# Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2019)

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 2, 2019)

*Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*

I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



Any links ?


.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.



There is no such published paper of EMPIRICAL based research to support it. If there were, there wouldn't be HUNDREDS of *NEW* climate models, with *NEW* emission scenarios be published every 5 years in the IPCC report.

There are many published papers using a lot of unverified modeling constructs, which means a lot of assumption, Kridging and infilling to make a half baked premise that CO2 is the dominant source of warming since the 1970's. It is IMPOSSIBLE since the increase of energy outflow from the planet always exceeds the postulated warm forcing increase of CO2.

CO2 absorb and release IR energy, no heat is produced in the process, no change at all in its energy state if it emitted the same way it was absorbed.

Climate models do NOT have demonstrated forecast skill, which is why every 5 years we get a new 100 + climate models in the IPCC report, it has become a waste of time continuing this line of failures. It is now a money trail and nothing more.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.





That was YOUR excuse for not providing the "physical evidence", which means you have nothing as usual.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.





First, it is a bit disingenuous to say, "the global scientific community," because I don't really think they *all* subscribe to the belief that humans are the primary driver,

Earth Science | Climate Change | Global Warming | Renewable Energy | Pollution Treatment | Renewable Energy | USA | Asia | Middle East| Lisbon | Portugal
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE
Has Polar Shift caused Global Warming and Climate Change? | PSI Intl

and,

Second, has the scientific community always been completely accurate in all of it's hypothesis's?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.


Right out of the gate is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (based on failed modeling) and not one lick of empirical evidence...  Bravo... You sir, are an idiot..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



Since there has never been a paper published in which the claimed warming has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses...I will ask again...what physical evidence supports the claim that our CO2 emissions are the principle, or even a significant cause of global warming?

Why not simply admit that you simply can't produce any evidence to support the claim because none exists...consensus is hardly evidence of anything scientific.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2019)

Anyone ever notice how alarmists tend to avoid any discussion that involves actual evidence like it was the plague?....and those who don't, offer up the same old logical fallacies that they believe represent something like evidence?...

Consensus...as if that were imperial evidence of anything more than group think when it exists in the absence of an overwhelming body of observed, measured, incontrovertible  evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


No, no, their claim is CO2 adds energy. Your point is it doesn’t.  You think one of these punks can prove just that?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.



99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points  – Alternet.org


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



That's not science, hun


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> ...








The evidence is under my pinky


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



You can't answer post one either.

You ARE the idiot for trying to deflect from it with your misleading and messed up link.

Snicker.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice...  Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 11, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



I LOL'd when IPCC 5 initially reported that I think 92% of the "Warming" was "trapped by the oceans" They've since retracted their own failed "Scientific consensus"


----------



## SSDD (Jul 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...





sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Which part of that do you think amounts to physical evidence that supports the contention that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

I asked a simple question...what's the matter, can't provide some simple physical evidence?  What is science without physical evidence?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


All of it is evidence.  I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things.  Human caused climate change is changing our planet.  All the scientists agree.  The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters.  Wake up.

Physical?  I don't know.  What physical evidence is there for evolution?  Do you doubt evolution?  What is your theory on that and what evidence do you have on your theory besides the bible?  

What physical evidence do you have that GW isn't being caused by man?  Remember, the scientists have already heard everything that is going to come out of your mouth and they explain over and over why your arguments are all fatally flawed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda


----------



## Dick Foster (Jul 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



Is this anything like the same group that once insisted that the earth was flat, the universe revolved about the earth and that it was simply ludicrous that man could ever fly, reach the moon, split atoms etc. etc.? Burn any witches lately, you moron?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 11, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Once again YOU FAILED to present* EMPIRICAL* evidence, far into the future Modeling scenarios are NOT empirical, it is unverified pseudoscience.

It is clear you don't know what the NULL hypothesis is and that the concept of The Scientific Method is foreign to you.

Why is SSDD's Question so difficult for you to answer?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That is all you are doing... You cant even tell me what the base line hypothesis is and how its supposed to be accomplished.  Thus you dont have a fucking clue other than what your masters tell you to spout...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible.  But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution.  But you deny both right?  

Everything you say is right wing spin.  Every argument you make, a scientist has explained the flaw in your thinking, but you keep thinking the same things.  Fuck the facts right? 

If it was your love one who was murdered and they didn't have any empirical evidence you'd want the jury to convict if there were 1000 pieces of unempirical evidence right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Yes, base line hypothesis  This is the kind of shit a stupid Republican says that is typically an argument made in order to confuse and distract from all the real evidence.  

base line hypothesis?  What is your base line hypotheis based on empirical evidence?  

And guess what?  The scientists on this planet say you are wrong.  Your reply back to that is that there is a vast scientific conspiracy among the scientific community.  You're a fucking loon.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You and Trump sound just like the idiots on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  YOUR Masters.

Have you watched the movie about Fox News and Roger Ailes?  They are lying to you dude.  They invented that media to brainwash right wing fucktards in our society.  They give you your talking points.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution.




You are hilarious... There is ample empirically observed evidence that AGW is not happening. As all of your predictive models fail empirical review, you have no proof of anything and yet you want us to "believe"...

A religion based on feelings... Nice...     No thank You!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Considering Trumps IQ is 182 and he is creating millions of jobs and cutting the red tape of Marxism you all are trying to employ, I will wear that as a badge of honor...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes his IQ is 182 and he is 6'3 and 220 lbs.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible. But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution.
> ...



Sorry but since we lack empirical evidence I'm basing my belief on pure logic

Empirical evidence is verifiable by observation rather than theory or logic.

You don't have a theory or logic.  You certainly don't have a scientific theory.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

I could go on and on.  This is all from NASA you schmuck.  Flat earth mother fuckers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Your IQ is <0  And your a dupe, useful Idiot... Nothing more..

You still haven't explained the Hypothesis nor have you explained why all modeling fails...  Why is that?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Maybe one time he was smart

*Trump's cognitive deficits seem worse. We need to know if he has dementia*

*We see signs that the president's abilities are declining, but the only way to find out for sure is to give him a full neuropsychological evaluation.

And not his doctors who we know will lie









*


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Why do you think?  No wait.  You don't think.  You only repeat bad arguments.  Go ahead, make your best bad argument and I'll debunk that bullshit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sorry but since we lack empirical evidence I'm basing my belief on pure logic



Logic....?



You wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass. Logic requires the scientific method and systematic ruling out of all other potential sources and causes, WHICH THE AGW CROWD HAS NOT DONE.  You have any clue about what the NULL HYPOTHESIS is? 

IF you had any real science to back up your claims you wont post it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I love TV doctors who have NEVER SEEN THE PERSON commenting, diagnosing and violating their Hippocratic oaths...

Nice inflammatory Deflection to avoid presenting real facts...


----------



## Third Party (Jul 12, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.


Uh, haven't seen THEIR evidence yet.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...





You are soooo dumb because you make clear you have no idea what EMPIRICAL means to science research, from Merriam-Webster:

Definition of _empirical_

1 *: *originating in or based on observation or experience empirical data
2 *: *relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory an empirical basis for the theory
3 *: *capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment empirical laws
4 *: *of or relating to empiricism

You can't offer anything scientific without real evidence, which is what UNVERIFIED long into the future Modeling scenarios lacks. Far into the future climate models lacks verification because there is no evidence or data available...., surely that was obvious....?

Again you have IGNORED the two scientific Concepts, The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method.

You used the words non empirical, lets see what the dictionary says about it:

nonempirical


"Not based on any empirical evidence; faith-driven
_a nonempirical belief system_
(sciences) Not relying directly on data; theory-driven"

*Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!*

You have NOTHING of substance to offer, which is why people are laughing at you.

*By the way you still haven't answered SSDD question/request for EMPIRICAL research.*....


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Sealy writes a boo boo,



> Sorry but since we lack empirical evidence I'm basing my belief on pure logic



He is doing a great job proving he is dumb as hell, his claim that he uses PURE LOGIC is what guides him when evidence is lacking. Lets see what a Dictionary says about it:



> …_Pure Logic_, a phrase often used, but to which no distinct conception can be attached. [—] Perhaps we may say that pure logic is a logic deduced from hypotheses (which some will look upon as axioms) without any inquiry into the observational warrant for those hypotheses.



Pure Logic is for people who *don't* have empirical evidence up their sleeves.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'm waiting for you to present facts that prove man made global warming isn't real.  So is the scientific community.  

This is just like the evolution argument.  We've presented all our evidence, and where is your evidence on the bible?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Here is what you Republicans are doing on this and every other issue

"*Alternative facts*" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a _Meet the Press_ interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified.  So is it empirical?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You put this up WITHOUT A SHRED OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR LIE...  Chuck Todd is an imbecile who, just like you, haven't a fact to rest their case on.... Now that's funny.... No cognitive thought from any of you idiots...

Your post proves any lie will do when trying to promote the AGW lie..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Models are mathematical constructs which must be empirically verified.  All of your links are to these and every one of them has failed empirical verification.  So nothing you are basing your belief's on is empirically observed.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Don't waste your time.  I read 4 words then stopped because I've heard the right wing noise before.  Not even going to acknowledge the stupidity.  I seriously stopped reading after 3 words.  You wasted your time loser.


----------



## Dekster (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.



You know the irony here is that "We need MORE coal!!!!" was the environmental movements response to nuclear.  They are the reason this happened to begin with.  Nuclear has the same carbon footprint as wind.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No functioning brain cell identified...  Carry on....  Watch out for that last step, its a doozy...




Your answer to providing empirical evidence and understanding is ...... WHAAAAAAAAAAA...  To Damn Funny!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> All of it is evidence.  I won't entertain your spin or your stupid questions that don't matter to the grand scheme of things.  Human caused climate change is changing our planet.  All the scientists agree.  The 3% who don't are lobbyists for the global polluters.  Wake up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Seems like you are the one spinning....can't even manage a single piece of physical evidence to support your beliefs...What's the matter?  Surely it is out there...if there were any, it would not be possible to avoid it...it would be everywhere....so lets see it...a single piece of physical evidence...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I doubt that he even knows what empirical evidence might look like...that seems to be a sticking point for most believers...they don't have any idea what the word means and apparently accept all manner of bullshit and believe it when they are told it is evidence...Some of the things they provide when you put them on the spot for evidence would be roll on the floor hilarious if it weren't so tragic that they had been fooled so easily...or willingly...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Yes, you want evidence that isn't possible.  But the fact is all the non empirical evidence suggests man caused global warming, and evolution.  But you deny both right?



