Research skewers claim that clouds cause climate change

Wow I think I remember that! But they were right because look how much rain forests has been lost and the remaining vegetation still cranks out enough O2 for 7 billion people => plus the equivalent combustion engine horses for a 10 planet stampede. The plantlife is cranking O2 like gangbusters!

To the plants CO2 is a NUTRIENT. How do you define "fertilizer"? Poison ivy/oak spray has gotten much stronger, beginning back in 1980, if not before. Poison does not need to possess intelligence to kill us.

but if one is to accept the premise that there are 7 billion people, which I will, then there is more carbon, and if climate change advocates say there is more CO2 in the air from man made industries, wouldn't that have the same effect on all plants that are still around, such as size, and the ability to process all the carbon.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/3026

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/poison-ivy-now-with-stronger-poison/

The deniers are still using this argument to this very day.
As an organic gardener I notice that the plants that like this extra carbon the best are weeds -- especially poison ivy and sumac.

I was quoting the radio newscaster a couple days ago said we're passing 7 billion this year. Plants get bigger yes, but many times BIGGER ROOT SYSTEMS not necessarily towering over us!

And yes, that's a great point, the stronger plants should be removing more CO2 EXCEPT you are failing to factor in there's less plants. We have not slowed from destroying the rain forests, since the 1970's when it began in earnest as the population boom began, also in earnest.

Some weeds are edible and quite good for us. One in particular is called Purslane. It goes by different names in some countries but is estimated to be the 8th most plentiful weed in the world. Since the weeds are growing strong, eating them can make humans strong also.

Perhaps CO2 is an aphrodisiac or hallucinogen to some species? Help for sagging sex drives!!!

right I can learn to love eating grubs, weeds make you stronger like popeye, lol,thats a hoot. So would it be safe to say, at least on this thread, you are taking the position that, so what, even if there is global warming the so called damage is within the capacity for human adaptation, mind over matter.

My "position"? My position is that the Anti-Christ is messing up the planet to make people vote more instead of looking to God's Government that Jesus called "the kingdom".

The Anti-Christ is taking down as many as they can. Only a few Christians on earth who actually have "Bible Truth" [and practice/adhere to its tenets] will gain life in the restored paradise, set up following Armageddon.

Just like Satan tried to get Jesus to do an act of worship and assume control of all the world's governments ahead of the "appointed time", and Jesus knew that was not that time for him to do that yet. When Satan was hurled down to earth in 1914 he selected men as his "apostles" => COPYING JESUS' OWN SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS MODEL.

They are the Anti-Christ today and they're exceptionally gifted people who we mortals cannot stop. They know moves ahead of us as they are possibly clairvoyant, but they are also personally instructed & guided by Satan & the demons. Only Jesus can stop such a powerful group my friend. Voting booths are a sham, & quite powerless. They run this oxcart.

Revelation 11 v 18 shows that "those ruining the earth" are to be done away with. What we see here now is going away soon. And all those people who are doing it, they go also. Bible Prophecy has been fulfilled at a greatly increased pace since February 2008 and it has not slowed down yet... so you can keep pushing the oxcart choices they put in your plate or grab hold of the ark and survive them, the oxcart masters.

Plants are also losing their ability to sequester carbon due to the amount of nitrogen fertilizers we use and the methods of farming we have now employed in the industrial model. If we get back to more sustainable farming practices across the board that can sequester Co2 like organic, agroecology, intercropping, cover crops, terra prieta, etc. and move away from the destructive way we farm and clear land we can move closer to some sort of balance. We are not only saturating our oceans we are saturating our air and land because of the imbalance between deforestation rates and carbon sinks, and also the rate of soil erosion. This is why reforestation is so important.

Good points, but let me make this case. Now it is true, Jesus died because of humanities sin, but he didn’t have to die for the frog, even the rat, because they didn’t sin. The least among us is not just for humanities poor and sick, it is for all of earth's species.
. Now if you don't believe me consider this. Most Christians are aware of Pascal's wager, which argues that it is better to believe in God. Wouldn't it also be better to do as God did, after all, humans were not the only species God choose to save on Noah’s Ark. In fact God thought so much of all earth's species, God commanded Noah to save them. So if the wager is correct, and given that God is a vengeful God, then protecting what God protected should be the highest priority for Christians

Now to the question of the end of times.....

Now to the question of the end of times...

The Bible, as allowed by God, gives an excellent account as to how he wants Christians to act during the coming apocalypse, and that is the story of Job. As most know, the story is about a man, Job, who lost everything but his life for his faith in God. This is not unlike what will happen to all humans just before Christ’s second coming. However, the parallel is not only a complete destruction of the world, but that in both cases the loss happened gradually. And yet, not once did Job stop being Christian, even as god, himself, allowed his world to be destroyed. In the end, however, Job was broken, he questioned god. But one wonders, did not Job know this was a test?

