts and forest would have had SAME climate, because they have SAME amount of CO2! Confusing the normal climatic changes with the phony ”global” warming – is the grandmother of all lies. H2O regulates the climate, not CO2. The phony global warming was invented only for collecting ”protection money” . The truth is all proven beyond any reasonable doubt. on this post:https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

    Like

  5. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    Please take a moment to think about what you just wrote: “deserts and forest would have had SAME climate, because they have SAME amount of CO2!” How ridiculous. A desert is an area with low precipitation. A forest is an area with many trees. There are very warm and very cold deserts; there are very warm and very cold forests. Neither the temperature, nor the level of carbon dioxide have much of anything to do with it.

    Like

    • Hi Arthur, maybe YOU should think what you are saying – I was saying: -”water regulates the climate, not CO2” that example was suppose to prove to you…
      I didn’t say about the temp in the desert; permafrost is desert in a cold country. So: please try again to understand: plenty H2O = good climate / not much CO2 = bad climate! Climate has nothing to do with the Warmist phony ”global” warming! Arthur, please read my post i gave link, above your comment – then you will know the difference Cheers!

      Like

  6. dustyk103 says:

    Arthur, please take a moment and think about what you just wrote; “There are very warm and very cold deserts; there are very warm and very cold forests.” Deserts are all hot iin the day andy cold at night. Forests can grow from the equator to the Arctic circle, but they are all composed of different types of trees. Warm weather trees cannot exist in cold regions and vice versa. See how easy it is to take what you say and apply different facts to render your statement ridiculous?

    Stefan was making the same point I made about the climate and topography and the fact that Earth is a water planet. (might be on another article linked to here.) Deserts are not caused by CO2 warming the planet, but by geography and the Coriolis Effect. So the entire leftist argument that we are going to “cook” the planet is ludicrous.

    Like

  7. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    I have thought about it and can confidently stand by everything I wrote. In no way did Dusty render my statement ridiculous: how can you think any of that in any way discredits my last reply?

    This: “deserts and forest would have had SAME climate, because they have SAME amount of CO2” is still a silly thing to say. Carbon dioxide is one factor that affects the climate, but it is certainly not the only one. It is not going to create an identical climate in every environment on Earth.

    “I didn’t say about the temp in the desert” – climate by definition includes temperature. If you are not discussing temperature in any way, then what you are saying about climate makes even less sense.

    Like

    • dustyk103 says:

      Yes, but my point was simply we do not always speak succinctly 100% of the time, so taking something poorly said and trying to make it the argument is just a distraction from the actual facts. The fact is the entire CO2 argument is bogus and is proven more so with the new declarations that methane is ten times worse. If there were any truth to that argument they would be showing weather balloon data rather than measuring on the ground.

      Like

    • Arthur, Arthur; water H2O regulates the climate – plenty water on land = good climate – no water = bad climate. Reason the Warmist are against building new dams, because dams improve the climate!!! Dams attract more clouds from the sea AND: bring them lower, to drop the rain! Clouds avoid dry / bad climate! Earthworms refuse to live in deserts, because is bad climate! I don’t pretend to know what is the IQ of an earthworm, BUT: they know more about what is regulating the climate, than shonky climate scientists and their followers…!!!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        “Remember: anything on google connected with badmouthing CO2 is concocted lies!!!”
        What makes you think so?
        “Example: Mars never had ”dense” atmosphere!!;”
        How do you know?
        “for dense atmosphere needs strong gravity”
        If you study Saturn, you will find that it has many rings and a large moon named Titan. Titan is smaller than either Earth or Mars, and has weaker gravity, but it has a very thick and dense atmosphere.

        Since you don’t trust Google, then I recommend you go to your local library and check out a book on astronomy. Your claim that I rely on internet searching is funny. It is not true: I rely on Carl Sagan.

        Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        Carl Sagan proved himself to be an incompetent believer in the CO2 and fossil fuel fraud in 1991. His declaration that Saddam’s spilling and igniting Kuwait’s entire oil field would lead to a nuclear winter type temperature drop and the ecological destruction of the Persian Gulf, neither of which occurred to any significant degree.

        Like

      • Arthur, I’m back
        Mars doesn’t AND didn’t have thick atmosphere; because of weak gravity – the ”cold vacuum” surrounding the planets would pull any exes gas! It’s a constant ”thug of war” between the gravity of a planet, and that vacuum! I know physics, no need to learn from books for brainwashing, written by ignorant commissars – everything is controlled by the laws of physics. IF the Warmist / Marxist politicians want to be believed – first must abolish the laws of physics; by legislation and in UN! Here inform yourself, go to the link and read every sentence: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/venus-runaway-greenhouse-con/

        Like

  8. dustyk103 says:

    As stefan points out, not only is there no scientific evidence beyond computer models created for the very purpose of making them so, neither methane nor CO2 are “greenhouse gases.” The entire argument is a fallacy based on duping those ignorant of climatology. Liberals use their ignorance of science to convince them of phony science and stroke their own deficient egos with studies by liberals saying they understand more science than conservatives who “reject science.” Independent studies all found that conservatives know far more science than liberals because they are older and better educated proving that Churchill’s assertion about liberals over thirty to be true.