Not possible?  What the hell do you mean not possible?  The atmosphere and energy moving through it is eminently observable and measurable....and when it is observed, and measured, what you see doesn't jibe with the AGW hypothesis...  Now you are making excuses for the pseudoscience which can't produce a single piece of empirical evidence to support the claims regarding an entity as observable and measurable as the atmosphere and how energy moves through it?  

You should be raging at climate science for not providing you with a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the claim so that you could shove it  down my throat and shut me the f*ck up....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Are you serious?  You think discussing the baseline hypothesis is political gobbledy goop?  Are you really that ignorant of the topic?  Admit it..you simply chose your position based on your political leanings and have no informed opinion of your own.  You simply spew the opinion you were given by someone with a political agenda and when the discussion goes beyond the couple of talking points you have memorized, you can do little more than call names and make fallacious appeals to authority.


----------



## MAGAman (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


The models are checked by backing the time up 50 years and plugging in the past 50 years if data to see if it attains the current climate.

They don't report the findings... For some unknown reason.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




I though he was 6'2"  what's your point?  You think that is evidence that our CO2 is changing the climate?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I'm waiting for you to present facts that prove man made global warming isn't real.  So is the scientific community.
> 
> This is just like the evolution argument.  We've presented all our evidence, and where is your evidence on the bible?



Here is a good place to start.  You brought up ice core samples and the temperature reconstructions derived from them so it seems that you have no problem with them...This is a temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core taken from Greenland.  It is recognized by climate science as the gold standard of temperature reconstructions...

As you can see, the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  If you look at the chart closely, you will see that in just the past 10,000 years there have been multiple times when the temperature rose much further than any change we have seen, it a much shorter period of time than we have seen.  It has happened over and over..and by the same token, temperatures have dropped further and faster than anything we have seen.  As you can see, we haven't even warmed up to the point where the climate was before the onset of the little ice age which the earth is still warming its way out of. 

Look at this graph, which even climate science recognized as the gold standard of temperature reconstructions and tell me which part of it you believe supports your belief regarding CO2 and its warming power..  This is what real science looks like and it just doesn't support what you believe..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



there is empirical evidence that the climate changes...there is absolutely no empirical evidence that we are causing any change in the global climate whatsoever..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Don't waste your time.  I read 4 words then stopped .



Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a dupe.  We skeptics read everything you post because we don't want to do a half assed job of tearing it completely down with actual empirical science...you cultists on the other hand can't even bear to look at anything that disagrees with your beliefs....probably because you know that you aren't going to be able to provide any actual science to counter it...it must be frustrating to engage in a scientific discussion regarding an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere and the way energy moves through it and not be able to provide any empirical evidence at all to support your beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

Dekster said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Yeah....but nuclear probably would't kill anywhere near as many of those pesky raptors like eagles, vultures, hawks, etc, bats, and migratory birds as those wind mills do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



It would't be good for their employment prospects if they actually reported how closely the models track reality...not much call for climate scientists if there were no crisis...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists.  Piss off russia!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.



I don't have one; I've read and listened to arguments on both sides, and I side with the scientists.  Climate Change is real, and mankind has had some influence - likely a great deal - on it.

Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Don't waste your time.  I read 4 words then stopped .
> ...


I read "Which is why you are and in all likelyhood will remain a....then I stopped.  Sad


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



My fox new/rush limbaugh buddy at work told me the scientists wouldn't dare have a debate with the deniers because the deniers would wipe the floor with them. 

He too doesn't realize that every argument he puts forward, the scientific community has already debunked those bad arguments.  But what deniers do is move on to bad argument number 2, then 3, then 4 and eventually they circle back to bad argument one.

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points  – Alternet.org


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You really think base line hypothesis is fake news from russian lobbyists?  You really are an ignorant wacko aren't you...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



So are you saying that science hasn't provided you with a single piece of physical evidence to support the claim that our CO2 is altering the global cliamte?  So why would you side with them if they have not provided any such physical evidence regarding an entity as measurable and observable as the atmosphere and energy movment through it?



Wry Catcher said:


> Deniers of climate change have been influenced by the fossil fuel agency, which is conflicted, their interests are profit, not necessarily clean and environmentally safe operations.



I have been influenced by the failure of climate science to produce even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability  after having spent nearly 4 decades and almost a trillion dollars on the issue...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Sad that you would want to remain a dupe?   Yes..I agree that it is sad.

And I can't help but notice that you skipped over the gold standard temperature reconstruction...what's the matter...in denial?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> ...


Awe.... Poor SEAPOOPOO...  having a hard day are we...  It must be tough living in fantasy land and having your fantasy destroyed...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



How far in denial must they be in order to maintain the illusion in their minds that they are making any sort of rational argument at all.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> ...


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
still more.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 12, 2019)

Simple empirical evidence for AGW:

1)  Measured CO2 concentration.
2)  Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
3)  Glacial Melt
4)  Loss of Arctic Sea Ice
5)  Sea Level Rise.
6)  Increased ocean acidity

The anthropogenic connection comes from the CO2.


----------



## denmark (Jul 12, 2019)

“Summary:
_Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”_

Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



What a steaming pile of bullshit...

I am short on time now, but will get around to tearing his claims apart with observed, measured evidence... We might start with his claim that venus is hot because of a greenhouse effect....for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet...so the planet's surface isn't being warmed by solar energy...then there is the very troubling fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the daytime side of the planet even though the night time on venus lasts for about 120 of our days...do explain that one...

The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates...much like the extreme temperatures found deep in the atmospheres of the gas giants like saturn and jupiter...very high temperatures, no greenhouse gasses, very little sunlight...

I will address more of what he calls empirical evidence later as time permits...did you notice where the paper came from?  The vatican?  really?  If the paper had any merit, and actually provided empirical evidence of man's influence on the global climate that it might have been published in an actual scientific journal rather than the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, at the Vatican?  

Once a dupe..always a dupe it appears...

I will get to the rest in time unless someone else beats me to it....anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


Not enough content


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Simple empirical evidence for AGW:
> 
> 1)  Measured CO2 concentration.
> 2)  Measured Atmospheric and Ocean Temperature Data
> ...



Got any physical evidence of that?  No one argues that CO2 concentrations are rising....but every ice core study ever done shows that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures...not the cause.

The oceans are cooling in spite of rising CO2...and what physical evidence do you have that suggests that CO2 could cause the oceans to warm?

Glaciers have been melting for 14,000 years now...

There is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...how do you think that proves that we are the cause

Sea level has been rising at about the same rate for over 100 years....again, how is that evidence that we are causing climate change

Even climate science has dropped the ocean acidification meme...it simply hasn't worked out...the evidence is that we aren't causing it, never could...I will provide you with plenty of published papers on the topic if you like...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

denmark said:


> “Summary:
> _Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”_
> 
> Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
> I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.


Satellites where around in 1890?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 12, 2019)

denmark said:


> “Summary:
> _Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics.The green- house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.”_
> 
> Hmm, seems logical ... if 90% of scientific specialists agree with the evidence.
> I trust the scientific community much more than political factions and religious organizations.



Which evidence?  That is the point of this thread...  What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

Can you name any other field of science in which people offer up "consensus" as evidence that the main stream hypothesis is valid?  I can't.   You question the mainstream hypothesis of any other field of science and you get bombarded with evidence from all directions...you question the mainstream hypothesis in climate science and you get told about "consensus" as if that meant anything and then you get called some names...

If there is actual physical evidence to support the claim, lets see it.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Simple empirical evidence for AGW:
> ...



No shit?  So when were the laws of chemistry changed?    CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Here you say this.


SSDD said:


> for a greenhouse effect as described by climate science to exist, first the ground must be warmed by sunlight and then in turn radiate IR outwards...the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet


Then you say this.


SSDD said:


> The temperature is what it is on venus due to incoming solar energy and the extreme density of its atmosphere and the pressure that generates


Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.
You also are widely of the mark by comparing Venus to Saturn or Jupiter.
Jupiters core is 650 million psi. And at its core they estimate 43000 degrees Fahrenheit. This means the pressure creates a build-up of 0.0066 percent.
Venus Surface pressure is 1348 psi. And it's temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 64 percent.
So while pressure does explain Jupiter's temperature it does not explain that at Venus.
Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.

Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## denmark (Jul 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > “Summary:
> ...


Why do you say that?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

denmark said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




That's what implied or is earth only 100 years old?


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


That's what you read not what is implied.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 12, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



So we had space stuff a hundred years ago or Mann's temperature reading tree rings?


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The exert did not claim they had satellites a hundred years ago. It claimed it can and has measured the greenhouse effect using satellites. It's your typical strawman you are trying to use here.


----------



## forkup (Jul 12, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Don't bother. They would claim the laws of physics, math, chemistry and common sense don't apply to perpetuate this thing. I always find it interesting that all these "brilliant" AGW deniers lurk on a political forum but are absent for the most part when it comes to publishing.


----------



## denmark (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


With your “anyone with even basic knowledge could tear that paper down” comment, why don’t you vindicate yourself and submit your superior rebuttal to a scientific journal? They would love good scientific arguments!
Let us know what happens, if you dare ...


----------



## Dekster (Jul 12, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Bats seems to be getting hit pretty hard in some places for sure.  I have read a few reports saying that wind turbines kill more bats than any other human activity


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 13, 2019)

More deflection from Sealybobo,



> Here is what you Republicans are doing on this and every other issue
> 
> "*Alternative facts*" was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a _Meet the Press_ interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would "utter a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."



And this dead on arrival assertion, since as usual he doesn't answer SSDD original question from post one, doesn't back it up with evidence either.



> There's lots of evidence that the scientists have presented that can be verified. So is it empirical?



You don't debate, just post evasive and deflecting replies. It is your one skill I can see in you do so well.


----------



## MAGAman (Jul 13, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists.  Piss off russia!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> mn
> 
> No shit?  So when were the laws of chemistry changed?    CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3 ↔ H+ + HCO3-



There was no need to change the laws of chemistry...all that needed to be done was to test the models that predicted ocean acidification and its effects on marine life against reality.....like all climate models, they failed.

