Skydragons: good physics – appalling PR.

Skydragons were right on the physics, but appallingly wrong on the PR. What they are describing is the greenhouse effect by another name. But by denying the (Noddy) “greenhouse effect”, on climate alarmist sites,  they have done untold damage to themselves and caused all skeptics to be labelled as “deniers”.

For details of “Advanced Greenhouse Theory” see: Reconciling skydragons and mainstream skeptics?

Note: I suspect “skydragon” may be derogatory. Unfortunately, I don’t know another term and I need to refer to this group by some name so apologies to all “skydragons”.

I first encountered a skydragon, when doing the “sceptic view“. Their view was a big headache for me when trying to pull together a “consensus” view, because it was only one or two people within the group nebulously called “skeptics” that were presenting what appeared to be a very different view rejecting “greenhouse warming”.

I had to find out why they were presenting this view and whether there was any validity in what they were saying. I read what I could find and eventually came to a very good paper by an East European who seemed to have a good argument showing that all the supposed “greenhouse warming” could be explained by adiabatic (and similar) cooling through the atmosphere.

This was a paradox. I could not fault the physics, nor was the basic idea of greenhouse warming wrong (even if I felt there were problems). Eventually all I could do was to say “and there is also a group of skeptics who have other views on greenhouse warming”.

I knew this was an issue, that if I had the time (and money) I should have investigated. My hunch was that somewhere in the thermodynamics there was a mis-assumption, but I knew this would take an in depth analysis taking several months. However, it was also quite possible they were right. That was my dilemma: two different groups had what appeared to be strong physics based to support what appeared to be diametrically opposed views.

Possibilities

Where two well supported views exist. There appears to be two main possibilities:

  1. That one or other has made a serious mistake in the physics or has poor data.
  2. That they are both right – but just describing the same thing in very different ways.

To give some examples  of describing the same thing in different ways both of which are correct (so long as not taken out of context):

  1. centripetal versus centrifugal descriptions of what happens on a turning surface
  2. Sucking up a drink versus “the drink is blow up by air pressure”.
  3. An aircraft flies because of pressure beneath the wing versus vacuum above
  4. A glass is half empty versus half full
  5. An electron is a wave versus particle
    (There had to be one daft example! See future post)

The greenhouse theory as normally stated is SHIT.

Neither I nor the skydragons, disagree that the standard way the greenhouse is described is a load of non-science (aka Scientifically Horrendous Inaccurate Theory).

Fundamentally, the way it is normally presented breaks the most basic law that anything that emits IR radiation can absorb it.

So, the assertion that “CO2 heats the atmosphere because it absorbs radiation”, also means “CO2 cools the atmosphere because it emits radiation”.

Skydragons have come across as rejecting known physical effects

The “Noddy GreenHouse Warming theory” (Noddy – GHWT), is nothing much more than a PR tool to promote global warming alarmism. As such, we all dislike it and so I can understand why it is so vehemently rejected by the skydragons. However, whilst it is SHIT, I think the skydragons have done themselves a huge disfavour by vehemently rejecting any “greenhouse warming”. As such, because it is obvious that the planet is warmer than it should be, they come across as denying actual scientific evidence. Their reasons may be good, but the way they have put their case has been to shoot themselves in the foot. The result is that they have been marginalised and failed to gain support from other skeptics.

Indeed, by “denying the greenhouse effect”, many ignorant people (aka science denying conservatives?) have taken up that theme to reject the whole scientific basis of atmospheric physics.

And because these people look, sound, and are denying physics, the skydragons have allowed the warmist zealots to portray all skeptics as denying real skeptic science.

The result is that good scientists have lost jobs and the public have had these carbon taxes foisted on us because skydragons have allowed all skeptics to be portrayed as “deniers” thus undermining everything we say.

The advanced greenhouse warming theory

Whilst I have not had the chance to do the detailed gas and spectroscopic measurements needed to “prove” that there is a greenhouse effect, I know that people such as Hermann Harde who is an expert as gas analysis (not climate) has looked at it and agrees that there is a greenhouse effect. (at least in the sense it is generally understood to mean heating of the planet as radiation from the surface is “trapped” in the atmosphere).