    Like

    • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

      If you have ever been near a burst pipe containing natural gas, then you know that it feels warm where the methane escapes from the leak. Methane readily absorbs heat, that is simply one of its chemical properties, that is why it is a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide gas also retains heat, and so does water vapor, but much less than methane. All this was true before I turned thirty, and is still true now that I am past that age, no amount of misquoting Churchill can change natural physical properties of atmospheric gases.

      Like

      • dustyk103 says:

        That doesn’t change the fact that they are both trace gases in our atmosphere. Arguing that they absorb heat is not a greenhouse effect that liberals say they create. The Greenhouse effect is a reflection of heat from the upper atmosphere making this argument erroneous and misleading. The fact that they are trace gases is no different than arguing that ice reflects heat from the poles, but the poles are only covered with ice because the sun’s rays barely touch them. Water vapor in the atmosphere is what accounts for Earth’s heating and cooling and there is no empirical evidence that CO2 or methane create a greenhouse effect or even a significant change in atmospheric temperatures.

        Like

      • Arthur, you are not just wrong, but back to front regarding ”burst pipe” – when you let lots of gas -> the pipe gets covered by ice, if any humid area! ”gas expending” is used in refrigerators #2: evaporation collects heat; deep your hand in petrol and let it evaporate-> will cool your hand; that’s something different. From liquid LP gas going into vapor – is same as when sprinkle yourself with water, after running -> makes you shivering cold! On Mars or Venus CO2 doesn’t get into liquid, because needs tremendous pressure, as in the gas bottle. Otherwise CO2 goes from gas into ice directly on temp of -109,5F (78C) for natural gas to get liquid, needs even colder, to get down to -175C! Please read my posts

        Like

  9. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    OK, Stefan, I am reading your posts. If you made some attempt to write more legibly maybe I would better understand what you are try to convey to me. All I can tell is that you seem to have confused methane with some other type of gas. If you open up the valve on a tank of compressed methane, it will feel pretty warm, if you are really determined I suppose you could try it yourself somehow if you would rather not believe me.

    You wrote more, and as far as I can tell none of it directly or indirectly addresses or refutes anything I said, but if I am incorrect please clarify. Expressing your thoughts one at a time in complete sentences, and in paragraphs with a clear beginning and end, would be appreciated.

    Like

  10. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    OK, Stefan, I am reading your posts. If you made some attempt to write more legibly maybe I would better understand what you are trying to convey to me. All I can tell is that you seem to have confused methane with some other type of gas. If you open up the valve on a tank of compressed methane, it will feel pretty warm, if you are really determined I suppose you could try it yourself somehow if you would rather not believe me.

    You wrote more, and as far as I can tell none of it directly or indirectly addresses or refutes anything I said, but if I am incorrect please clarify. Expressing your thoughts one at a time in complete sentences, and in paragraphs with a clear beginning and end, would be appreciated.

    Like

    • Arthur, English is not my first, or second language; I’m learning it now. b] if you are so proud for succeeding to learn your native language, just say it BRAVO! #2: I need to look occasionally for English words in dictionary #3: because others can understand me – you shouldn’t put yourself down as ”less capable than the rest”

      Arthur; I tried all those things long time ago, in university laboratory BUT: when now going camping in N/E Australian bush – instead of using gas for the stove / we love campfires – gas pipe we put into cool box and release to cool the beer! did it on few occasions; you try it!!! B] when realized that your knowledge is back to front, gave you few examples that: from liquid when substances turn into gas, produce ”coldness” : is used in freezers… C] in the air methane is not released from liquid to gas; for methane to turn liquid, needs temp of -175C, OR to compress it. D] methane, LP, butane, propane are ALL same family hydrocarbons!

      Arthur; when you started comparing Venus and Mars with Titan – you actually admitted that: you don’t know that gases react differently, on extreme temperatures: on Venus CO2 is hot / expended gas — if CO2 on Titan, is as ice, on the ground – CO2 needs only 78,5C, to turn into ice and NOT to be part of the atmosphere. I believe they said that is on Titan, was it on Europa lakes of liquid methane; which means: if methane is liquid in normal air pressure, must be coldness ”close” to liquefying nitrogen = on that coldness nitrogen is ”very dense” that increases atmospheric pressure (liquid nitrogen is that bottle where doctors keep embryos) See Arthur, I must be incoherent, because trying in few paragraphs to inform you, what google damage did for X number of years to you -so remember: ”closed mind is same as closed parashoot, not very useful to the owner” I never send you to read somebodies lies, where you cannot ask question, or make a comment – I asked you to read few of my post and learn correctly – you can still be a Warmista. but the more you know, the more you are worth; at least: when you know the truth -> you can judge which of your brains-trusts are lying more, when you ”google” to learn what propaganda wants you to know.
      The political commissars need gullible people like you, for support => they are benefiting; I don’t think you can ever benefit from the misleading propaganda, with your ”closed mind”
      For the Apparatchiks, you are just another Urban Sheep for fleecing, as the rest of us

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        Maybe the language barrier is too much, I am sorry. Methane is not propane, they contain different chemicals, I am trying to get you to understand that they are different gases. Your camp stove is most likely fueled by propane, methane would be inefficient for that sort of thing. Methane’s properties are well known, I don’t know why you would challenge one of them that is so easy to verify.

