Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Red1966 said:

Blathering about something as if it were a fact then completely failing to respond to a request for detail indicates an intent to deceive. Liars lie.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

What do you expect? buck couldn't even graduate from a school in which a "D" is considered a good grade. ASU Alumni are particularly proud of their ability to drink and party, but are sore that they cannot figure that if you increase 1 by 100% you will have 2 and not 1.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page4.php
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~jyorks/graphics/Yorks_RadiativeEffects.pdf
http://www.ecocem.ie/environmental,albedo.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

while smoke is less effective at reflecting solar radiation back into space than snow and ice, it is still potent
it's the same effect (on a smaller scale) that triggered the extinction event at the end of the age of the dinosaurs

smoke from live wood is very thick, and can linger in the atmosphere for extended periods of time

after a fire is out, the smoke pall keeps that area noticably cooler often for weeks if there is no wind or rain to disperse it.

scienced.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

but i'm certain that red does.



good job on a sciency "guesstimation".



why would i? you said you couldn't find anything to back red's claim.




nope.

burden of proof is on the person making the claim. that would be red, or you, since you decided to carry that idiot's water.



you're the one who made that claim, then you argued against that claim when you could find nothing to back up red's assertion about water vapor having a "hundredfold effect" over CO2.

seems to me if AGW draws grant money so easily, such a powerful force would get tons of funding and you'd have no problem finding something to back you up.


idiot.

still waiting for citation of the claim, not just back of the eggo box math by you.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

aerosols and albedo effects are not forest fires. don't believe a single one of your sources even mentioned forest fires, much less how they cause global cooling.

i can pull just as many results off google that actually do mention forest fires, but that they may lead to global warming, not cooling. one study that says it's a wash.

please try to cite something that clearly demonstrates how forest fires cause global cooling.

by the way, a small area being cool for a few weeks after a forest fire is not the same as GLOBAL warming or cooling over an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

l2science.

Click to expand...

Red1966 said:

Blathering about something as if it were a fact then completely failing to respond to a request for detail indicates an intent to deceive. Liars lie.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

and still no citation of the "hundredfold effect of water vapor" or about how "forest fires cause global cooling".

with AGW grant money so easy to get, it seems like there should be a million citations of each.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

and still no citation of the "hundredfold effect of water vapor" or about how "forest fires cause global cooling".

with AGW grant money so easy to get, it seems like there should be a million citations of each.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

so now you wish to contend that water is NOT capable of absorbing IR radiation, and is therefore NOT a "greenhouse gas"?

even if water were simply on a par with CO2, since there is 100 TIMES more of it in the air, it is...

DUN DUN DUN....

100 times more powerful a force than CO2.

i know you are not this stupid.

recant your Water Denialist Heresy and go to the troll pen with some dignity.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

the money is in Remediation, Vulnerability and Attribution, none of which are available to research water and forest fires since water is unavoidable, and so are forest fires (no matter what a cartoon bear might tell you)

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i mean, here's one that says some LOCAL cooling occurs. none that i can find that go to GLOBAL cooling though.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/temperate-zone-forest-fir/

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

that might be true if water vapor had the same staying power as CO2, but it doesn't. not even close. water vapor disperses quite quickly, CO2 does not.

still awaiting a citation to back up red's claim.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

local effects mirror global effects.

thats how the "greenhouse Effect" was first examined, in small controlled experiments.

in the event of worldwide forest fires, a Nuclear Winter effect would be virtually certain despite the increased CO2 levels (see The Extinction Of The Dinosaurs)

Mt Pinatubo's eruption resulted in measurable cooling due to it's albedo effect, and it was just one volcano.

enough smoke could cool the planet down rapidly, even if it's source were from forest fires. the assertion is valid.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i found this source which discusses forest fires and global cooling, but they say that jupiter causes global warming and jesus is in control.

http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/carbon-dioxide-global-warming-climate-change-hoax.html

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

do i have to do all your work for you?

i found the only source out there about forest fires and global cooling, and it only discusses LOCAL cooling, which may balance out the warming that the fire's CO2 output caused over 80 years, IF their predictions are right.

later papers say differently, but this should be a godsend for you.

now show me the forest fires that cause GLOBAL cooling.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

huh?

that doesnt even make any sense.

it is the volume of a gas in the air NOW that determined how much of the IR radiation is trapped, not how much there will be next week

Protip: one water molecule stays in the atmosphere for about a week before being replaced by another goddamned water molecule, resulting in a CONSTANT ~4% concentration in the atmosphere
you can find this factoid in the reading material previously supplied.

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

you are now trying to change the subject, we are still arguing about water vapour being more powerful a force for "global warming" than CO2.

and yes, since there is constantly a global average in excess of 100 times more water vapour in the air than CO2, even if water only absorbs the same amount of radiation ac CO2, it is at least 100 times more powerful and important

i can make you look like a fool on forest fires and the albedo effect later.

i am enjoying putting you through this spanking machine, the next one can be constructed later.

Click to expand...