The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

Was somebody surprised that I posted 5 options for answering simple Yes/No question?

You opted for 3. http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-to-be-dimming.521495/page-17#post-1068571018 and I am not surprised:

I didn’t ask for 2, for 3 for 10, not many I asked for one , just one experiment; and I did not ask for any experiment available, but for one, just one demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

Just one such experiment will be enough for me to except that GW is science and not a total insanity.

How much more simple could it be?

But none of the believers/disbelievers in CO2/GW/CC on either side is capable of comprehending the simplest request, the simplest count.

They come again and again just to demonstrate total insanity of CO2/GW/CC idea.

 

No. Such bizarre behavior is normal coming from you, so it surprised nobody.

And I linked you to that data, resulting in you going Sgt. Schultz on us ("I see nothing! Nothing!"). You used to have some amusement value, but you're getting boring now.

 

Yes, and cars and trucks are also also a small part of the equation. The total transportation sector globally is 14% of emissions. Cars and trucks are just a fraction of that.

So, the rest of your argument collapses, being it's based on an incorrect premise that deforestation is the major CO2 source. It also collapses because there are massive efforts being made against deforestation. That is, scientists and policy makers are acting precisely how they should act, given the data.

As every factor is being investigated in excruciating detail, your claim is clearly false. If you disagree, state for us, in your own words, exactly what factor you say is not being investigated. your little cut and paste there showed no such things, so you need to give something to back up your claim.

 

No it won't. I've pointed you to more than one and it didn't help.

 

Guess you missed my post %#340.

"Who said anything about bio mass burning? It's about half the forest being gone and more going away every day. This has effects known and unknown well beyond C02 levels that the AGW crowd is so obsessed with. If we wanted to effect Earth's climate the first thing we would do is change the composition of the environment by getting rid of forest."

 

If you can find all these in depth studies that have looked at how loss of forest effect climate beyond C02 and do so in "excruciating detail" feel free to post them. What I find is brief mentions sandwiched between long diatribes on C02 and even then they say little study has been done on this or obtuse statements such as:

"feedbacks between these mechanisms and the local climate are less well
understood. These feedbacks often occur on small spatial scales which cannot
be resolved by climate models, and have only been studied over limited areas"

" The impacts in temperate regions are unclear, with poor agreement "

"Feedbacks between the ocean circulation and climate appear to be important in
south-east Asia following deforestation, but model results do not agree on the
sign of changes in circulation and rainfall".

 

Guess you missed my mention of rice paddies and population and I think you are missing my point altogether. Man's C02 contribution is a tiny fraction of what man does to the planet but bets 90% of the attention. This obsession with C02 sucks up all the oxygen in the room and let's far worse degradation go on it's merry way.

By the way I've been called a lot of bad things but never before been called a tree hugger. Take that back!!!!! LOL

 

I don't deny that any believers or disbeliever in GW/CC can click on your link https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/radiation-budget and see one, just one experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

It is right here on an open public forum and any believer or disbeliever can click https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/radiation-budget and confirm that he/she sees one, just one experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

It only confirms my conclusion that GW idea is absolutely sick.

 

You are lying as usual as you do in all your posts.

 

CO2 doesn't absorb energy in the day, store it, and then emit it all away at night. You're asking us to prove that your bizarre fantasy physics is correct. Sorry, that's not possible, because your fantasy physics isn't correct.

That is, you have no idea of what you're babbling about, and you're embarrassing yourself badly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles

The minima were lower in cycles 6 and 7.

 

You quoted my statement: I don't deny that any believers or disbeliever in GW/CC can click on your link https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/radiation-budget and see one, just one experiment demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

I am glad to see that each and every believer in GW sees words store it, and then in my statement.

Talking about insanity.

First you insisted that you provided a link demonstrating that CO2 absorbs more radiation energy during the day than it emits during the night.

Now you are saying you did not.

Now can you please inform me what is happening, what does CO2 do?

Talking about insanity.

 

Start out with the paper you cited.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2dHiUbKGkYLVzTnLT0TIpd

It has many pages discussing what you demand, yet you said it only had a very snippets. You clearly didn't read beyond the opening summary, which is where your quotes came from.

Here's another paper.

http://web-static-aws.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Bonan_2008.pdf

Also check the many references cited by those two papers. Excruciating detail, check. Your claim that the issue of forests is being ignored is obviously false. Next time, you might consider actually reading your own source.

 

1. I point out exactly where one part of your science stinks.

2. Instead of addressing how your science stinks, you declare victory because I didn't bother pointing out exactly where that part of your science stinks in a previous post.

Conclusion?

Here's a juicebox. Run along back to the kiddie table. The grownups are talking.

 

1. You pointed out exactly.
2. You didn't bother pointing out exactly.

Talking about insanity.

And you will not answer no question, will keep on spewing ad homs.

Speaking about insanity.

 

Not seeing what you claim. Why didn't you just copy and paste some of what you claim exist I wonder. Maybe because it's difficult to find much in between mentions of C02? It's difficult to find a single paragraph that doesn't include C02 but if you do find one that doesn't it's sandwiched between paragraphs that do.

 

Because there are pages and page of it, and anyone can click the link.

Clearly, you _still_ haven't even looked at the paper.

Let's start with page 6. You know, the beginning of the actual text.