And Hermann Harde is hardly a warmist zealot, because he very clearly disagrees with the IPCC as to the scale of the greenhouse effect. He says it is about 30% lower than the IPCC (mostly down to using more up to date HITRAN data). Likewise Judith Curry is going to make it up. The greenhouse effect  is real, even if the Noddy-GHWT way it is portrayed is SHIT.

A message to skydragons

Therefore, may I suggest in the strongest possible terms, that whilst I now believe you (skydragons) were right about the physics, and what they were describing is real and that the Noddy-GHWT is SHIT, whilst you skydragons might know the physics, you clealry know nothing about PR.

Please stop telling people, or allow your views to be portrayed as saying that “there is no greenhouse effect”.

After careful reflection, I will now admit you skydragons were right in what you were saying, but you were very wrong in the way you said it. That is not physics, it is PR.

The only substantial difference, between you and me, is that we both agree on the physics, and I am saying this is “the greenhouse effect”, and you are saying it is not.

This is not helping you have your ideas taken seriously!

What you skydragons are really doing is describing what should be called an “advanced GreenHouse Warming Theory”. And yes, this contrasts very sharply with the “Noddy-greenhouse warming” model that is so enthusiastically stuck on so many ignorant catastrophic climate alarmist websites.

You were right that the Noddy theory is SHIT. You were wrong to let yourselves be portrayed as denying the “greenhouse theory”.

Should it be called “greenhouse”

Indeed, perhaps this whole thing really stems from the fact that the (noddy)”greenhouse effect” is not how a real greenhouse works. So, yes, it’s not the ideal name. But hang on guys!! When people say “greenhouse”, do they really mean some kind of radiative warming system or are they meaning a place to grow plants which is warmer?

Likewise, when we talk of light arriving in “waves” are we referring to those things we paddle in at the seaside? Is the light wave the movement of a surface between a liquid and gas? Or does “wave” mean something that “looks like” a wave?

In common parlance, a “wave” is something we see at the seaside which has almost nothing to do with the way “wave” is now used in physics. Likewise in common parlance, a “greenhouse” is only a space exposed to sunshine which by some mechanism (unknown to most people) it becomes warmer. Now “the greenhouse effect” means the planetary warming caused by the atmosphere, it does not mean the mechanism by which a greenhouse gets warmer (in Scotland in winter we call that a fan heater).

A message to mainstream skeptics

When skeptics criticise the academics for not listening to us, is this the kettle calling the pot black?

I have largely kept out of the skydragon debate. I haven’t liked the way their assertions have been used against us and I can see why this group was unwelcome and how the term “skydragon” might be intended to be derogatory.

But perhaps the real laugh is on them!

Because, it seems to me a lot of people who didn’t really understand what the skydragons were saying whilst at the same time demanding to be “listened to”, have been wrongly condemning or even perhaps laughing at “skydragons”. Indeed, it appears to me that those who have been laughing have been laughing at better physics (albeit appallingly presented).

Conclusion

So, it seems to me that skydragons were right on the physics all along. Where they made a huge mistake was in dogmatic way they presented this which came across as rejecting “greenhouse warming”. That was and still is a PR nightmare!

What they were actually rejecting was the Noddy-greenhouse warming model as presented on the Catastrophic Climate Alarmist sites, not the greenhouse effect as understood by the better informed skeptics and academics such as Hermann Harde or Judith Curry.

Now I look at it, what the skydragons present is just the Greenhouse theory in disguise.

So, if the Skydragons, could just stop coming across as “denying” the greenhouse effect and instead start calling their undoubtedly better physics: the “Advanced Greenhouse Theory”, they should start to be taken seriously.

This entry was posted in Advanced Greenhouse Theory, Climate, Proposals. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Skydragons: good physics – appalling PR.

  1. markstoval says:

    “Note: I suspect “skydragon” may be derogatory. Unfortunately, I don’t know another term and I need to refer to this group by some name so apologies to all “skydragons”.”

    I think the term you are looking for is “slayers”. You see the slayers “slay” the skydragon. There is a book called “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” by a host of authors. The term “slayers” comes from that book I think.

    http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6

    • markstoval, the therm ”slayers” is perfectly suitable for the ”warm Skeptics” like you and Mike. I.e. the ”dragon” ”global warming doesn’t exist, but you people are into ”slaying” that dragon. I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that ”global” warming didn’t and doesn’t exist; warmings are localized events = therefore: in 100y from now ”CANNOT” be any ”global” warming, that is solid proof!.

