do you believe in cause and effect?

I absolutely beleive in cause and effect.

Your premise here is off and does NOT fit into the proper scientific methodology. You are starting with a conclusion.

Yes there is poluiton. this is a known. Yes polution can have various impacts both at the micro and macro level.

But to take this and make the leap to AGW is astoundingly brazen.

First, for Skeptics like myself, the quesiton is not polution nor specific impacts of specific elements of what you are referring to as polution. Where we find problems are with the cascade effect. The fairure to acknowledge or even attempt to research negative feedbacks that could and based on Earth's history, are likely to ocunter act to varyinig degrees all of the positive impacts they are identifying. additionally we challenge some of the claims of positive feedback. The most recent being clouds. IPCC models all had clouds as positive feedbacks. Well, based on recent research and satelite data we KNOW that clouds are a STRONG NEGATVIE feedback not positive.

This means that all elements involde with cloud formation are impacting agents for a negative feedback. Water evaporation for example. Always a know negative feedback as the phase change from liquid water to vapour form requires a great deal of thermal energy that it takes from the surrounding environment. (cooling effect) Now add that moisure in the air has a significantly greater insulating value than CO2 and you have a positive feedback element. Add in clouds are formed from water vapour begginnning to condense and you realize that more water in the atmosphere means more clouds. negative feedback.

So our concerns are on how the IPCC models treat this interrelationship. How they balance the positive and netative elements. BTW water is one of the simpler items that we look at for our compaints about the AGW hypothesis.

You want cause and effect? That is exactly what we argue however we are looking into detail. We ask how do you jump from a given "cause" to a stated effect? How do you balance the thermal equations? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed so where do you get all of the additional energy that is required to yeild the result you suggest?

This is scientific cause and effect analysis. Not we have polution so of course it will do that...

EDIT: @ virtual

Here are some studies on clouds and the Negative Feedbck from CERN

17. CERN CLOUD experiment proving relationship between solar magnetic field strength and possible cloud formation/cover on earth.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-new...

18. New study showing STRONG negative feedback for Clouds.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-rev...

On the energy from a pahse chagne drawing energy from the envionment to make said change. I have a simple and practicle experiment for you. You need Ice, a basic container, a little water, Salt and a thermometer.

Put the ice and some water in your container. Measure the temperature of this mixture. Should be at or near Freezing (32 F or 0 C) add in some salt and stir.

Whaat you have done is lowered the freezing temperature of the water/ice mixture. Lowered is to near (0 degrees F). Now because the mixture was are 32F it will seek to melt i.e. phase change. Your mixure temperature will begin to drop to below freezing and the ice draws heat from anywhere it can in order to phase change into water.

You can look up steam tables and related data for steam to get the specific eneryg required to convert a one pound of water to one pound of steam. Both at the same temperature. It is a significant amount of heat. This large value of heat is why steam systems are used for heat. You get a lot more thermal energy out of a pound of steam at 213 Degrees going down to 211 degree water tahn you do with a pound of water dropping drom say 210 degrees to 150 degrees...

Basic science. Basic thermodynamics.

Hey Jeff:

" Well, based on recent research and satelite data we KNOW that clouds are a STRONG NEGATVIE feedback not positive. "

I'd be interested to read some support for that statement.

I'd also really like to know how a phase change that uses energy from the local environment removes energy from the earth's envelope.

Edit: The CERN study doesn't show strong negative feedback from clouds, whatwsupwiththat isn't exactly peer reviewed. Got anything else?

Please review your basic thermo. Your experiment shows a change in temperature, but the energy in the room hasn't gone away. You're looking at only one half of a refrigeration cycle. This should be a reminder to you that the greenhouse effect traps energy, not temperature. Evaporation at the surface takes energy out of the ocean and puts it into water vapor in the air. When the water changes state again to form a cloud, the energy is released - basic fuel for hurricanes. Your explanation would only "hold water" (hee hee) if the water stayed evaporated. Instead, it achieves a net transfer of energy from the water surface to cloud height when it condenses. The energy is still in the earth's envelope and will stay there until it can escape as radiation.