2. Mechanisms by which forests influence weather and climate
2.1 Overview

Forests can influence local and regional weather and climate via a number of different
mechanisms (Betts, 2006). The albedo of a surface is defined as the ratio of the
radiation reflected from a surface to the total radiation falling on the surface. Forests
have low albedos; for example, 0.08 (Betts and Ball, 1997), which means that only 8% of
the incoming solar energy is reflected. Other surfaces, such as snow and ice, have much
higher albedos and reflect almost all of the incoming solar energy. The low albedo of
forests means they absorb most of the incoming solar radiation and become warmer,
and then warm the air around and above them. The energy transferred from the forests
to the surrounding air is called sensible heat, and involves a change of temperature.
Forests also absorb water from soils via their roots and release it into the atmosphere, a
process called evapotranspiration, which has several effects on weather and climate
(von Randowet al.,2004). Water is removed from the soil as a liquid, but is released as
a vapour. Energy is required to change the phase of water, and so this process acts to
cool the surface. When water changes phase, energy is either absorbed (e.g., changing
from liquid to vapour) or released (changing from vapour to liquid), but the temperature
does not change. This energy is referred to aslatent heat. The water vapour released
can be transported to higher altitudes where temperatures are cooler, and condense to
form clouds and rain. Clouds have high albedos, and so reflect incoming solar energy
and cool the surface below them.

Another mechanism by which forests can affect local weather is via aerodynamic
roughness. Surfaces which are aerodynamically rough increase air turbulence above
them, which causes a drag on the air flowing over them and reduces the wind speed.
Surfaces which have low aerodynamic roughness include ice, grasses and crops. The
surface of forests, however, is aerodynamically rough, which causes turbulence in the air
and enhances the exchange of sensible heat and moisture from the forest into the air
(Rotenberg and Yakir, 2010). The moisture content of air above the forest becomes
larger, which could cause convection, cloud formation and an enhancement of rainfall
(Millán, 200. Trees sway in the wind which further acts to slow down the wind speed
and increase turbulence (Su, 2010). Overall, momentum has been transferred from the
air to the forests.

The climate within forests, especially tropical ones, tends to be more stable than non-
forested areas. Removal of forests and replacing them by crops, grassland or bare soil
will therefore have a large impact on the climate and hydrology of the deforested area.
After deforestation, evaporation will be reduced, meaning more energy is emitted from
the ground as sensible heat instead of latent heat, which acts to warm the surface. The
reduced flux of moisture to the atmosphere means humidity levels and precipitation are
likely to be reduced (Betts, 2006).
----

There's not a peep about CO2 up there. You're lying outright. I just demonstrated that.

The lesson you should learn here is that when you're in a hole, stop digging. You should have just admitted that you didn't read the paper. Instead, you tried to hide your stupidity by telling bigger lies, and now your credibility is completely destroyed.

 

Now show the paragraphs before and after what you posted, I said " If you do find anything about forest without C02 in it, it's sandwiched by C02 laden paragraphs. Also in both these link examples on forest effecting the climate the overwhelming majority of it is based on C02 while other effects like what you just posted get mentioned but no in depth studies follow up on it. Thanks for proving my point.

Edit: I was going to do it for you but found you had been even more deceptive than I thought. You actually left out part of the page you posted , the part that proved my point. Very dishonest of you and typical data manipulation of the cult. Lies and deception like this is why nobody believes you guys anymore.

"The mechanisms described above show how forests can influence local and regional
weather and climate. However, all forests have long-term global climate impacts via
interactions with carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere. CO2 is the
most important greenhouse gas, owing to its long lifetime in the atmosphere and strong
absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface (IPCC, 2007). The
growth and spread of forests results in an uptake of CO2 which reduces its levels in the
atmosphere and results in a net cooling. However, deforestation results in the carbon
being released into the atmosphere (as CO2) and correspondingly warmer temperatures."

 

do you also consider water as a pollutant? I mean water vapor makes up 65-75% of the greenhouse effect..
Co2 is plant food..

Well co2 levels have to reach 40,000ppm for humans to start dying from it.. so with the atmosphere only at 400ppm and if we burn all known fossil fuels that will only increase it up to around the 650ppm mark.. not to much to worry about.. but plant life will love it!

 

Translation: Yes, CO2 is a pollutant at a certain level just like anything including water.

Yep.

BTW, you'd help yourself look more informed if you followed the entire chain of a conversation rather than just cherry-picking and jumping in half-baked.

 

No co2 is not a pollutant. And the CO2 level will never reach 40,000 ppm in our atmosphere

 

Oh, I you can pretty much rely on that.

 

For carbon dioxide to qualify as a pollutant, it has to be around far in excess of what the current conditions are. Bear in mind this fact.

Compare to being a millionaire.

Carbon Dioxide has reached the level of $400 in your wallet on the way to you getting rich.

If a person has $400, seriously, is he nearing being rich?

Supposedly global temps in 100 years went higher by 2 degrees. We vary far more than that in each day of the year. Nah, I am not concerned.

 

Every human adds to CO2 when we breathe. I wish they saw how tiny the amount of CO2 is and what we need to reach danger levels.

 

Your reply is political, not scientific. Our bodies make hydrochloric acid for protein digestion but try dumping a tanker truck load in an apartment's swimming pool and tell me it is't a pollutant.