      The only reason the Warmist are robing the countries, is because of the ”warm Skeptic’s” beliefs in the mythological dragon, which you refer as ”GLOBAL”, warming.= you guys believe in outdated mythology / theology – when presented real proofs -. you disregard, or run away,, or try to silence it…
      Get out of your monastery and look at the truth; because ”the truth” always wins on the end!!!

      • Stefan, I’m finding it difficult to follow your views, because I’m not clear what you mean by “greenhouse warming”. So, to ensure we are both talking about the same thing, can I suggest we use a broader meaning on “Greenhouse warming” which is the difference in temperature between the bare earth and one with atmosphere.

        Given that definition, we both know the bare earth would be colder than our one with greenhouse warming. We also both agree that the “Basic Greenhouse Theory” where Greenhouse Gases only absorb radiation is wrong.

        And to distinguish this from the models with the “greenhouse gas blanket” type concept, can we call those “BASIC Greenhouse warming” (

        Now, rather than telling me what is wrong with other theories, can you help me understand how you are proposing to explain “Greenhouse warming” in terms of the warming that occurs between a bare earth and the current one.

      • Scottish Sceptic says: ” I suggest we use a broader meaning on “Greenhouse warming” which is the difference in temperature between the bare earth and one with atmosphere”

        When you say ”bare earth” you are referring on what.the Warmist compare the moon with the earth = moon is cooler / bare than the earth/ clothed…?

        It is NOT because the ”clothed” earth has CO2, BUT because the earth is covered 2/3 with water – water keeps heat overnight and MOST IMPORTANT #2, the earth has oxygen &nitrogen, lots of it!

        2] on the moon at night 1m above the ground the temp is minus -120C, BUT, on the earth, that coldness is 60km away from the ground, and in-between is lots of O2&N2 as perfect ”insulators. tragic is that: both camps don’t know that is O&N on the earth and they ”insulate”

        Therefore: O2&N2 are the real greenhouse gases: they are ”transparent / same as plastic or glass on a ”real greenhouse” – they let the sunlight trough – then: as perfect ”insulators” they are ”slowing cooling at night = you point that to a Warmist – they run away, but that gives them insomnia; because is a real proof, which can be replicated in a controlled environment, no need to wait 100y. = Warmist theory busted!

        • ” water keeps heat overnight”

          So, I assume this is your first step – you start with an insulated bare earth model and then add water – which gives you a model somewhere between totally insulated and totally heat conductive.

          Then you add Oxygen and Nitrogen. From what you are saying, I assume you mean these have no IR interaction. In which case, we have a transparent atmosphere which is physically equivalent in terms of heat loss to the bare earth.

          Without IR interaction the atmosphere has no way to radiate to space, or to absorb from the earth. So, it just sits there doing nothing whatsoever. So, an atmosphere with non- IR- Interacting gases is equivalent in terms of planetary heat loss to no atmosphere at all.

        • Scottish Sceptic says: ”you start with an insulated bare earth model and then add water – which gives you a model somewhere between totally insulated and totally heat conductive”

          1] I don’t ”ad” water; I’m saying: O&N PLUS water are playing part in keeping the earth warm and not very extreme temp between day and night – I’m pointing that: Warmist & Skeptics are ignoring that: earth has O&N plus water, lots of it – that’s way both camps are comparing the earth with the moon and Venus = you people are not comparing apples with oranges, but apples with a watermelon -am I corect and where you see evil in what I’m saying?

          .Scotty says: ”I assume you mean these have no IR interaction. In which case, we have a transparent atmosphere which is physically equivalent in terms of heat loss to the bare earth”

          2] Mike, the earth is not ”bare”, she is elegant lady and covered by 30km of .O&N, those two gases are insulating her from the unlimited coldness in the stratosphere AND are ”regulating” the heat to be ”overall” always the same, day and night, every year of every millennium..