The fact that alarmist scientists fail to mention is that prior to the onset of the present ice age, practically every creature in the oceans had already evolved to its present form...at that time, the atmospheric CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm...more than double the present concentrations...and most of the corals that exist today had evolved to their present forms much further back in the earth's history when CO2 levels were in the 3000ppm  to 5000ppm range.  

There is money to be made in alarmism...not so much in simply stating that what we are seeing in the oceans today is business as usual on planet earth.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...st_Pacific_Evidence_from_coral_d_11_B_records

Cip:  
*Ocean acidification is predicted to reduce the saturation state of carbonate minerals in seawater and potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms, such as calcareous microorganisms and corals. Model calculations have indicated an overall decrease in global seawater pH of 0.1 relative to the preIndustrial era value, and a further pH reduction of 0.2–0.3 over the next century.*
We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. …* [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH.  Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions.* 
…  The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.







Ocean 'calamities' oversold, say researchers

Clip:  
 *The state of the world’s seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe*. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. The team writes that scientists,* journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences*. The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community.   Carlos Duarte, a marine biologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and his colleagues say that *gloomy media reports about ocean issues such as invasive species and coral die-offs are not always based on actual observations*. It is not just journalists who are to blame, they maintain: *the marine research community “may not have remained sufficiently sceptical” on the topic.*

Error - Cookies Turned Off

 *Near the vent site, the urchins experienced large daily variations in pH (> 1 unit) andpCO2 (> 2000 ppm) *and average pH values (pHT 7.73) much below those expected under the most pessimistic future emission scenarios. Growth was measured over a 17-month period using tetracycline tagging of the calcareous feeding lanterns. *Average-sized urchins grew more than twice as fast at the vent compared with those at an adjacent control site*, and assumed larger sizes at the vent compared to the control site and two other sites at another reef near-by. … Thus, *urchins did not only persist but actually ‘thrived’ under extreme CO2 conditions*.

Impact of high  p CO 2  and warmer temperatures on the process of silica biomineralization in the sponge  Mycale grandis

Clip:  
*The long-term exposure experiments revealed no effect on survival or growth rates of M. grandis to high pCO2 (1198 µatm), warmer temperatures (25.6°C), or combined high pCO2 with warmer temperature (1225 µatm, 25.7°C) treatments, indicating that M. grandis will continue to prosper under predicted increases in pCO2 and sea surface temperature. *


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000136

Clip:
 If the forecasts of continued global warming are borne out, the oceans will also become warmer and will tend to outgas CO2, offsetting to some extent the small increased partial pressure that might otherwise occur. … *An analysis of research on the effect of lower pH shows* *a net beneficial impact on the calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility, and survival of calcifying marine species when pH is lowered up to 0.3 units, which is beyond what is considered a plausible reduction during this century*. … *There is no evidence to support the claim that most calcifying marine species will become extinct owing to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and lower pH in the oceans*.



Boron Isotopic Systematics in Scleractinian Corals and the Role of pH Up-regulation

Clip:  
“For example, *over seasonal time-scales Porites corals from the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have a large range in pHcf of ~8.3 to ~8.5, significantly greater (~×2 to ~×3) than that of reef-water (pHT ~8.01 to ~8.08), and an order of magnitude greater than that expected from ‘static’ laboratory experiments*.”

“Strong physiological controls, but of a different character, are found in corals grown in a Free Ocean Carbon Enrichment Experiment (FOCE) conducted in situ within the Heron Island lagoon (GBR). *These corals exhibit near constant pHcf values regardless of external changes in temperature and seawater pH*. This pattern of strong physiologically controlled ‘pH-homeostasis’, with elevated but constant pHcf has been found despite* large natural seasonal variations in the pH (±0.15 pH units) of the lagoon waters, as well as the even larger super-imposed decreases in seawater pH (~0.25 pH units) designed to simulate year 2100 conditions*.”

“In natural reef environments we thus find that the processes influencing the up-regulation of pHcf in symbiont-bearing corals are subject to strong physiological controls, behaviour that is not well simulated in the current generation of aquaria-based experiments with fixed seawater pH and temperature.”



CO 2  sensitivity experiments are not sufficient to show an effect of ocean acidification






If you want more published papers stating that the wild alarmist claims regarding the fate of the oceans is nothing but hysterical handwaving and pseudoscience of the worst sort, I will be happy to oblige...  There are plenty.  Guess whoever gave you your opinion didn't bother to tell you about the sheer number of published studies that found that the alarmist claims simply don't bear up under the "reality" test.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...




OK...lets continue.

Regarding his "measurements" of the thickness of the "greenhouse blanket"...what crap.  Any claim of heat "trapping" ability of additional CO2, and the resulting reduction of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere come with them an inherent necessity of an upper tropospheric hot spot.  If energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, then that energy will have a fingerprint in the troposphere...trapped energy will produce a hot spot according to climate science. The fact is that there is no hot spot....







And if the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were actually trapping energy, then the amount of energy leaving the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be reduced.  It hasn't been.  In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time.  Here, as measured by NOAA...








Next, your author goes into an analysis of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere...Do keep in mind that so far, no actual evidence and not a single paper has been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses....so any effort to show our contribution to CO2 gasses as evidence that we are causing warming is nothing more than evidence of increased CO2 with a big assed assumption that more CO2 causes warming tacked on.

But lets look at the CO2 increases and our influence on them.  He simply makes an assumption that we are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  The actual published science tells an entirely different story.  The published science says that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so vanishingly small that it is essentially undetectable in the background noise...



Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”








If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, *which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

*“*Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found *a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. *Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”*


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature






CLIP" 
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, *with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) *CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)* Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

*“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”  







*
Then he goes on to note that it has warmed since the little ice age, and makes a big assed assumption that the reason that it has warmed is CO2...and as evidence that it is CO2, he points to an 18th century thought experiment...  The fact is that every ice core ever done shows us that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming temperatures, not the cause...

Hell your guy even calls the output of computer models "empirical evidence"  NEWSFLASH...it isn't.

Thanks for trying, but alas, there is nothing there but assumption after assumption after assumption being called empirical evidence...he does provide some actual instrumental data, but that is nothing more than evidence that he is easily fooled by instrumentation.  It is in the section where he supposedly shows measurements of back radiation...energy moving from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth where said radiation actually warms the surface...  Ever look at the second law of thermodynamics?  Here...take a look:


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests that energy will move from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth?  He uses instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about -80F.  He isn't measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...he is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....if you place an identical instrument with the cooling turned off right next to the cooled one, you will get no measurement of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument because according to the second law of thermodynamics  (the mother of all physical laws) energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object....

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among those who believe...at least this one isn't an opinion piece from a newspaper as most provide....it is at least pseudoscience masquerading as science.....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Great....lets have a look.

In your first one, the instrument used is a radiance interferometer...an instrument cooled to a temperature of about -80F...  Fooled by instrumentation.  Refer again to the second law of thermodynamics...energy can not move spontaneously from a cool object (the sky) to a warm object (the surface of the earth)...the instrument is measuring the movement of energy from the warmer atmosphere to itself...the cooler instrument.

Your second "paper" is nothing more than evidence that it has become very slightly warmer if one uses adjusted temperature records...the earth is still warming out of the little ice age...no surprise that it would be warming.

It seems that being fooled by instruments, and making big assed assumptions about what might cause warming is the international pastime of climate pseudoscientists...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.



You think the sun doesn't warm venus?  Of course it does...Your lack of knowledge is the problem.  According to climate science, the radiative greenhouse effect operates on the principle that the sun warms the surface of the planet, and then the planet warms the atmosphere, and then the greenhouse gasses radiate back to the surface and warm the planet further which makes the planet radiate more energy than it could from the energy it receives from the sun alone...in the case of the earth, the claim is that the atmosphere radiates as much energy back to the surface of the planet as the planet receives from the sun...does that not strike you as completely absurd?  Can you imagine claiming that the atmosphere radiates as much energy to the surface as the sun?

Very little solar energy reaches the surface of venus, so it isn't warmed enough by solar energy to support a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...of course the planet receives solar energy, but it isn't a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...the very fact that the dark side of the planet is the same temperature as the daylight side even though the nights on venus are 120 of our days long is evidence of that fact...the dark side remains hot because of pressure...not because of a greenhouse effect...  

According to the climate science, and the radiative greenhouse effect, every doubling of CO2 is supposed to produce approximately 2.5 degrees of temperature increase (although that number is trending lower every year....it is down to about 1 degree or less now)...but lets go with the 2.5 degrees of warming for every doubling of CO2.  

On venus, we have to calculate for about 11.5 doublings...so according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on earth is about 29 degrees warmer than here on earth.  What do you know?  They are off by how many hundreds of degrees?



forkup said:


> You also are widely of the mark by comparing Venus to Saturn or Jupiter.
> Jupiters core is 650 million psi. And at its core they estimate 43000 degrees Fahrenheit. This means the pressure creates a build-up of 0.0066 percent.


Venus Surface pressure is 1348 psi. And it's temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit. This is 64 percent.[/quote]

Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.




forkup said:


> Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.



The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun...pressure is where the temperature comes from, not a radative greenhouse effect.  Again, using the math from the greenhouse effect, the temperature of venus should increase 2.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2...on venus, we would have to calculate for 11.6 doublings of CO2 which should make venus 29 degrees warmer than it is here on earth (discounting the ~.6% difference in incoming solar radiation.  Again, according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 29 degrees warmer than here on earth...how many hundreds of degrees are they off?  



forkup said:


> Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.



The math says that you are a dupe...it isn't as if it were even difficult math...2.5 degrees of temperature increase per doubling of CO2...11.6 doublings of CO2 on venus...29 degrees warmer on venus than here on earth according to the radiative greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here on earth, and then only with a completely made up fudge factor...it doesn't even get close to predicting the temperatures of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres...The ideal gas law...pv=nrt, adjusted for incoming solar energy on the other hand accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system without regard to what gasses the atmospheres of the various planets are made of...no greenhouse effect necessary, no ad hoc fudge factor necessary.

Here are ideal gas law calculations of the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...  The numbers above the calculations are the atmospheric parameters necessary to do ideal gas law calculations as provided by NASA.  The ideal gas law calculations do not factor in incoming solar energy so the difference between the temperature predicted by the ideal gas law in the actual calculation and the temperature noted by NASA will vary....and for the calculations of the gas giants that really have no surface, the calculations are deep enough in the atmospheres so that the pressure is 1 bar.....equal to that on earth.