        You are apparently also confusing the different planets and moons with one another as far as I can tell. In any case, again I sincerely cannot see how any of that refutes or addresses anything I have written here about astronomy. I thank you for your effort to communicate, and if there is another question in there that I failed to answer, if you would kindly restate it I promise I will do my best to give you an earnest response.

        Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        And why are you calling me gullible and assuming that I did not even know that methane is a hydro-carbon? That was uncalled for.

        Like

      • Arthur, whoever benefits from the misleading propaganda; is doing it for profit AND ideology; they use CO2 instead of Kalashnikov, for their October Revolution in the democratic west – ANYBODY supporting the thieves, is a ”gullible person”.

        Like

  11. Arthur, methane CH4 is ”same family gas” as propane, or butane, LP gas C2H6, they are all made from SAME ELEMENTS, carbon and hydrogen! They all behave the same; when from liquid form are evaporating, they can freeze boiling water. I asked you to read few posts and inform yourself; but: one can only take a horse to water, cannot make him drink…

    here are the biggest Warmist proofs, see what and whom you are blindly supporting:

    https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/global-warming-lost-its-compass-again/

    https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/

    https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/water-vapor-h2o/

    Like

  12. Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

    Yes methane would have to be extremely cold to be in a liquid form, no it does not have all of the same properties as propane or other carboniferous gases. The same elements form very different compounds when arranged into different molecules. If you cannot understand the difference between CH4 and C2H6, please ask a chemist.

    Like

    • Arthur, Arthur – they are ”same family gases” you should ask a chemist, to tell you ”same family” means – I’ll try here: same as Vienna bread, french bread and bread-roll are different shapes BUT are ”made from same thing and used for same thing”!!! #2: I was pointing out to you that: YOU using liquid methane as example, was showing that you are short on knowledge; because: in nature – if methane comes out of cow’s ass into the air – there is no ”liquid to gas process” therefore: you using methane from pipe is completely inappropriate example! Methane is next to pure hydrogen and is burned by UV &IR, in a jiffy; because is oxygen present in the air. Lying that ”methane is a greenhouse gas” is completely misleading. Butane is next, a bit safer to use – otherwise is SAME THING. We are going in a circle, not suitable place and time, for complete reeducation.

      Reason your knowledge is back to front is: because you relay on google for knowledge, BUT: there is ALL for misleading and confusing people about CO2!. B] most probably in the past you have being doing same as now; instead of listening and learning… Arthur, again will say: read every sentence of this post; will prove to you: beyond any reasonable doubt that: -”in 100y from now will not be enough EXTRA heat accumulated on the whole planet, as much as one Al Gore’s fart”!!! then you will recognize that your Warmist attitude is fruitless crap! be a good sport and read it, don’t be scared from the truth:

      https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

      Like

      • Arthur W. DiMatteo says:

        I had referred to methane gas: you are the one who started going on about liquid methane, not me. On another note: the hydrocarbons are a huge family of compounds, with a wide variety of molecular structures and many different properties, each one is unique. If you think that they are all the same, you simply do not know the first thing about what you are talking about.

        You keep accusing me of relying on Google. How could you possibly know what I read and how I access it?

        You keep telling me I should listen to you and accept what you say as the truth. Why would I do that when you are constantly making mistakes that are easy to point out?

        Being long-winded actually doesn’t add to your credibility Stefan. I am not interested in your rambling screeds: you badly need proof-reading and editing. Your writing is not anywhere near as convincing as you seem to think it is, and your understanding of physics and chemistry does not seem to be evidence-based. Condescend to me all you want, but recognize that does not actually deflect my objections to your arguments in any real sense.

        I think our discussion ought to be over now. I hope you will think about it later on and do a little self-reflection.

        Like

      • Arthur, methane and my grammar is not your problem – obviously you have much bigger problems; take your medications on time, and try to relax – leave science to other people.

        You are realizing that; ”there is no global warming -you have being duped by the swindlers” -> now you are trowing tantrum as a three year old… ask your doctor to increase your medication AND go fishing – fishing is same as meditation, makes you to relax.
        Goodbye Arthur, and good luck!

        Like

  13. Pingback: CO2 and Other Global Warming Lies - T-SPAN.TV

  14. Pingback: Refuting global warming science is elementary | Liberals Backwards Think | wwlee4411

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s