          Scotty says: ”Without IR interaction the atmosphere has no way to radiate to space”

          3] see, it’s like trying to interpret creationism with Darwinism, doesn’t work. The truth: a] heat from the ground is ”carried” up, doesn’t ”radiate” b] most warmed CO2 ”during the day” goes up to 5-7km, not higher – the heat from that warmed CO2 is ”radiated for 2mm and is taken by O&N and carried higher, to waste it, – it’s easier for O&N to take that heat from 5-7km upwards (is less distance) than to take it from the ground (extra CO2 makes fraction less heating on the ground) b] the rest/ bulk of the heat is ”shuttled” up by those two gases from the ground up, by the ”vertical winds” made from O&N – when extra heat, for any reason, those ”vertical winds” speed up extra = self adjusting mechanisam

          Scotty says: ”So, it just sits there doing nothing whatsoever. So, an atmosphere with non- IR- Interacting gases is equivalent in terms of planetary heat loss to no atmosphere at all

          4] I keep repeating that: extra heat in the atmosphere is not accumulative – you are splinting hair about the campfire – but strenuously avoid to mention about my ”self adjusting mechanism” If I’m wrong, point where – because you are avoiding = my proof is correct beyond any reasonable doubt AND if it wasn’t for the ”not so skeptical Skeptics” by Christmas Hansen, Mann and similar would have being in jail

          (I hope you don’t object me calling you Scotty – on ”star wars enterprise ship”, the ”engineer’s” name was Scotty – he was a very clever guy).

      • Scottish Sceptic says: ”Stefan, So, to ensure we are both talking about the same thing, can I suggest we use a broader meaning on “Greenhouse warming”

        The truth: CO2 makes ”greenhouse effect” ONLY burring the night – during the day CO2 +H2O are a” Shade-cloth effects” gases, (same as sun umbrellas)

        Sun umbrella during the day and greenhouse effect during the night.= those two affects CANCEL EACH OTHER. Only they make; warmer nights / cooler days ( water vapor is more efficient than CO2, only because is much more of it; otherwise is same effect from both. In other words: ”greenhouse effect” is not an appropriate therm, because normal greenhouse is a greenhouse 24h a day, not only part time

        ”Dimming effect” from CO2 during the day makes upper atmosphere warmer / on the ground cooler = overall is same temp. same effect as extra H2O molecule in the air

        Except for the ”Flat earthers” who can believe that: the sun is on, on every square meter all the time, or is dark 24h

        • Stefan I’ve said the greenhouse effect is the warming action of the atmosphere.

          We clearly have a different idea of what “greenhouse” means in terms of gases, so I would please ask that you do not use this term as it just creates confusion.

          Could you restate what you are saying in terms of the physical processes which you say are happening and not some nebulous and ill-defined concept.

        • Scottish Sceptic says: ”We clearly have a different idea of what “greenhouse” means in terms of gases, so I would please ask that you do not use this term as it just creates confusion”

          1] In my book I call it ”Shade-cloth effect” what CO2 does, but, O&N are the greenhouse gases.

          Scotty says: ”Could you restate what you are saying in terms of the physical processes which you say are happening and not some nebulous and ill-defined concept”

          2] my ”process” is the correct one, but doesn’t fit with the Warmist propaganda. That’s why I avoid to mention any words of the pagan gospel: ”positive negative feedback, flux, abedo, equilibrium, decadel warming, hallelujah” those things are invented to confuse people; so, try to understand what I say, not to try to compare it with what comes from the Warmist Bullshine Merchants,

          B] OK, I will ”restate” it’s about the self adjusting mechanism:
          DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS

          Q: do you know that: oxygen + nitrogen are 998999ppm in the troposphere, CO2 only 260-400ppm? Q: do you know that O+N expand /shrink INSTANTLY in change of temperature? Q: do you know that: where they expand upwards, on the edge of the troposphere is minus-90⁰C? Q: why O2&N2 expand more, when warmed by 5⁰C, than when warmed by 2⁰C? A: when warmed by 5⁰C, they need to go further up, to release more heat / intercept more, extra coldness, to equalize (to increase more the volume of the troposphere. Q: if O&N are cooled after 10minutes to previous temperature, why they don’t stay expanded another 5 minutes extra? A: not to intercept too much extra coldness, to prevent too much cooling. A2: they stay expanded precisely as long as they are warmer – not one second more or less – that’s how they regulate to be same warmth units ‘’overall’’ in the troposphere, every hour of every year and millennium!