Feel free to try the greenhouse effect calculations on any other planet and see how far off they are...try it on earth without a fudge factor and it will be off as much.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K*


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp =* 288 K*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = *~294 K*


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = *165 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) =* ~169 K*


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = *134 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = *~133 K*


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = *76 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = *~77 K*

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp =* 72 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = *~73 K*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Sorry guy, but no measurement of a greenhouse effect has ever been made....it is all the output of computer models...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

denmark said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




No need...the work has already been done...I suppose whoever gives you your opinion never mentioned that literally thousands of papers have been published in recent years that are skeptical of the "consensus" view promoted by alarmist scientists, environmentalist activists, and politicians...There is little that I could say that hasn't already been published...  The consensus is coming apart before your very eyes if you bother to look at the published literature....you clearly don't...you get your opinions spoon fed to you by someone with a political agenda who doesn't bother to tell you about the sheer volume of papers being published, using empirical evidence as opposed to models which don't jibe with the consensus...


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Either the sun heats Venus or it doesn't.
> ...



Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.




forkup said:


> Furthermore, I want to ask you if you believe heat will not stay localized in a closed environment? If not, I wonder why you think I'dd have a problem explaining why Venus at night is just as warm as Venus by day? If you trap heat as the Greenhouse effect says. Heat will not escape. If heat does not escape it stands to reason that it will enfold the entire environment it is in.



The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun...pressure is where the temperature comes from, not a radative greenhouse effect.  Again, using the math from the greenhouse effect, the temperature of venus should increase 2.5 degrees for every doubling of CO2...on venus, we would have to calculate for 11.6 doublings of CO2 which should make venus 29 degrees warmer than it is here on earth (discounting the ~.6% difference in incoming solar radiation.  Again, according to the radiative greenhouse effect, the temperature on venus should be 29 degrees warmer than here on earth...how many hundreds of degrees are they off? 



forkup said:


> Being a dupe is disagreeing with a theory to then appropriate the ideas while you deny it happens.



The math says that you are a dupe...it isn't as if it were even difficult math...2.5 degrees of temperature increase per doubling of CO2...11.6 doublings of CO2 on venus...29 degrees warmer on venus than here on earth according to the radiative greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect can only predict the temperature here on earth, and then only with a completely made up fudge factor...it doesn't even get close to predicting the temperatures of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres...The ideal gas law...pv=nrt, adjusted for incoming solar energy on the other hand accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system without regard to what gasses the atmospheres of the various planets are made of...no greenhouse effect necessary, no ad hoc fudge factor necessary.

Here are ideal gas law calculations of the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...  The numbers above the calculations are the atmospheric parameters necessary to do ideal gas law calculations as provided by NASA.  The ideal gas law calculations do not factor in incoming solar energy so the difference between the temperature predicted by the ideal gas law in the actual calculation and the temperature noted by NASA will vary....and for the calculations of the gas giants that really have no surface, the calculations are deep enough in the atmospheres so that the pressure is 1 bar.....equal to that on earth.

Feel free to try the greenhouse effect calculations on any other planet and see how far off they are...try it on earth without a fudge factor and it will be off as much.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp =* 737 K*

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = *~750 K*


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp =* 288 K*

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = *~294 K*


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = *165 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) =* ~169 K*


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = *134 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = *~133 K*


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = *76 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = *~77 K*

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp =* 72 K*

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = *~73 K*[/QUOTE]


SSDD said:


> the clouds on venus are so thick that very little solar energy ever reaches the surface of the planet





SSDD said:


> You think the sun doesn't warm venus?


I know it does you, on the other hand, don't seem as sure.


SSDD said:


> Guess whoever provided you with that bit of information didn't bother to mention the difference in the composition of the atmospheres of the planets...nor did they mention that CO2 is far heavier than hydrogen which makes up the bulk of the atmospheres of saturn and jupiter.


1psi of a heavier gas is the same as 1 psi of lighter gas. The only thing that changes is the volume. Your whole premise stands on the principle that pressure is what causes Venus to be so hot. The composition of the gas is only relevant for the greenhouse effect. You are trying to claim that pressure to temperature ratio of 0.0066 percent is an explanation for pressure to temperature ratio of 64 percent. If you don't see the utter ridiculousness of that claim I can't help you.



SSDD said:


> The problem with that line of thinking is that venus is not a closed environment...it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun


 Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




?

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) _“cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,”_ the study said, adding that _“a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing”_ in the models.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Clouds? Who said anything about clouds???
Ureka!!!!!! Scientist just found out clouds cover Greenland!!!


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Let's not continue. You can not make a claim about something and then continue about something else when you can't defend that claim.
You said that Venus is hot because of the pressure of its atmosphere and used gas giants to defend it. I pointed out that Jupiter's pressure to temperature is 0.0066 percent. Venus has a ratio of 64 percent.


bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The paper attributes rising temperature during 1985–2005 almost entirely to decreasing low cloud cover, from which it infers a very low sensitivity of climate to rising CO2.


Given that we have data for global climate, CO2 (from Law Dome ice cores before 1958), and total solar irradiance reconstructions, all covering the 169 years 1850–2018, the period 1985–2005 is going to contain a lot of spurious high frequency “chatter” in the signals most of which can be “tuned out” by considering far more data. When one does so, the combined influence of the sun and CO2 over 169 years explain climate far more accurately than is possible using only 20 years of data, with or without cloud cover data.
For the period 1985-2005 they consider three variables: rising temperature, decreasing cloud cover, and rising CO2. Noting the negative correlation between the first two, their hypothesis is that the first is almost completely explained by the second. They conclude that there is therefore no need to implicate CO2 as a causal factor: even though CO2 has risen 47% during the industrial era, they claim it has a negligible effect on climate because that rise in temperature can be almost entirely attributed to cloud cover.
This line of reasoning is patently illogical: with equal logic one could prove that cloud cover has no significant effect on climate by attributing it all to CO2. Furthermore it is based purely on correlations over a short period and not on any physical mechanism such as the greenhouse effect that can be expected to remain valid over far longer periods than a mere 20 years.
Vaughan Pratt, Since 1972 taught classes on many topics at MIT and Stanford
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Turku-...-the-significant-anthropogenic-climate-change


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.



Once a dupe.....always a dupe apparently.  Imagine...thinking a planet is a closed system...venus the energy escaping the top of the atmosphere in venus is the same as the energy it receives from the sun...We know that no energy is being "trapped" by the CO2 because the amount of energy going out is the same as the energy going in...that leaves nothing but the idea that CO2 is creating all that additional energy by itself...

What is that physical law about not being able to create or destroy energy?

Sorry guy...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion has done you a gross disservice...


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...


Did you see your own paper? That study you linked?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




Oh really?


Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate


The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers -- sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt -- that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




Oh really?


Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate


The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers -- sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt -- that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it does. That's why it's over 800 degrees Fahrenheit, while it's distance to the sun would make it at most 163 degrees Fahrenheit, without the greenhouse effect. I tell you what. Use CO2. Compress it to 1384 Psi and see if you can get it to 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Wich is the difference more or less between Venus temperature with or without the greenhouse effect. I know for a fact that CO2 is compressed in industry to a much higher pressure than 1348 Psi the temperature it generates doesn't even come close to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.
> ...


Link the study that shows an equal amount of energy escaping Venus as it receives. Be my guest. You, by the way, have simply dodged my question. Show me a graph that shows that when you compress co2 to 1384 Psi you get an increase in temperature of 700 degrees F


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What does any of this got to do with the link you provided? It's just another link that hypothesizes something they want to study but haven't. Nothing in it even tries to deny the greenhouse effect. Just searches for another possible explanation besides man.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




Wait a second the earth has been changing for 4.5 billion years , man has been driving cars for a 100 years?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The fact that alarmist scientists fail to mention is that prior to the onset of the present ice age, practically every creature in the oceans had already evolved to its present form...at that time, the atmospheric CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm...



They had evolved to a form that tolerated the level of ocean acidity that existed at that time.  And they will again.

Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic.  It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Don't hold your breath waiting on that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 13, 2019)

MAGAman said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I told you I'm not wasting time reading fake news and lies from the lobbyists.  Piss off russia!
> ...


Yes, I just can’t take flat earthers seriously. Or people who deny evolution. Retards not to be taken seriously


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Sure and earth has been both hotter and colder. I have little doubt that mankind will survive AGW. What I am less sure of is if mankind will survive AGW without severely crippling the ecosystem. That it will survive without having to take drastic measures to safeguard its cities. That it will survive without wars breaking out as resources like drinkable water get harder to come by. We are a very adaptable species and will survive, after all, we have survived worse. Surviving is not the same as thriving tough.


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Good thing you told me. I was turning blue.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




Wait water can be destroyed?


----------



## forkup (Jul 13, 2019)

bear513 said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Nope, but drinking water can become scarce as less of it becomes available.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



It's not water we drink dinosaur piss right now, it's sand..

The world is running out of sand — and there's a black market for it now


Educate yourself, please and thank you


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time. Here, as measured by NOAA...


This tracks 100% with SHO (Solar Helio Observatory) solar output. The input and out put track in parallel, indicating that the earth is shedding energy just as fast as it receives it. Something the AGW crowd doesn't want you to know.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.


Several studies have now disproved this.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Your argument is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that as atmospheric CO2 increases due to burning of fossil fuels, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and they become more acidic. It's damaging the corals, but they will adapt and survive, or other forms will evolve.
> ...



Nonsense.  Basic chemistry has not changed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> MAGAman said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I cant take non-thinking idiots like you seriously.... You refuse to even look at real science presented..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> Link the study that shows an equal amount of energy escaping Venus as it receives. Be my guest. You, by the way, have simply dodged my question. Show me a graph that shows that when you compress co2 to 1384 Psi you get an increase in temperature of 700 degrees F



It isn't as if this were secret information..it is easily accessible what with the venus probes gathering all that information...but sure...here is a paper that provides the incoming and outgoing radiation budget for venus...