For the modern Christian, God may have an even more indicting set of queries:

Why did you stop protecting the earth as commanded of you in the Bible?
Why did you stop being Christian?
Why did you break so soon?
Where you not WARNED, God was testing you?

"To be sure we are supposed to take care of all life on Earth. "

Then do it.

Do it? But that's what Satan said. You're chewing up my time and Jan's thread. Time to break off. Later.

Point of order,sir, you broached the topic of religion.

to be fair, the issue that has been addressed on this part of the thread is Christian cynicism, and Job is an excellent example of what God would want a Christian to do, even if the outcome is doomed.

But, as it relates to any further discussion, the simple fact is there was an agreement
"To be sure we are supposed to take care of all life on Earth"

Infact before you posted the religious statement, I was researching this idea of CO2 fertilizing. It was point I never heard of, so i entertained it. It is also closer to what I believe is the most compelling and fundamental bases for global warming. If there are no plants there is no oxygen. And to add to that, if one dismisses the idea of Global warming then one rejects the premises that support it as well, and any premises that support those premises. Or one could accept that there is destruction but it has nothing to do with Global warming. However, that is bit funny for obvious reasons. Even though it is possible to destroy the environment with human waste, no matter what science is presented, that waste didn't do what Al Gore said it's doing.

In the end my point is clear, where do the deniers begin to draw that line of skepticism, and is that a fair skepticism. This is important to know in light of the primary goal, and as you have acknowledged: "we are supposed to take care of all life on Earth."

good stuff

Point of order yourself I sent you a private mail so we could stop using Jan's thread for your many further religion questions.

Take it over to mail.

only to the degree that those emails are about religion, if it deals with science, I post here

No. Your terms are unacceptable. Stay ignorant.

have a good day, then

I am having an outstanding day because you failed to make me your personal punching bag. Do not address me again.

RE: Job
Gravity_Man sent on Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:11:44 +0000
"Take all the time you want but your attitude coming across to me has gotten very old.
I write what I choose to write. You want to muzzle me into some kind of funnel go jump."

I agree....opps did I respond to you again, sorry

um hum. Yep. Thanks for showing me and anyone else your true self, thereby proving my estimation of your soul was correct.

Now, go outside & jump up & down in your yard. Thanks.

HAHAHAHAHA

have nice a day then

btw. You ate all the bait. Good catfish.

ok, I surrender, you won, you are better at this than me. You may have the last word, and I am certainly not implying that you need my permission.

My soul to hell, but I can't not respond at times to your posts, sorry, just the way I think.

Honestly, I hope my day is far worse and yours is far better. On this thread, I will not respond to you again. I promise.

I didn't win against you. God's holy spirit told me what you were from the start and that's what bounced you around. You offended the Man. You have no future now. Post wherever you want to whomever you want.

No future => Mark 3 v 29 & 30. You decided to struggle with Hate against the holy spirit in me. You got God's personal attention buddy. Good-bye.

Oh look, RealClimate says so therefore it must be true.
Desperation again!!!

From the article "changes in CR only make a difference below the ion-pair limit"

Jan, please explain what that sentence means?
And why do changes in CR only make a difference below the ion-pair limit? (This should be interesting)

I can explain it you're cherry picking

It is interesting how Jan can post things she doesn't even understand. She already lacks credibility, you would think she would be able to explain to people what she is posting - or do you think it's the volume of her comments that is the important factor here? The more stories she posts, the more she comments and the more votes she gets, the more credible the science is? I don't think so.

I don't respond to baiters here. Especially when they start getting to the point where you know the information is overloading them. This leech latches on to every thread about this especially the ones I post but can never do anything but try to bait others because they can't stand to see real scientists answering the bogus claims. Not even worth my time.

Answer the question Jan... or can't you?

whats is more interesting is how you can post facts without any links

i agree Jan, I shouldn't either, but every now and then, most probably more than I should, I like to confront a bully

i've beem condesending to you, I must admit this, but on my last post to you on another thread, I provided an honest querry for the purposes of establishing a true discussion. I think you should answer those questions first.

With all the space junk circling the planet I don't quite see how anybody can reach any conclusions OF ANY KIND about clouds & cosmic rays. If however the Russians continue their plan to eliminate all space junk we could find out REAL QUICK LIKE.

Of course if someone possessing a smidgeon of COMMON SENSE was to shove all the space junk over to make a big radiation shield ya might have something positive going there.

There appears to be enough metal in orbit to start a space platform or orbitting factory but then some belongs to the US and some to others, so fighting over WHO OWNS THE SPACE JUNK could have the makings of a great Star War.