          Q: do you know that: if troposphere warms up by 2⁰C extra – troposphere expands up into the stratosphere by 1km, how much extra coldness is there to intercept? A: intercepts extra appropriate coldness to counteract the extra heat in 3,5 seconds -> that extra coldness falls to the ground in minutes Q: if O+N are warmed extra for 30minutes, why they don’t shrink after 15minutes, or after one day? A: if O&N after cooled to previous temperature; stayed expanded for a whole day extra -> they would have redirected enough extra coldness, to freeze all the tropical rivers / lakes.
          Q: can CO2 of 260-400ppm PREVENT oxygen & nitrogen (998999ppm) of expanding, when they warm up? A: O&N when warmed extra – they expand through the walls of a hi-tensile hand-grenade. Q: do you believe in the laws of physics, or in IPCC and the Warmist / Fake Skeptic cults? The laws of physics say: part of the troposphere can get colder than normal – only when other part gets warmer than normal. B] if the WHOLE troposphere gets colder > air shrinks > releases LESS heat /intercepts less coldness on the edge of the troposphere > retains more heat and equalizes in a jiffy. C] both hemispheres cannot get warmer simultaneously for more than few minutes – if they do -> troposphere expands extra >releases extra heat / intercepts extra coldness and equalizes in a jiffy. Q: do the O+N wait to warm up by 2-3⁰C, before start expanding, or expand instantly extra when they warm up by 0,000001⁰C? All those things can be experimented / replicated now; no need to wait 100y and see that: all they come up with, are immature lies.
          If you collect all the EXTRA heat that will be accumulated on the earth since 97 Kyoto conference to year 2100 – you wouldn’t have enough of that ‘’Extra’’ heat – TO BOIL ONE CHICKEN EGG!!! EXTRA HEAT ON THE EARTH IS NOT ACCUMULATIVE, because of the brilliant ‘’temperature self adjusting mechanism’’

          if you did have answer to those questions – you can understand about what i’m saying – if you avoided it = I’m correct. Truth is not a truth, if it cannot stand any scrutiny. If you are scared from my proofs – imagine the Warmist; they have being doing the looting.

  2. tchannon says:

    Item 3 .
    Inertial reaction is the correct explanation. Hence the wing vortex. Accelerating a mass, equal and opposite reaction.

    Parallels with GH being obfuscated.

  3. Mike, first: CO2 doesn’t produce extra warming – all it does; makes upper atmosphere warmer / on the ground cooler a bit; same as water vapor /clouds does.

    2] but ”presume that CO2 creates extra warming – the fact is that: ”when warming increases, for ANY reason – ”instantly” cooling increases also – therefore: extra warming ”overall” on planet earth is not accumulative!
    The ”Self Adjusting Mechanization for regulating the earth’s temp” is perfect

    Mike, are you prepared to make THIS post of yours, to be a forum, to get to the bottom of the truth, even if it take a month? Get all the Warmist / ”Skeptics” to get involved and help you, against me – this is a challenge!

    • At this moment, I’m more interested to know how what you are saying fits together and how that compares with what other people are saying.

      So, I would now like to stop talking about what things don’t do or what they are not.

      Instead can you try to put in very simple terms how you understand we get from the colder “bare earth” without an atmosphere to the warmer one with an atmosphere. That way I will hopefully understand how what you are proposing fits together and compares to what others say.

    • Scottish Sceptic says: ”Instead can you try to put in very simple terms how you understand we get from the colder “bare earth” without an atmosphere to the warmer one with an atmosphere”

      on the previous replay I hope I .answered that question, but will say a bit more: on ”bare earth” the unlimited coldness above the stratosphere would have being touching the ground, as it’s the case on the moon, BUT: as plastic or glass roof on a ”normal greenhouse” O2&N are ”slowing cooling at night!

      example: if a cold-room container of minus -50C, with the door open, is 50km away from you = will not cool you fast BUT if you are standing at the open door at that container,(as on the moon) you will feel as if you are in northern Scotland, in seconds.

      Therefore: O2&N2 are letting the sunlight trough to the ground, same as plastic or glass roof on a ” normal greenhouse” – then at night, same as glass roof on a ”normal greenhouse”, those two gases are ”slowing cooling”. NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2!!!