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~espoclass/ASTR_5835_2015_Readings_Notes/Titov_Et_Al-EVTP.pdf

Clip:

Observations by the pioneer Venus and Venera orbiters and descent probes provided a substantial amount of infor- mation about scattering and absorbing properties of the Venus atmosphere. Several comprehensive radiative transfer models consistent with the data were developed at that time (Tomasko et al., 1980a,b; 1985). The authors calculated the global balance of radiative energy and solar heating rates in the atmosphere. The total solar flux at the Venus orbit is 2622± 6 W/m2 (Moroz et al., 1985). *Due to its high albedo the planet absorbs only 157 ± 6 W/m2 on average, less than that deposited on Earth (~240 W/m2)*, despite the fact that Venus is 30% closer to the Sun. *Both models and observations show that less than 10% of the total solar energy incident on Venus reaches the surface, and only 2.5% is absorbed there. *The largest portion of solar energy is absorbed above 57 km by the unknown uV absorber at the cloud tops. This is in contrast with the Earth, where 74% of the solar energy is absorbed directly at the ground (Arking, 1996).

The text in red indicates the amount of solar energy that venus actually absorbs...it is a bit less than I had thought....and the amount that actually reaches the surface of venus is less than I though...and the amount that actually gets absorbed is a good bit less than I thought.  That in itself is pretty clear evidence that no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science can possibly exist on venus...You think the radiation emitted by the surface which is only absorbing 2.5% of 157 W/m2 or ~5.5 watts per square meter of solar energy?  really?

Then the paper continues...

Clip:
The outgoing thermal radiation has been characterized by the pioneer Venus Orbiter Infrared Radiometer and the Venera 15 Fourier transform spectrometer (Taylor et al., 1980; Oertel et al., 1987). These observations were ana-lyzed to retrieve the temperature and aerosol structure of the Venus mesosphere and to calculate the outgoing ther-mal flux (Schofield and Taylor, 1982; Zasova et al., 2007). *The effective globally averaged effective temperature as measured by pioneer Venus is ~230 K which corresponds to an outgoing thermal flux of ~160 W/m2. *This value is slightly different from the mean solar flux deposited on the planet but given the uncertainties in both values this discrepancy *cannot be interpreted as an indication of global energy imbalance*.

So the outgoing energy is measured at ~160-W/m2 compared to the 157±6 W/m2 that it actually absorbs from the sun.  And do keep in mind that venus has literally thousands of active volcanoes across its surface so the amount of energy being released by those would surely cause one to expect a bit more outgoing energy than incoming.

In any event, the author states in plain language that there is no indication of a global energy imbalance which is precisely what a radiative greenhouse effect is supposed to produce...less outgoing than incoming due to the greenhouse gasses supposedly "trapping" energy within the atmosphere..

If you care to discuss why there can be no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science here on earth I would be happy to take up the discussion.

As to your questions regarding compression of gasses, you are mistaking the compression of gasses in a cylinder which quickly lose the heat that was generated during compression with the compression of gas in an atmosphere where the heat produced by compression is in constant movement.  

The temperature of venus at its surface would require a solar input of about 16,000 W/m2.  Clearly nothing like that amount of energy is being absorbed by the planet, and CO2 certainly isn't creating in excess of 15,000 watts per square meter of energy so something else must be responsible for the temperature.

That something else is pressure and convection.  The temperature of an atmosphere is nothing more than a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in the gasses that make up the atmosphere.

Convection occurs in any atmosphere where the atmospheric pressure is greater than 10kPa.  Convection and the action of auto compression due to gravity and the weight of the atmosphere cause the potential energy to convert the internal energy within the system to kinetic energy in the 50% of the gas that is depending in the venusian atmosphere at any given time.  

This happens in concurrence with the equation H=PV+u where:
H = enthalpy ( expressed as the internal energy of a system plus the product of the pressure and volume of the system, having the property that during an isobaric process, the change in the quantity is equal to the heat transferred during the process.) (J/Kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m^3)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the mass of the atmosphere of venus holds a HUGE amount of potential energy which is how the temperature that would otherwise require a solar input of about 16,000 W/m2 when the actual solar input is ~157W/m2...even less than the earth receives.

There is no greenhouse effect at work on venus, and there is no greenhouse effect at work on earth.  There is an atmospheric thermal effect at work which depends on gravity, and the mass of the atmosphere.  CO2 on venus, as on earth is only important in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


1. Prove the entire rise in CO2 is caused by fossil fuel burning..
2. Disprove the MWP and RWP where these levels contradict your assessment.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that alarmist scientists fail to mention is that prior to the onset of the present ice age, practically every creature in the oceans had already evolved to its present form...at that time, the atmospheric CO2 was in the range of 1000ppm...
> ...



Sorry guy...the fact is that our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is so vanishingly small, that it is the next thing to impossible to detect...Hell, termites alone produce more CO2 than us.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Refer above... I provided him with a paper because it is no secret...the paper makes clear that there is no energy imbalance on venus...and I went on to explain how a temperature which would require about 16,000 watts per square meter of incoming solar energy could be reached on a planet that is absorbing less solar energy than the earth...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...




Human history tells us that warmer is better than cooler...we stopped being hunter gatherers and became civilization builders in temperatures far warmer than the present.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

forkup said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > forkup said:
> ...



Sorry to disappoint you...if you knew the first thing about the science that you are pretending to understand, you would have had no doubt that I could produce the information you asked for...it isn't as if it were secret...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



LOL.  And why the fuck do I need to do that?  It's totally irrelevant to my point which is.....when you increase atmospheric CO2 you also increase ocean acidity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


1. Natural variability is responsible for 96.7% of all rise in CO2 concentration.

2. CO2 is absorbed fractionally and only where the pressures increase.  The MEW and RWP both had rises in concentrations equivalent to today according to high resolution proxies. 

Again, prove that man is responsible for the total rise..  We are not and its a lie to spout this crap.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



What is nonsense is your claims...have you never even bothered to look at the science?

Here is some science....feel free to deny all you like.  It is always interesting to see who the real deniers are.

Error - Cookies Turned Off
Impact of high  p CO 2  and warmer temperatures on the process of silica biomineralization in the sponge  Mycale grandis
Ocean “Acidification” Alarmism in Perspective - ScienceDirect
Ocean acidification does not alter grazing in the calanoid copepods  Calanus finmarchicus  and  Calanus glacialis
https://watermark.silverchair.com/f...uei4nXsJldug3UGmqSLTGhcWV6yVBfBxsm2Xi9OfXPuWM
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/633/2458696
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/620/2458707
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/739/2459083
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/659/2458741
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/73/3/814/2458919


If you want more, just ask....these are mostly from 2016 alone...We can go backwards or forwards...your choice...the science is what it is and the threat of ocean acidification is nothing more than alarmist handwaving hysterics...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Who said man is responsible for the total rise?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You have yet to demonstrate that we are contributing to the total CO2 in the atmosphere in any significant way.  If the earth's own CO2 making machinery is raising CO2 levels, which is what the science is finding, then we are just along for the ride..

Here are 6 or 8 papers that find that we aren't and haven't been contributing to the total atmospheric CO2 in any real way...ever... You won't find much in the alarmist literature on this topic because climate science has known all along that our contributions to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant...they were content to let politicians and environmentalist activists work you up with fairy tales about how we were responsible for the increase in CO2...and you gobbled it up..


Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”








If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, *which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

*“*Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found *a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. *Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”*


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature






CLIP" 
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, *with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) *CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)* Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

*“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”  





*


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?  If we aren't responsible, what are you crying about?  Atmospheric CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm in earths history and no evidence has ever been found of a run away greenhouse effect, or mass extinctions of marine life due to those concentrations...there are several examples of mass extinctions due to cold however...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?



They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii.  It's been rapidly increasing.  Faster than what natural processes can account for.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
> ...


Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs....  who's brain child was that?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
> ...



Not according to the science......I just provided you with 7 published papers which find that natural variation accounts for nearly all the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  Tell me, what are all the natural sources of CO2...and how much do they vary from year to year...and are you even sure that we know all the sources?  Making a claim that natural processes can't account for the rise in CO2 is nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit...The natural variation in the earth's own CO2 production from year to year is more than we produce...making claims that you can't support is typical of you warmers...look through this thread...who is providing published science to support their claims, and who is just making it up as they go?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



LOL!  You're a moron.  As I thought.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. *The human contribution was about 0.01°C*”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

Nope... I have actual science on my side not political pseudoscience..

Now the idiots at Mauna Loa who think monitoring CO2 a top a CO2 generating monster is stupidity of the highest magnitude. Only very stupid people or dupes could believe that you will get reliable readings at a site like this.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



They've been doing it over 60 years.  Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that.  Congrats!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



No kidding?  So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe??  Knock me over with a feather.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ok.  So if you were not a pinhead you should understand why they measure it on the top of Mauna Loa instead of next to a stockyard in Liberal, KS.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



And yet climate science has been telling us for decades that it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere....of course that is what they used to say till they found out that it wasn't a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and true to the unfalsifiable hypothesis, they simply changed the narrative to suit whatever reality is.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Like i said.. the readings from on top of that volcano have been proven to be flawed...and rendered moot by the OCO-2 satellite...and again the actual published science says that we have a vanishingly small effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere...the alarmist narrative simply is not true...on any account.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well, you're mistaken.  The measurements from Mauna Loa are perfectly valid.  They use magic to avoid the outgassing.  Amazingly there are people who are way smarter than you that figured out how to do this before you were born.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Certainly it will give information to improve their modeling.  But it does not negate the Mauna Loa data.  It corroborates  it.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry but they aren't....the readings from mona loa supported the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere.  The OCO-2 satellite proves beyond any doubt that simply is not true.  And you don't hear much from the folks at mona loa these days...their talk of well mixed gas has all dried up...their claims that they knew what the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was have all been shown to be false....and your appeal to authority doesn't change that...not in the slightest...it only makes you an apologist for failed pseudoscience....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



The modeling is a failure because the physics that they are modeling are unphysical and a failure.

Here is the bottom line...in science..."real" science I mean, a single predictive failure is often enough to cause a hypothesis to be scrapped and work started fresh on a new hypothesis that won't suffer predictive failures...if a hypothesis suffers a predictive failure and it isn't scrapped, it is heavily modified in the hopes that it won't suffer any future predictive failures...in any event, more than a few failures and the hypothesis is given up for a failure and work starts back at the beginning, re-examining every aspect of the first hypothesis...