You know they're itching to start the first space war....

Well I agree with you on that, which is the point of debunking skeptics who keep stating it is a fact that it absolutely is influencing all of the climate events we are seeing taking place. They don't even know at what threshold ionization occurs that would permit cloud seeding to form. Even Kirkby the head of the CLOUD study at CERN stated that those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds and considering the test was in a confined space with parameters that are not representative of conditions that can be considered enough to make such an assertion as fact, they (the usual subjects) do a disservice to science. And I quote from CERN, "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step." It is good that they are doing these tests and hopefully we will also learn more about the origins of these cosmic rays.The point of this however is once again seeing how the same skeptics latch onto any type of scientific atmospheric testing in trying to twist it to suit their own agenda on climate which speaks volumes to me. Personally, I think cosmic rays do have an effect on cloud behavior to some degree, but I don't see a proportion near enough to be the forcing behind the temperature changes and climate events we are now seeing. And Dessler's findings on ocean heat are then just as valid if not moreso and can be traced to positive feedback loops taking place in our climate system.

Believe me, I understand completely.

Maybe you can help me IceKat. I'm trying to imagine how something as passive as a cloud can contribute to climate change. Clouds are areas where water vapor is more concentrated in the sky. Water vapor is everywhere, but only in the areas of clouds do they exceed a limit causing them to become visible. Because clouds affect visible light increasing clouds lowers the visible light reaching the surface.

Since clouds form passively what is it that causing a change in the formation of clouds here? The only thing I see that could cause this is anthropogenic global warming.

Has to be CO2, doesn't it? Just has to be :)
Keep it up old girl.

Please shut up and go away HotDog.
We are trying to have an adult conversation here.
I'm real tired of your phony science, bogus charts and complete lack of documentation.

Paper already outdated and proved to be lacking in many areas - sorry.

Clouds are floating capacitors too so they are integral to the Earth Energy Cycle. Cosmic radiation coming in should not be readily discounted.

It's also possible the Earth's "Cloud System" is somehow wonderfully keeping the Earth's Water replenished in other ways no one has thought to study yet.

Calling clouds a "negative" is right stupid. Relegating clouds to only being a passive "feedback mechanism" is arrogant. This planet is far more complex than we yet can know.

"This planet is far more complex than we yet can know."

Not according to Jan, all that matters is CO2, and even then, only the human caused (3%) CO2 is important.

Your point is good on the surface IceKat but when you're looking around to determine which straw is breaking the camel's back ~aka "tipping points~ her "myopia" is called for.

Also called straining out gnats. I think of it as the bowling pin you hit that makes all the other pins go flying.

I like Jan's determination better than your evasions. You sure seem to have access to the world's weather charts though, I'LL GIVE YA THAT!!!

Don't use me to back up your bullshit.
Low clouds do reflect heat back to space but don't reduce hydrocarbons.
High clouds trap heat in the atmosphere, exasorbating warming.
We are seeing many more stratospheric clouds for several reasons.
1. Forests form low Cumulus cloud cover from evapotranspiration. As forests are cut and burned
clouds rise higher.
2. Contrails from airplanes, and industrial aerosols, form high cirriform clouds which trap in the heat.
This is called the Greenhouse Effect, an accepted scientific fact since the 1880s.
Kindergarden is dismisses.

Water-laden clouds are lower to the ground but clouds stuffed with white fluffy laboratory stuff are much higher!!!

Thanks for the science lesson, I'm really grateful... (walks away laughing)...

I thought H2O in the air was a greenhouse gas. Cloud shading + greenhouse gas equals parity. What have I missed? They appear to be in a Self-Adjusting Natural balance.

"And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." ~Revelation 22:2
Imagine that. Not God, not Jesus, but the leaves of the tree.
Looks like John was a tree hugger.

You're so, so close. Yet so far away.

There are no shortcuts to understanding. I could blurt out the answers then you'd tell me where to get off the train and how many ways I had to be wrong. Learning Bible Truth is a ladder each person needs to climb up. Only then do they appreciate what they find at the top.

just as long as it's understood that burdening God's earth with self-centered indulgences is a sin

SO TRUE!!!
Perhaps words like self-absorbtion are self-defining (imploding in on one's self).

Greed is a sin? No. We were created to be greedy. We want the best because we were made to appreciate the best and to always be surrounded by the best.

As imperfect people we have difficulty controlling it. But soon when mankind is restored (Matthew 19 v 28, Rev. 21 v 1-4) we will have that inner strength restored. See also Matt. 5 v 5! Ecclesiastes 1 v 4!

Soon the Earth will be much less burdened by the number of humans. Only one small religious group will be allowed passage to the other side of the great tribulation, all the others not so much (Rev. 7 vss 9 & 14).