Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax

"What's in it for NASA?"

You're right. Waving at stuff and dragging "The Warren Commission", kicking and screaming, in from the deep, dark, unrelated past... That is "easy." Way too easy. And pointless. But thanks for playing. Like most places, keeping a NASA scientist job requires continual publishing of results. Not particular results, just factual ones, including corrections when inevitable errors are made. You know, honest and transparent like. Unlike deniers. Btw, here's what having something "in it" actually looks like:

Not much NASA, innit?

 

i want to see the truth told

you make unsupported claims, then offer excuses instead of providing a link

 

That sounds an awful lot like "trolling"

 

Again, you can't be a forcing function without also being a feedback mechanism.

I did not say that. What I was that global warming can be caused by a longer growing season just as easily as by higher temperatures.

You just keep on showing how you know nothing of thermodynamics or statistics.

If *that* is what you've gotten out of what I said then your reading comprehension is far worse than I thought. It's no wonder you keep coming up with crazy ideas.

I've said that extended growing seasons can raise the mean just as easily as every increasing maximum temperatures can. Of course here is what you had to say about the fact that both here an in Iowa we are seeing fewer maximum temperature records being set.

But the higher mean does *NOT* mean catastrophic results if what you are seeing is 120 days of 80F temps instead of 90 days of 80F temps. Again, the AGW religionists like yourself like to scare everyone into believing they are going to turn into ash if we don't make paupers out of the whole country!

Again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I've been talking about the mean going up because of more "warm" days instead of more "hot" days since this thread started. Why do you think I posted *my* data which absolutely shows the maximum temperatures going down while the mean is going up? Why do you think I posted the Iowa data that corroborates *my* data?

Just because *you* can't understand that an extended growing season can raise the mean doesn't mean that others can't understand it either!

Let's just look at some of your past quotes, ok?

Nothing like cognitive dissonance is there?

ROFL! You don't even understand the math associated with feedback. It doesn't matter if it is electrical, mechanical, or biological, the math all works the same!

It was directly on point. Water vapor *is* a positive feedback mechanism and can cause the temperature to go up all by itself. Even NOAA admits it. That may be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it is the truth nonetheless.

No, you were the one that couldn't explain it.

And this doesn't happen when CO2 is the forcing function? And how does this explain the fact that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone UP since 1980?

A circular argument is one where the conclusion is also the premise. Exactly what you claimed. Water vapor forms clouds because water vapor forms clouds. This is sometimes known as Begging the Question.

You don't know any more about argumentative fallacies than you know about thermodynamics.

 

Sounds like dujac has a serious case of Linkitis.
This isn't the first time today he went into a link rant.

The problem is by my experience; a link is found after time searching only to be refused
without an honest critical glance.
The Rx for Linkitis is let them find their link or a contrary one.
And a troll does not want to spend that effort!

Yes, Linkitis is a form of trolling!

 

Of course I did. Why lie like that?

Water vapor has been "going up" because increased heat is retained by the earth due to CO2 greenhouse effect. Warmer earth means more ability to hold moisture in the air. More moisture in the air means warmer earth. That's the positive feedback loop and it wouldn't be happening without CO2. because...ya know...RAIN.

 

What pristine stations? Did you not bother to read what I wrote at ALL?

Even so-called "pristine" rural stations are subject to increased irrigation, increased paving of farm-to-market roads, and increased construction of ponds and lakes!

And again, if you are comparing trends of developed stations that have been manipulated so their trends are the same as "pristine" stations then exactly *what* do you think is going happen? They are all going to show the same trend! That is proof of NOTHING!

I've given you *my* own data and data from Iowa. Data which *YOU* see fit to just ignore by using the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. You offer *NOTHING* to show how that data is wrong. You just claim that it is.

The truly *sad* thing is that you don't even know if the climate models are showing the mean global temperature is going up because of more warm days or more "hot" days, i.e. higher and higher temps.

You are invested in the AGW religious dogma that the earth is going to turn into a cinder if we don't do something. So you believe the mean going up is based on ever increasing temperatures. And you simply can't accept the heresy that such dogma may be wrong! You can't even accept the fact that margin of error in the land/sea measurements is greater than the differential used to declare certain years "hotter" than others!

 

Since CO2 is a *minor* greenhouse gas which cannot, by itself cause the mean temperature increases we have seen your theory is nothing but horse hockey! If the water vapor always returns to a "normal" level then so will the earth's temperature since it is water vapor that provides somewhere between 4x and 10x the IR absorption of CO2.

You continue to offer nothing but magical thinking, another argumentative fallacy.

 

Here we go again.

CO2 DOES account for some of the increase directly.

And THAT amount causes more water vapor to be evaporated into the atmosphere. That ADDED water vapor (present because of the CO2 input) cause MORE heating of the planet surface and more WV to be added to the atmosphere

 

Now it's time for you to pretend not to understand that and call me names

 

This is what knowing what you're talking about sounds like:

Why don't you armchair know-it-alls ever sound like that? I suspect excess beer and testosterone.

 

Ok I am now so bored of you blowing up my in box, let me educate you



http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

 

OMG, **** happened, they investigated it... lo and behold, just as they suspected, **** happened... and they reported it. So? Climate Change/Global Warming is all a hoax. Obviously.

Right. If I could hold my eyes still and revolve the rest of my body around them I would.

 

Funny fossil fuel backed the paris accord

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....s-us-out-of-paris-deal-what-it-would-mean?amp

 

see how easy it is

 

Hmm... conflicting interests. Continued global hegemony or maintain control over all energy related matters? I know, both!

 

For example, although summer is warmer than winter


That's interesting to know, ureka ! A break through hold the presses summer is more warmer then winter..


What's next , scientist will claim ice melts?


.


..

 

Funny you claimed for two pages it didn't happen.



.

 

Who knows? Perhaps some shameless denier will eventually present something genuinely clever or compelling. The pay can't be very good from all I've seen so far. But the shamelessness? Out of the park, always. The ego of the willing tool truly knows no bounds. Quite the collection here, prancing around for all to see.

 

that's not true

if you think it is, show me the quote

 

No they're not.

No they're not.

Yes they are.

But not what, or how.

They make the warming look bigger. Earlier readings are adjusted downward, later ones upward. That is very consistent.

No it hasn't.

Not the same thing as removing all the stations where local human activities have changed.

So NO human activity other than CO2 emission has ANY effect on local temperature...?

Riiiiight...

Yes it is.

Yes we have.

If there were faeries, we would certainly have to study them to rule them out before claiming that they couldn't have any effect on gravity.

No it's not. It's only up to me to give my reasons for advancing it. Empirical science doesn't deal in proofs.

If you make a claim that NO other factor could POSSIBLY have caused the relevant observed effect, then it is up to YOU to prove it, not up to anyone else to disprove it.

I have -- that temperature would not track CO2 -- and I have been proved right: CO2 has closely followed an exponential increase curve for over 100 years, while temperatures have sometimes gone up, sometimes stayed stable, and sometimes gone down on decadal time scales.

But AGW screamers have not, which is why they have no credibility.

Yes it does.

But not by as much.

It will not be the same, and the warming will not be the same.

I have.

No, it also works if the sun shining on the pavement in winter makes the sidewalk warmer relative to the surrounding area than the summer sun does relative to the surrounding area.

The word, "conspiracy" is just a way for you to avoid considering potential sources of bias.

No, I'm actually pretty good at it.

Some are.

 

So far, so good...

These claims, however, are not supported by empirical evidence.

 

Which you woudn't be able to interpret in any case so....

 

they've been supported over and over, you keep deny reality