That isn't at all what has happened with climate science and the greenhouse effect hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, the AGW hypothesis....Those two hypotheses have literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with predictive failures occurring on a regular basis.  You know what modifications have been made to the hypothesis?  None...absolutely none.  The only modification that has been made is a dramatic increase in the size of error bars...they increased the margin of error rather than look at why the model is failing...they increased the margin of error so as the models fail in a more spectacular fashion in the future, they can claim that they are still within the margin of error.

In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to falsify a hypothesis and prompt work on a new, more workable hypothesis...in pseudoscience however, any number of predictive failures are just fine, so long as the funding continues.  Both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have been falsified over and over and over and the only response mainstream climate science has made is to increase the margin of error and that is disgraceful....and people who apologize for that, and make excuses for that, and continue to spew the nonsense about consensus are nothing more than what climate scientists themselves call them...useful idiots...people who will continue the narrative even when it is crashing and burning...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere



You're the only nitwit I've ever seen who made that contention.  I can do without the tap-dancing if you don't mind.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere
> ...



You really don't have a clue do you?  Perhaps among your fellow useful idiots, simply making it up as you go is acceptable, since you all just make it up as you go...it doesn't wash, however, when you talk to people who have actually taken the time, and put in the effort to actually look at the science and what an abject failure it is.

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect...  and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

What is it like to be wrong on everything?  Have you ever looked at a single scientific paper in your life?  How could you not know that climate science as been claiming that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere for decades...even the stupidest, most ill informed hysterical handwaving fanatic knows that...how did you miss it?  The only answer is that you have never looked at a scientific paper relating to the greenhouse effect....because the claim is ubiquitous in the literature...

For Pete's sake man...try to learn something before you die...making it up as you go is just stupid.....especially when you are talking to people who support their side of the argument with actual published science...how clueless can you possibly be?

Climate: Why CO2 Is the “Control Knob” for Global Climate Change | TIME.com

Clip: 
 CO2, however, is a well-mixed gas that just builds up in the atmosphere over time, which is part of the reason why carbon dioxide emitted today can have a warming effect that lingers for hundreds of years.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

Clip:
Therefore, despite CO2 being a globally well-mixed gas, the IF to surface temperature is regionally very different, showing sensitive areas

https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis et al., 2010, Science.pdf

Clip: 

CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con- dense or precipitate from the atmosphere.


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...s-and-radiative-forcing---Grantham-Note-6.pdf

Clip: 
Carbon dioxide is a very long-lived and well-mixed gas, though there are some spatial and temporal variations depending on the photosynthetic activity of plants and large centres of economic activity.

http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/readings/iscurrent.pdf

Clip:
Temperature is a more difficult variable to reconstruct than CO2(a globally well-mixed gas), as it does not have the same value all over the globe, so that a single record (e.g., an ice core) is only of limited value.


https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/5/2309/2012/amt-5-2309-2012.pdf

Clip: 
CO2 is a well-mixed gas, and its VMR across the ray path is not expected to vary significantly.


https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2016/ee/c6ee00272b

Clip: 
However, CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, hence, tracing it back to its source regionally on a relatively rapid timescale is not yet well-established technically. Additionally, the annual changes of CO2atm are relatively small.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...



Yeah, ok.  So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm.  That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated.   Sure, stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...
> ...




Take your apologies somewhere else...the fact is that climate science itself used to say that a radiative greenhouse effect was possible because it was a well mixed gas..apparenly you don't even know what that means...here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...it isn't and every paper that used the claim of a well mixed gas to support their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is falsified...easy as that...their papers were based on false claims...there defense of the greenhouse effect were based on false claims..the climate models of the greenhouse effect are based on false claims...well mixed means something very specific and it was very important to the claim, and the models still work on the basis of CO2 being a well mixed gas which is one of the reasons (among several others) that they have failed so spectacularly...

More evidence of climate science not altering the hypothesis, but just increasing the margin of error...politically, it is imperative that CO2 be demonized, even if it means flat out lying...

You have proven yourself to be completely ignorant on the topic of climate...you willingly make up, and say whatever you think is necessary to support your claims..you clearly have never even looked at a scientific paper beyond perhaps looking for a picture....so what possible validity do you think anything you have to say has?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...



No stupid.  That is not what that means.  Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space.  As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site.  It is far from industrial or natural sources.  As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time.  Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect.  You obviously know nothing about how it works.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...
> ...



So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it?  You really will just make up and say anything won't you?  You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works...  You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand.  But you have absolutely no sense.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So I assume you're stopping now?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You're going to have to do better, dipshit.  You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be?  The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work.  It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere.  The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So you have no idea....let me know when you believe you can explain the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.....when you get that much, then we will have something to talk about...at this point, the conversation is so far over your head that it is pointless to continue on this track...lets see what you actually know rather than just have me point out your errors and ignorance ad nauseam.

I am working on a playlist with a band that I haven't played with before so I will be practicing for a couple of hours...when I get finished, I will be back.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I just related to you your exact understanding of the greenhouse effect and now you're going to argue with me?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 13, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So you still have nothing..   You have spent the past however many hours demonstrating that you really have never looked at the sceince...have had published paper after published paper pushed in your face refuting the crap you made up and now logical fallacy and pretense of having a clue are all you can manage?  

About what I expected.  I will drop by tomorrow...either you can describe the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect as you understand it or you can't.  If you can, we will talk...if you can't, the drubbing you have taken today on this thread speaks for itself.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It's very simple, you imbecile.  You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it.  Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space.  This warms the atmosphere and the ocean.  The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming.  "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> It's very simple, you imbecile.  You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it.  Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space.  This warms the atmosphere and the ocean.  The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming.  "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.



You are right...it is simple....the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect...and still you get it wrong....still clueless after all these years.  

Clearly you need at least some links because you obviously haven't spent much time at all trying to learn anything. You seem to be under the impression that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing this infrared radiation from the surface of the earth and storing somehow.  Here...let me help you out a bit..I will provide you with an explanation of the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect from the IPCC itself.  Take a while to try to understand what they claim is happening, and the mechanism by which it might happen and I will be back around later.

And for Pete's sake...get yourself some different sources...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion at this point is doing a piss poor job at it.  Hell, they aren't even equipping you with the basics...

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

_The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ul- traviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*._


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > It's very simple, you imbecile.  You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it.  Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space.  This warms the atmosphere and the ocean.  The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming.  "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.
> ...



You fucking blowhard.  That does not differ from what I said in the least.  You're an idiot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*.


The hypothesis requires a hot spot of mass, that is warmer than the surface, be present in the atmosphere in order for the surface to be warmed.

No such animal exists.. And no such animal can exist in our atmosphere, in its current water controlled cycles.

Dr David Evans has done the empirical work disproving this.





Satellites even show that energy leaving is parallel with input from the sun. This means that there is no slowing of energy loss by CO2.  Our temperature on earth is dependent on other factors.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Of course it does...if you aren't even able to spot the glaring difference between what you said, and what the IPCC said, you are just too far behind the curve to discuss the topic...look again, and let me know when you can find the crucial part of the hypothetical mechanism of the greenhouse effect you left off.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*.
> ...



Oh I know...cosmos wants to discuss the topic and at this point, he can't even state the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect, much less start to understand why it is a load of crap.  I figured if I could at least get him past the opinion he was given, and into a real discussion about what the science actually says rather than what the media, activists, and politicians say, maybe he can make some progress....not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Of course the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist, but till he can at least understand what they are claiming, he can't even begin to understand why it simply isn't possible.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you.  If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface...  I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.


It isn't me who can't even get the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect right...I know what climate science says...you on the other hand apparently only know what the media, activists, and politicians say.  If you can't get even the basics right, there is really no where to go from there



Cosmos said:


> Here's a simple quiz for you.  If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.



What a putz...you can't even state the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and you want to quiz me about something you most certainly don't understand?  Typical of you hand wavers...

As to your question....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is even larger than the greenhouse effect...its mechanism involves gravity, auto compression, enthalpy, convection and conduction...but that is all way past you if you can't even state accurately the basic mechanism by which the hypothesized greenhouse effect works according to climate science...

Once again...let me know when you spot your error...then we can move on to discussing the most basic aspect of the physics involved.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



LMAO!  Just shut the fuck up.  You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Ok.  You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right?  And they can do that in different wavelengths.  So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


You really are fucking clueless... Take your own advice and shut the fuck up.. Your embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of how the system works..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy.  No magical storage....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No it doesn't.  That's horseshit.  If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

_The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. *Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA -  ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):*_


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not?  Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Oh bummer.................After citing ERBE as a source for you're stupidity you're going to have to turn around and slander them and call them all liars.  That sucks.

Dumbasses.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Your description doesn't say anything about outgoing long wave radiation....any idea why?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct.  And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



LOL...

Too Funny;





Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 11 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere. 

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's what "IR" is, stupid.  I referred to it as IR.  To you morons that don't know any better that stands for Infra-Red, which is longwave radiation.

Get a clue you ignorant hillbilly.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Sure, moron.  In your own words explain those graphs.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I did and your an idiot....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



No, you didn't.  You didn't provide the source of that information.  How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


So you can't even demonstrate a knowledge of even the most basic, fundamental mechanism by which climate science says that the greenhouse effect works.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.  You guys never actually want to talk about the science...guess you are afraid of 1) putting your ignorance on display and 2) afraid that if you actually look at the science, you might find out something that you don't want to know..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry...I should have written it in crayon...what I meant is that your clip says nothing about the balance, or imbalance of energy coming in vs going out...it jumps straight into an assumption that AGW is real but doesn't provide any data to support the assumption...

Sorry, this is all over your head...you really need to demonstrate that you understand the difference between your version of the greenhouse effect and what climate science says.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



He already did...as I keep saying...discussion at this level is way over your head...He made a statement about the amount of energy leaving the planet and the amount of energy coming in...It is a stark demonstration of how far off the climate models are...they in no way represent anything like reality.  He has provided you with the evidence and it has gone right over your head...

Lets get back to the basics so that maybe you can get a handle on at least some of this.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Ok.  That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The talking points that whoever gave him his opinion provided for him simply didn't prepare him to actually discuss the science...You give him the evidence he asked for and he is unable to recognize it as precisely what he asked for...incredible...

The sad thing is that in his mind, he probably believes that he has this stuff down pat...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.


LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be?  Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame.  Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



The whole greenhouse effect is based on some basic misunderstandings of physics...we will get to that as soon as you demonstrate that you have a grasp of the fundamental mechanism by which the greenhouse effect is supposed to work according to climate science...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.
> ...



The hot spot is way past his understanding...at this point, he hasn't even said what he thinks that CO2 molecules do with the energy they absorb....till he at least gets that far, the whole hot spot is beyond him...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I know.. And now that he is in a corner he seems to think he can simply change the hypothesis that has never changed.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.
> ...



I've never once mentioned a "hot spot".  That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




*If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? *

Can you stop repeating your moronic error?





Atmospheric CO2 concentration did not decline between 2007 and 2008. 
CO2 levels in the atmosphere did not decline at any point in these charts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.*

You still can't list any sources of spontaneous photon emissions in the Solar System, can you?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Actually, I do.  And I've stated it clearly and simply.  I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:  

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

_To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). *Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect*._

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works?  Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry...but you didn't...you left out a critical part of the mechanism...if you can't demonstrate that you even understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, there really isn't much to talk about since it is all over your head...if you don't grasp what is supposed to happen to the energy once a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs it, then everything you think you understand beyond that will be based on a misunderstanding of the absolute basics..ever hear the term error cascade?  Look it up sometime.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere*

You're lying.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You fail to understand how the FEED BACK operates in our atmosphere.  Without this crucial component, AGW  is dead. The EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EFFECT is one of DAMPENING by 1/2 (0.5). Until you understand how and why this is important, further discussions are fruitless efforts.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Oh, by all means.  Go ahead and explain it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...
> ...



Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 14, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Enough about you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I already did and you ignored it...

Read this once more and maybe you will understand it..

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW.. *

Does the 2nd Law say IR emitted by the atmosphere can't travel toward the surface?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Can you not read?  It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH...  Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yeah.  I was trying to explain that in my earth condom model.  LOL.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well excuse the hell outta me.  I didn't use exactly the same words as your talking points.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out?  Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




No you didn't. Explain it in two sentences or less in your own words.  I don't give a fuck about your blogger's opinion.  I'm not talking to him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



That was a good one. SSDD needs many, many epicycles to build his creaky anti-science monolith upon.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right.  Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and *RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface* resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...



This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



*The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.*

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

* But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,*

You're wrong.

*which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy*

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

*Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..*

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation.  Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and *RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface* resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...
> ...



*The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? *

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.  A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect.  Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did.  Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback.  Fucking morons.  I've never denied the existence or feedback.  No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet.  Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation. *

If you have a real source disagrees with anything I just posted.....provide it.

I'm especially interested in your claimed mass of a photon.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Once saturation occurs all of it does.. In both instances.

Earth has entropy of the atmospheric mass, the moon has no atmosphere so it does not.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You can easily test this theory out for yourself by placing your finger in a pan of boiling water.  Let us know which way the net energy flow is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Once saturation occurs all of it does.. *

You think once the atmosphere is "saturated with IR photons", newly emitted ones "slip thru into space"? 

*the moon has no atmosphere*

Does that mean 100% of surface emitted photons are immediately lost to space?
​*Earth has entropy of the atmospheric mass*​
Does that mean less than 100% of surface emitted photons are immediately lost to space?​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it.. *

You need an example besides the Earth's atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics.  If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The second law of thermodynamics predicts that energy will move from the hot water to your cooler finger and that your cooler finger will not warm the pan of boiling water...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible.  I take it you've changed your mind?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.


At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well.  Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;





I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



I said as described by climate science....do you agree that that statement describes how the greenhouse works according to climate science...Of course, I think it is bullshit, but unless we agree on what climate science claims, there is no point in moving further.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You seem to be stuck, so I guess there's no way to move on any further.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So I give you the mechanism that climate science says is responsible for the greenhouse effect and you can't even agree that is what it says?  Sounds like a dodge...Sounds like you are afraid of what comes next so you either play stupid, or are so stupid that even when you are given the direct quote from the IPCC you can't agree that is what they say.

More likely, you are afraid of what comes next....which is the dismantling of the hypothesis according to the laws of physics.  Live in your ignorance...spew your talking points, be a useful idiot...if you fear learning something that much, it is no less than what you deserve...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..



Maybe that was the other idiot.  You look alike to me.

Anyway, I'm quite sure the climate is warming and there is some human component in it.  But neither am I an "alarmist".  I would not say the situation is well enough understood to make any drastic public policy decisions, especially in the West where we've done a pretty good job of cleaning up our emissions.  Certainly we should not do anything that would negatively impact our economy.  The real problem is in Asia and India.  If Trump wants to employ tariffs and trade barriers on those people I'm all for it if they are aimed at forcing compliance with Western health, safety, and environmental regulations.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I'm sure whatever comes next from you is more of the same waffling and bloviating you've already been doing.  I'm tired of you.  You have nothing to add here.


----------



## denmark (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So, with your (or your political group’s) expertise on this subject, why don’t you further your denials with a rebuttal to the journal’s author mentioned here by Forkup who wrote 
*“I will document these compelling observa- tional evidence for the link between chemical pollution, increase in green- house gases and global surface warming.These empirical data lead us to conclude that the observed increase in the greenhouse gases is sufficient to ultimately warm the planet by more than 2°C during this century.”
*
I don’t pretend to be an expert in this field, but if you are, go ahead & prove it not only in this non-technical forum, but a real scientific one!
Let us know how you do ... LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....



Of course it's been answered.  After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....
> ...


Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system".  They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science..  SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century.  It's well established.  That's not up for debate.  The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing.    I don't know the answer to that.  Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions.  But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

denmark said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Turned out that he had no evidence other than that he was easily fooled by instrumentation and perfectly willing to hang great big assumptions on observed data...there was nothing there...but like I said...is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of hand waving hysterics.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The OP stands unanswered.... Still.....
> ...


You haven't understood a single thing you have read...have you.  I mean, to get that myself or billy have accepted that the radiative greenhouse effect is real from what we have said is to really not understand anything you read.



Cosmos said:


> And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.


And I have provided published science that says that our contribution is so vanishingly small that it is insignificant...I haven't seen anything from any of you guys demonstrating otherwise...of course, you won't because climate scientists know how small our contribution is to the total CO2...there is no alarm to be had in that sort of study so the leave it to activists, the media, and politicians to simply make up whatever supports the narrative to pass along to the useful idiots...



Cosmos said:


> So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.



Either you are borderline illiterate and really aren't able to read and understand words, or you are one of the most dishonest people on the board...


----------



## denmark (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Was that your rebuttal to that journal?
No wonder you have nothing published in a scientific journal.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century.  It's well established.



Maybe you should do just a bit of reading about professor woods...he disproved the greenhouse effect shortly after it was suggested...another bit of history that whoever provides you with your opinion forgot to mention...





Cosmos said:


> That's not up for debate.



Everything in science is up for debate....only pseudoscience suggests that it is settled.


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

The second law of thermodynamics is the mother of all physical laws, and it is pretty self explanatory.   Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.   Do explain how you believe the cooler atmosphere is radiating heat down to the warmer surface of the planet and warming it.  That is the fundamental claim of climate science and the radiative greenhouse effect...that the cooler atmosphere is warming the warmer surface of the earth.  Explain it.  You claim to have a grasp of the science ...explain that one.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

denmark said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



Logical fallacy all you have?  I already responded to that "paper" published by the vatican...feel free to review my response....it is back there somewhere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails.  We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You are so far over his head that you may as well be speaking in ancient greek


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You're both so full of shit your eyes are brown.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Well, this is some progress anyway.  Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Its a graphing of garbage....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say.  It is exactly that.  A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 14, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


The only one spewing garbage is you.. You have yet to produce any empirical evidence and process which validates anything you say....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It's right in front of your nose, idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.
> ...



Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 14, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and *RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface* resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...
> ...



You're an incredible knucklehead.  The earth has an energy balance.  How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space.  It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux.  How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things.  The difference is how much is stored.  The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored.  Do you get it now, dummy?  The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'm not the one dodging over the claimed basic mechanism of the hypothetical greenhouse effect so that I won't have to pursue the issue further...I am not afraid to examine the actual science because I am not emotionally, and politically invested in it...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So do explain to us...in your own words how a CO2 data station sitting on top of a volcano is evidence of man made global warming....or evidence that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2...or any of your other contentions...espcecially when the OCO-2 satellite tells an entirely different story than the lonely station sitting on top of a CO2 spewing volcano...

This should be an interesting story....or a very predictable dodge which is what I expect...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> You're an incredible knucklehead.  The earth has an energy balance.  How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space.  It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux.  How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things.  The difference is how much is stored.  The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored.  Do you get it now, dummy?  The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.



How do greenhouse gasses regulate how much energy is radiated to space.  How do greenhouse gasses "store" energy.  None of the so called greenhouse gas molecules have any capacity to store energy other than water vapor....so how is it stored...and if it is being stored, where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be, according to climate science, the inevitable, and inescapable result of that storage? 

And again, the satellites tell us that there is no energy imbalance between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing long wave radiation...if there were an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot as a result...there is none.  So where,  and how is it being stored?

Once again, it appears that whoever is providing you with your opinion has left you woefully uninformed...

Your explanation isn't an explanation at all..it is a string of talking points stuck together that paint a vague picture, but don't explain anything....earth has an energy balance....of course it has an energy balance...if it had an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the satellites would not be showing a different story than the climate models...

How much energy is stored?  We know that the oceans store incoming short wave solar radiation...it penetrates deep into the ocean...we also know that long wave radiation does not get stored in the ocean because it can only penetrate about 1 micron into the surface where evaporation removes any effect it might have had almost immediately...So where is this longwave infrared radiation being "stored".

You say that how much energy is being radiated into space is regulated by so called greenhouse gasses.  On that point, I will agree with you.  Since greenhouse gasses absorb and radiate long wave radiation, they are able to move the energy they absorb, and actually get to radiate out into space at the speed of light...they move energy far more efficiently, and far more quickly than the cumbersome mechanisms of convection and conduction which are the only ways oxygen and nitrogen which make up the bulk of the atmosphere can move energy. 

That being said, as greenhouse gas quantities in the atmosphere increase, if I am correct, then the amount of long wave radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere should be increasing right along with the increase in so called greenhouse gasses.....exactly the opposite of what the greenhouse hypothesis predicts.  Lets take a look:










How about that...radiation escaping earth at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and has been for a good long time....where is this "storage" happening?

