Global warming is one of the pillars for the religion of the Cabal. It is the main driving force that justifies the population control that they espouse.
Sounds like she has compelling evidence that cloud location plays almost no role on the greenhouse effect of earth. Which to me sounds about right. But the greenhouse effect of gases like CO2 is only mentioned in what seems to be a logical fallacy that because cloud location plays little role in the greenhouse effect other causes must also be false.
Clouds are water vapor and aerosols. They don't cause warming (or only a very pathetic amount). If places with more water vapor don't cause warming, why would co2?
Well clouds reflect sunlight in the visible spectrum that's why they're white. Where as CO2 doesn't. I mean I don't know I'm not a scientist but pointing at one thing and then saying ah ha see all bad, doesn't set right with me. And her data seems to be only directed at cloud elevation not even the clouds themselves (not that that matters because clouds have probably existed since earth had an atmosphere).
A high school or college textbook would say this about the greenhouse effect: less longwave radiation going to space causes warming at the surface.
Warmer things emit more radiation.
The BEST available data shows less radiation to space has virually ZERO effect on surface radiation, and thus there is no warming from water vapor, and thus there is no warming from CO2.
If warming occurs by other means, it's not the greenhouse effect.
That's only half the picture. Shortwave radiation being converted to longwave radiation is the other half. Clouds reflect more shortwave therefore less to be converted to longwave. Look I don't have the credentials to argue this adequately so let's just say I require more than data on cloud elevation to convince me of a larger concept.
There are plenty of ways to show that global warming is complete bullshit, but CO2 and clouds are two different things and this write up is weird. She spends the entire time going over data on clouds and then somehow connects that to CO2???
Clouds are made of water vapor.
Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Clouds don't warm. Water vapor doesn't warm. Ergo CO2 doesn't warm.
Saying something is 'more powerful' does not explain anything about the properties and differences between water vapor and CO2, and makes no sense (much like the linked article makes no sense).
I'm not saying the article is incorrect - I agree with the conclusion that CO2 isn't a problem. The problem is the article does not prove it's point or even begin to try. The people that convinced me global warming was BS didn't do it by talking about clouds and then making an assumed connection to CO2 without any evidence or data to link the two.
Do you at least agree that there's virtually no greenhouse effect of clouds, despite NASA'S discussion of its existence. Did the data at least prove that point?
Yes absolutely. When were these quotes taken? As far as I know, their current fear mongering about clouds is that we needs clouds to keep the earth cool and if global warming causes us to lose clouds, it could have a compounding affect and heat the earth even faster.
I'm not familiar with their argument about clouds causing warming, but it's so hard to keep track of all of their false claims that end up being proven wrong in the end. I'd be curious to know if they are still pushing this idea or if they have joined in with the 'clouds are good - global warming could make use lose them' crowd.
Global warming is one of the pillars for the religion of the Cabal. It is the main driving force that justifies the population control that they espouse.
Sounds like she has compelling evidence that cloud location plays almost no role on the greenhouse effect of earth. Which to me sounds about right. But the greenhouse effect of gases like CO2 is only mentioned in what seems to be a logical fallacy that because cloud location plays little role in the greenhouse effect other causes must also be false.
Clouds are water vapor and aerosols. They don't cause warming (or only a very pathetic amount). If places with more water vapor don't cause warming, why would co2?
Well clouds reflect sunlight in the visible spectrum that's why they're white. Where as CO2 doesn't. I mean I don't know I'm not a scientist but pointing at one thing and then saying ah ha see all bad, doesn't set right with me. And her data seems to be only directed at cloud elevation not even the clouds themselves (not that that matters because clouds have probably existed since earth had an atmosphere).
A high school or college textbook would say this about the greenhouse effect: less longwave radiation going to space causes warming at the surface.
Warmer things emit more radiation.
The BEST available data shows less radiation to space has virually ZERO effect on surface radiation, and thus there is no warming from water vapor, and thus there is no warming from CO2.
If warming occurs by other means, it's not the greenhouse effect.
The GH effect is pseudoscience. Think about it.
That's only half the picture. Shortwave radiation being converted to longwave radiation is the other half. Clouds reflect more shortwave therefore less to be converted to longwave. Look I don't have the credentials to argue this adequately so let's just say I require more than data on cloud elevation to convince me of a larger concept.
There is much more data than just percentage of clouds at elevations.
There are plenty of ways to show that global warming is complete bullshit, but CO2 and clouds are two different things and this write up is weird. She spends the entire time going over data on clouds and then somehow connects that to CO2???
Clouds are made of water vapor. Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Clouds don't warm. Water vapor doesn't warm. Ergo CO2 doesn't warm.
Also natural or man-made aerosols don't warm.
Saying something is 'more powerful' does not explain anything about the properties and differences between water vapor and CO2, and makes no sense (much like the linked article makes no sense).
I'm not saying the article is incorrect - I agree with the conclusion that CO2 isn't a problem. The problem is the article does not prove it's point or even begin to try. The people that convinced me global warming was BS didn't do it by talking about clouds and then making an assumed connection to CO2 without any evidence or data to link the two.
Do you at least agree that there's virtually no greenhouse effect of clouds, despite NASA'S discussion of its existence. Did the data at least prove that point?
Yes absolutely. When were these quotes taken? As far as I know, their current fear mongering about clouds is that we needs clouds to keep the earth cool and if global warming causes us to lose clouds, it could have a compounding affect and heat the earth even faster.
I'm not familiar with their argument about clouds causing warming, but it's so hard to keep track of all of their false claims that end up being proven wrong in the end. I'd be curious to know if they are still pushing this idea or if they have joined in with the 'clouds are good - global warming could make use lose them' crowd.