Yes I do. And the cause always precedes the effect. One does not have to be a scientist to know this. If I sneak up behind you and poke you with a pin you will give off a violent reaction. The cause being the prick of the pin while the effect is you screaming. But notice the chronology of this. The cause always comes before the effect. This is logical and it is one piece of logic that the warmies seem to forget. Right now CO2 is increasing and temperature has been decreasing over the last decade and yet the warmies ignore that. In Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' his data showed that CO2 sometimes preceded the rise in temperature and sometimes the temperature preceded the rise in CO2. So it is unthinkable to believe that CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures of the earth. At the most it may be a small contributor to the rise but it isn't alone sufficient to raise the temperature to anything considered dangerous.

Quote by Ian McQueen, chemical engineer: "Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed....Carbon dioxide does have a small warming effect, McQueen said, but 32 per cent of the first few molecules do the majority of the warming. The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, he said, is currently at 380 parts per million; if that were upped to 560 parts per million, Earth's temperature would only rise about 0.3 degrees.”

But the indisputable fact is that CO2 emission can be quantified and can be caused by humans so that it makes it a target for taxation.

Also the fact that we have been lied to in the past. These warmies were once called icies since they predicted an Ice Age caused by CO2. Then they said there was Global Warming caused by CO2 and now it is Climate Change with the same culprit CO2. Can you take these people seriously after that?

It shows that the warmies are not only logically challenged but intellectually challenged and are insulting to the intelligence of those they try to cram this global warming crap down out throat.

But I do believe in global warming. And you want to know the effects of air pollution? for one, it is detrimental to our health, not only to us but to all other species as well.

Air is composed of several gases, some of which are only n trace amounts because if given in figure, would adversely affect us. However, due to our unfriendly activities, some traces of elements that's in the air had increased in concentration causing air pollution. Air pollution might result to not just global warming (though its the one that's common), but acid rains as well.

Cause and Effect. The Yin and the Yang. It's the balance of nature. If something happened to that balance, it will affect us, adversely so we have to strive and maintain the equilibrium ( of nature).

I do believe in cause and effect which is why the liberal mind is so confusing.

Effect: kids are getting fatter and fatter. Cause: eating too many calories and being inactive.

Liberal Solution: Ban toys in Happy Meals.

Effect: any observation of an event that is bad Cause: man

Liberal solution: stop man

I could continue with the idiotic nonsensical list of the skewed view of reality liberals live in but it drains me.

If the world were not warming, then not every year since 1986 would be in the top 10 warmest years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2...

Regarding what is causing the warming, denialists do have their theories, but none of them check out. Their favorite is the Sun. Uh! Uh!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sun...

The main problem with the idea that current global warming is natural is that no known natural forcing has shown a trend that could explain this current global warming. Solar activity has shown a downward trend over the last fifty years and Earth's orbital variations have been in a very slow cooling trend for the last 6,000 years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ottobli/pubs/Otto-Blie...

Jeff Engr

<The fairure to acknowledge or even attempt to research negative feedbacks that could and based on Earth's history, are likely to ocunter act to varyinig degrees all of the positive impacts they are identifying.>

Why is it up to "warmers" to research negative feedbacks. Those who propose the hypothesis are the ones who need to come up with the evidence and publish their results.

<CERN CLOUD experiment proving relationship between solar magnetic field strength and possible cloud formation/cover on earth.>

A negative feedback would be one in which increasing temperature leads to increasing cloud cover. The CERN experiment is about cloud formation being caused by cosmic rays which are effected by solar activity. What happens with clouds, because of solar activity, would, if the theory is correct, be a forcing and not a feedback. Besides, cosmic rays are trending the wrong direction to be the cause of global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-gl...

<Basic science. Basic thermodynamics.>

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Adding a greenhouse gas causes warming. Basic science. Basic thermodynamics.

Environmental pollution causes & affects global warming . I believe .

Its natural, we go through cycles, so its pretty obvious we don't need any other reasons.