      CO2 is not a ”blanket” but a postage stamp – it’s only 280-400ppm – the ”blanket” are O2&N2, they are 98999000ppm in the atmosphere. So: don’t cover yourself with a postage stamp! If you build a greenhouse and put as a roof on it a postage stamp – people will think that you had a bottle of Scottish nectar in one hour…verdict: Warmist & Skeptics are drunk on bullshine… tragic…
      (plus: ”naked” moon doesn’t have oceans of water, to keep it warm during nights also)

      • Stefan that doesn’t make any sense.

        Vacuums cannot “touch”. A vacuum cannot affect the temperature of an object because it is an infinite insulator for conductive heat.

        What you appear to be saying, is that because O & N are perfect insulators, no heat escapes – which is total nonsense – but if it could happen the world would have no way to lose heat and we would be the hottest object in the universe.

        Can I ask this simple question:

        Are you saying O & N interact strongly with IR (Opaque – don’t let it through)
        Or are you saying that O& N are weekly interacting (transparent – they let IR through).

        Or are you just rewriting all the rules of physics — if so, I’d like to know what these new rules are.

      • Scottish Sceptic says: ”Vacuums cannot “touch”. A vacuum cannot affect the temperature of an object because it is an infinite insulator for conductive heat”

        I have a dictionary in front of me, not many words in it, which is the most appropriate word? Maybe ”touch” is not the most appropriate – maybe should be ”contact”

        b] that ”infinite insulator” is taking ALL the heat produced by the sun, burning fossil fuel and heat from volcanoes – c] on 31 December the planet will be exactly as warm as in January 1. Therefore; that ”innocent, infinite insulator” will ”collect” all that heat produced during the year. If you put a thermometer into that ”empty space” shielded from the sunlight – the temp would be -minus -100C.

        c] where in the higher upper atmosphere the air is very thin – that cold empty space is already in-between the atoms of O&N = those gases are discharging the heat into that ”empty / cold, vacuum” space. Reason the aircraft must get ”pressurized” otherwise you would explode into that ”semi-vacuum… Think Scotty, think

        Scotty says: ”What you appear to be saying, is that because O & N are perfect insulators, no heat escapes – which is total nonsense – but if it could happen the world would have no way to lose heat and we would be the hottest object in the universe”

        O&N are carrying ALL the heat to that ”semi-empty space / vacuum” and are disposing it there! b] neat no need to ”escape” is getting carried there by O&N! C] earth is not the ”hottest object in the universe” because the vertical winds never stop – they slow down when colder – speed up when extra warmth! Your ”radiation” to get read of the heat, is nonsense!

        3] you lot are constantly using the words ” Climate sensitivity” the word ”sensitivity” is misused, for confusion. truth: H2O regulates the climate – reason Brazil has different climate than Sahara – if CO2 was controlling the ”climate” would have being SAME climate on those two places c] about the climate, consult the trees, not the Warmist &skeptics

        3B: O&N are ”regulating the heat in the atmosphere, not CO2, yes it doesn’t fit the pagan beliefs, reality never did…

        Scotty says: ”Or are you just rewriting all the rules of physics — if so, I’d like to know what these new rules are”

        4] I’m using the ”old / honest laws of physics” rewriting nothing! Those laws were SAME in the past as they are today, and will be same in 100years; The BEST proof beyond any reasonable doubt that will not be ant ”global” warming in 100years from today!!!

        O&N expand / shrink ”instantly” in change of temp – they don’t wait for week end, to expand, when warmed. That’s where the ”SENSITIVITY” applies – they are so ”sensitive” in change of heat = expanding / shrinking! I’m I wrong? is that ”new” law? didn’t they expand 7200 y ago, or in 1880’s.

        I gave you explanation about the heat created by one cigarette only – how sensitive / precise those two gases are. At that time i was believing that you are interested in the truth… Now you are trying to fit my proofs into the Warmist propaganda = no similarity.

        Here is something that you can recognize: IR warms the CO2 much more than the O&N
        Replace CO2 with a metal pipe and O&N with a lump of wood, for easier experiment: put both on a sunny spot, one next to the other – metal / CO2 will get much hotter than O&N/wood. That’s what CO2 does during the day – then at night, place the metal pipe and wood in the backyard = metal /CO2 will get much COLDER than wood/ O&N – those two factors cancel each other!!! (that’s why CO2 is used for making ”dry ice”
        CO2 overall doesn’t produce warming, or cooling – only might make days 0,01C cooler / nights by 0,1C warmer = overall the temp is still the same – water does the same, only much bigger effect, because is much more of it. See ya, I,m going fishing tonight!

  4. Learn about the ” Self adjusting Temp Mechanism the earth has:
    When is a solar eclipse – on part of the planet is full eclipse for 6 minutes / partial eclipse for 20 minutes – the big part is only partial eclipse – but the earth ”overall” doesn’t produce enough extra GLOBAL cooling – not enough to cool one beer. Because: where is the shadow from the moon, it instantly gets cooler -> the air ”instantly” gets cooler there and ”shrinks” -> ”instantly from other areas air gets there, to avoid vacuum = on other places is less air; gets warmer than normal – after the eclipse, the winds mix the extra warm withe extra colder air and overall ”global” temp doesn’t change

    2] Mercury blocks 5% of the sunlight all day, when gets between the earth / sun – that means: as if the sun didn’t exist for 30 minutes in 24h. Presume: if it wasn’t any sun; earth’s temperature would have being close to ultimate zero Kalvin. From ultimate zero – to +15C above zero – if you take 5% of it – that’s how cold the planet would have got, would have gone colder by 12C; when mercury is in-between – IF IT WASN’T for the oxygen & nitrogen shrinking instantly, when cooled. But, unless you are into astronomy or astrology – you wouldn’t even know that Mercury is blocking part of the sun. Meteorologist don’t even take in consideration for predicting next day’s temp; if Mercury or Venus is in-between the sun / earth. Each one of them blocks 5% of the sun’s light, not to come here – same goes when is solar eclipse / when the moon gets between the earth / sun.
    The self adjusting temp mechanism is brilliant. Talking about CO2, or sunspots effecting that brilliant phenomenon, is ignorance of the normal / honest laws of physics

    • “not enough to cool one beer. Because: where is the shadow from the moon, it instantly gets cooler ”

      That is complete nonsense. I stood in a field plotting temperature, light and generally waiting for the solar eclipse around 2000 in the south of England. There was a drop in temperature, but IT IS JUST MAKING IT UP to say ” it instantly gets cooler “.

      WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY TRYING TO SAY??

      Do you really mean “instantly” — and are saying the earth drops by a measurable amount in a instant. If so, your sources are completely wrong.

  5. Mike; officer who wants to win the battle – ”first checks his own weapons and ammunition”.
    I agree on everything what the Skeptics stand up for; BUT, I’m trying to point out the only ”two” faults – you people are shooting blanks – if it wasn’t for those ”two faults” the leading Warmist would have being in jail in less than a year. Solid evidences exist, outdated pagan beliefs are wrong!

    Those ”two faults” are as Viagra for the Warmist – to screw up the nations better.

    Second fault: ” earth is NOT as a human body I.e. when is one degree under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much, on the planet temp is different on every km and is changing every 15 minutes independently, b] the ”hottest minute” in 24h is NOT at the SAME time every day.
    c] monitor the temp in your yard for a month – then ask Met office to give you the temp data from the thermometer that represents ”your area” and compare – which means: individual thermometer cannot monitor temp on large areas = you are legitimately proving them wrong.

    but, when you ”believe” that: 80 thermometers from 1880 clustered in Europe&US can tell the temp for the ”whole planet” that’s why the Warmist are proceeding with what they are doing = you are doing their dirty job!.

    9y old kid can tell you: those thermometers from London and Paris must have being very, very long, to reach and monitor the temp in India, south America, Oceania, Australia, Antarctic and ALL the waters in-between, to tell the temp for the ”globe”…? before the kids are brainwashed into the pagan beliefs, they are clever, .. ..Your weapons against the Warmist are faulty, and you are shooting blanks… Warmist can decimate the ”Skeptic’s global temp carts for the past”, in 3 days, but they are not doing that, BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM, it’s their shield from the ”real” truth that I have

  6. Scottish Sceptic says: ”Second fault Did you forget to put a first point?”

    fault #1:
    All those past ”global” warmings and ”global” coolings and ”cycles” were NEVER global. The normal laws of physics doesn’t permit the ”whole” planet to be warmer, or colder for more than a day, there are logical explanations for what was really happening on individual occasions! Therefore: same laws of physics will be in 100y from now = proofs that is not going to be ”global” warming. b]As long as people on the street think that; the earth’s temp goes up and down as a yo-yo = Warmist won, will rob and oppress the world based on fairy-tales. You people should learn about ”the earth’s self adjusting mechanism” ::: a] earth’s troposphere is like piano accordion – constantly shrinks/expands, as required and wastes all extra heat. b] why did the engineers built bigger radiator in a truck than in small car?.A: truck engine produces 3 times more heat, BUT has same temp as a small car – because truck has bigger radiator – the troposphere (O&N) are the earth’s radiator; can double in an instant, if necessary b] when for ANY reason gets warmer than normal, which is most of the time close to the ground – the ”vertical winds” speed up = same as: when you rev the engine more -> instantly car moves faster, fen next to the radiator speeds up and water pump pumps faster BECAUSE: the engineers that build truck, cars they are smart people and put different size radiators. On the other hand; on the blogosphere, earth’s radiator O2&N2 don’t exist. reason they are ALL comparing earth with the moon and Venus………

    fault #2:
    the ”correct” monitoring is completely WRONG, not only the manipulated data; therefore: the temp is same every year, BUT, even if there was any fluctuation in temp, nobody would have known!!!

    1] monitoring only for the hottest minute in 24h and ignoring the other 1439 minutes, in which the temp doesn’t go up, or down as in the ”hottest” minute…. statistically 1439 against one…
    it’s same as: if the car is got 2440 different parts, but you are building that car, ”with one bolt only” you will not get very far…!

    2] the ”highest temp minute in 24h, is not at the same time every day!!! sometime is the ”hottest at 11, 50AM, most of the time is after 1pm = that is many more warmer minutes.

    3] pointing some place that is warmer than normal – is SAME as saying: ”the planet is warmer by 12C at lunch time, than before sunrise…?

    4] a thermometer can monitor the temp in a room; but one thermometer for 10 000km2?

    5] even those ”few” (6000) thermometers are not evenly distributed; no honest statistician would have taken to make ”statistic” if he wasn’t told; which individual thermometer, how much area represents.Example: if the workers in 4 countries have their pay packet increased by a dollar, and in 2 countries had ”decreased by a dollar Q: would the ”overall’ all workers in those 6 countries get more money, or less?
    (the 4 countries were Luxembourg, Monaco and Belgium and Portugal, increased by a dollar. The other two were India and Chinese workers, decreased by a dollar

    6] when is sunny – on the ground is warmer / in upper atmosphere is cooler – BUT, when is cloudy, upper atmosphere is warmer, on the ground cooler – overall same temp; BUT, because ALL thermometers monitoring are on the first 2m from the ground = they are completely misleading!!!

    Therefore, the truth: in the 70’s was exactly the SAME temp as today, and will be exactly the same ”overall” GLOBAL temp in 100y = Warmist in jail
    unfortunately: in the 70’s they were scaring the people from: CO2 ”dimming effect” that will produce cooling by year 2000 – so they were manipulating the data to reflect ”cooling planet”. After they started scaring the people with global warming and manipulate data ”as warming” — people compare those two ”manipulated” data and confuse the crap out of themselves…

    Aristotle said: ”the truth is much more important, than million believers”:
    The truth always wins on the end.
    Past ”phony global warmings” don’t prove that is not going to be global warming in 100y!!! It only confuses the honest people on the street that the ”global” temp goes up and down as a yo-yo

    The truth: in 2100, if you collect ALL the ”extra” warmth accumulated since the Kyoto conference in 97, you wouldn’t have enough extra heat, to boil one chicken egg!!! extra heat in the earth’s atmosphere is not accumulative!!!

    so, they are the ”two things” that I’m correct and can prove everything now, no need to wait 100years, when the spend the money and are gone
    Q: can you remember in 100y from now to ask them for the money back? The Warmist know the answer on that question

  7. omanuel says:

    Thanks for this post and for recognizing legitimacy on both sides of an issue that has troubled many of us.

    Regretfully, I failed to see this post earlier.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>