By the way...you claimed that the earth was being warmed by a fairly constant flux of energy from the sun...the TSI is fairly constant, but the flux in individual wavelengths vary wildly from day to day,  month to month, year to year. century to century...do you have any idea how these wildly varying wavelengths might effect the warming or cooling of the earth?  Don't worry, climate science doesn't either...they are just now beginning to scratch the surface of it.

Then you claim that the stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is being stored...stored where?  We know that there is no tropospheric hot spot which is where climate science said the smoking gun would be for our effect on the climate...we can look at the outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and see that it is increasing...which is what I predicted and exactly the opposite of what climate science predicts.

Do you deny it?  Go ahead...deny the science in favor of the opinion provided to you by alarmists, activists, politicians, and the media...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > You're an incredible knucklehead.  The earth has an energy balance.  How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space.  It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux.  How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things.  The difference is how much is stored.  The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored.  Do you get it now, dummy?  The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.
> ...



*None of the so called greenhouse gas molecules have any capacity to store energy other than water vapor....*

What's the temperature of all the so called greenhouse gasses? Absolute zero? DURR.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No.  You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.  So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible.  All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you.  Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it.  And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't.  In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Read and learn, dummy.

Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.


You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance...Bravo!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



They keep forgetting that CO2 IR absorption range is around 5% of the IR spectrum, meaning that 95% of the IR spectrum is never absorbed by CO2 at all.

This was pointed out by an Atmosphere Physicist 10 years ago:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Excerpt:






As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively.  The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2.  In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality.  If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

==========================

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 really is as a "greenhouse" gas.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> No.  You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.  So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible.  All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you.  Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it.  And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't.  In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.



What the hell are you talking about?  As I look back through this conversation, I see that I have provided information from NOOA, the IPCC, NCCP, NASA, The University of Colorado,  The publication Global Change Biology, The Oxford ICES Journal of Marine Science,  Evidence Based Science, Second Edition, The Journal of the Meterology Society of Japan,  the journal Energy and Environment, The journal of the American Chemical Society,  Geophysical Research Letters,  Environmental Research Letters, and NASA's OCO-2 satellite data site.  

Which one of those are you characterizing as a skeptics blog.  Apparently when you are shown data from real scientific journals, as well as NOAA, NASA, etc, you don't even recognize it.  Alas, you are the one who is dodging, doesn't even seem to understand even the basics, and can't recognize valid scientific data when it is provided for you.  

Clearly you are just another hysterical handwaving alarmist full of talking points without the first bit of actual scientific knowledge...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.



So what.  It is what it is.  Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp.  If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The work I did for my doctoral thesis proved, that absent water vapor, the earths atmosphere passes 99.6% of the energy it absorbs/passes without warming it. less than 0.4% OF THE ATMOSPHERE REACTS TO LWIR and reflects/re-emits it.  AGW as hypothesis fails miserably.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > No.  You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.  So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible.  All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you.  Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it.  And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't.  In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.
> ...



And I haven't read a word of it.  You don't understand any of it anyway.  So why do you post it?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Read and learn, dummy.
> 
> Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?



So which part of that do you think answers a single one of my questions?  Feel free to cut and paste the answer here, or simply direct me to a particular paragraph...

Talk about not having a clue....I ask specific questions and you refer me to a link that doesn't even come close to answering any of them...and the sad thing is that that is probably the best you can do.

At this point, I predict that you aren't going to cut and paste anything from that site, and will in all likelihood give some weak assed excuse for not pointing out any particular paragraph....because you don't understand any of what is on that page, and can't speak to any of the questions I asked.

I await your excuse.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Deflect, Deflect, Deflect.... Especially when your shown a fraud and a lair....  You have your alarmist talking points down pat....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.
> ...



CO2 can never burn us to a crisp...right now CO2 is at about 400ppm...at the time when the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm...go further back and it has been as high as 7000ppm with no evidence, ever of a runaway greenhouse effect.  History itself proves your alarmist notions wrong.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Read and learn, dummy.
> ...



If I have to spoon feed it to you like a fucking baby, perhaps you should put on your bib, dipshit.  It's a very short article.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Actually I understand it just fine, which is why I provided it to support my claims...you on the other hand, deny any science that is provided to you, and don't even read what is provided from the scientists on your side of the discussion...  Clearly you have never read a single article from any actual scientific journal...obicously you get your opinion from the very sort of blogs that you accuse me of using even though the information I have provided you with is from credible scientific organizations and journals...

It is clear that one of us doesn't have even the smallest grasp of the science...but alas, it isn't me...as soon as we started getting into specifics about the science, you started dodging ......which is what happens with all alarmists who have no informed opinion of their own....


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Thesis my ass.   You're an imbecile and a fake.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.


Now your simply projecting your own failures.... You people are sooooo predictable..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Hey....nothing but an excuse...just as I predicted..  If you had a clue, and if there was any evidence there to challenge any one of my questions you would have brought it here just to shove it in my face and perhaps shut me the f'ck up....you are laughable and pathetic at the same time...

Do you really think you are giving the appearance of having any idea of what you are talking about?

Here...from your mona loa site:

Clip:
Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour.

The data they provide varies less than 3/10 parts per million from hour to hour...The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season...  Now how do you think that answers either of my questions?  Which part of that even begins to explain how it's readings are evidence of man made climate change, or evidence that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2?  There is no mention of anything like that in the whole site....obviously you either didn't read anything there, or couldn't understand what you did read there...you, like most know nothings just provide a link and hope that I might be as ignorant as you, or may find something that might answer my question...  Sorry guy, unlike you, I am not bamboozled by bullshit...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Funny...coming from the useful idiot.  Your ignorance prevents you from knowing how badly the floor is being mopped with you...if you had any inkling of the science at all, you would be to embarrassed to even show up around here...guess it's true that ignorance is bliss...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.
> ...



they all work off the same template...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season... Now how do you think that answers either of my questions?



Idiot.  The Mauna Loa reading is not a global measurement.  But it is the longest running modern measurement in one place that we have.  That makes it a good index of CO2 change over time.  It is what it is.  And it's entirely consistent with satellite readings.  It's not like satellites suddenly started measuring 280 ppm all over the planet.  We're seeing numbers 390-410.  Spot on the 405 ppm at Mauna Loa.  The Mauna Loa reading is specifically chosen because it is unaffected by local industrial or natural sources.  This makes it a very good reading.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.
> ...



In the link you apparently ignored (common for people who don't seek understanding) is a section showing that CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere with TRACE IR absorption range, while the DOMINANT "greenhouse" gas gets ignored completely, it is WATER VAPOR.

From the link you ignored:

"To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.






To fit 4.55 x 1022 molecules equispaced in a 100-mm cube (i.e. one liter) they have to be 28 Angstroms apart.

Since at 2 x 10-7 mm diameter, CO2 is a very tiny molecule, let's magnify the picture by a factor of 10 million, so that we can imagine a CO2 molecule as a 20 mm diameter marble floating in the air. However, CO2 makes up only 380 of each million molecules of air – the rest are a mixture of all the other atmospheric gases and water vapor – i.e. only one in every 2632 molecules is a CO2 molecule. Let’s imagine that all the other molecules are colored blue, and CO2 molecules are colored red. All the marbles making up our model atmosphere are equispaced at 280 mm apart. When mixed evenly into our model atmosphere (which is what the wind does) a bit more simple math shows that our red marbles are equispaced at 3900 mm (i.e. 3.9 meters) apart. In the real atmosphere, at a height of approx. 5500 meters, pressure is halved from what it is at sea level. A bit more simple math shows that at a height of 5500 meters (55 million kilometers in our model – that’s 143 times the distance from earth to the moon!), our 20 mm diameter CO2 marbles are equispaced at 4.9 meters apart. Now you know why CO2 is called a “trace” gas.

This whole picture we have drawn ( with Peter Morgan's help ) illustrates both how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, and how relatively little of the radiation it is capable of absorbing and "heating" the atmosphere.  We know that most of the other IR radiation bands slips through and doesn't get to do any heating at all. (We've all seen the nice IR photographs taken from the space station.)  But some scientists such as *Dr. Heinz Hug* who specialize in study of this stuff claims that all of the heat in these particular spectra are indeed absorbed in a relatively short distance, so adding more CO2 to the atmosphere can't affect anything at any rate.  Other scientists, such as Dr. Roy W. Spencer at NASA - and one of the leading experts in the field of climate science - doesn't completely agree

We've decided to be exceptionally generous to all concerned in the debate and look at the worst-case scenario, where we'll say that all of the available heat in the CO2 absorption spectrum is actually captured.  *We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.*  And remember that 8% figure was actually larger than reality, since the two side peaks don't have much energy to capture."

_bolding mine
======================================
_
CO2 has an insignificant effect on the heat budget, even less as CO2 level in the atmosphere increases for various reasons that will escape you.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



~400 ppm.  A trace gas in the atmosphere.  We know.  It's been known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years.

So what's your point?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*
Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous..*

YOUR premise, "CO2 is saturated, so surface IR gets to sneak out" is indeed ludicrous. That's why I replied.

* It doesn't deserve an answer.. *

But enough about your silly claim.

Let me know if you ever figure out the answers.......

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


 Now were going highly technical for an person that has no grasp of the basic concepts.  CO2 stretches as a molecule and does not vibrate when it absorbs a photon. This action does not use energy or warm the molecules. At the atomic level CO2 is incapable of warming so it must pass off its energy in some manner to a molecule that can use the energy and warm. In our atmosphere that molecule is water vapor and it is primary absorption is by collisions and not radiation.  But again he will not understand the importance of this technical information.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



*ZOOOOOOOM right over your head*, since you make clear you didn't get the numbers understood:



> We know that man is responsible for about 3 % of it, so with the simplest of math, we have .03 x .08 = .0024.



and,



> As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.



You have been shown that AS a trace gas, it has a trace IR absorption range and that around 95% of the IR wavelength zooms right by those trace CO2 molecules unmolested.

Meanwhile Water vapor with a much larger IR absorption range and far more common presence in the atmosphere, that it can store some of the energy for a time (CO2 can't store energy at all) _gets ignored by ignorant clods like you_  who have an irrational fixation over a trace gas with a PROVEN insignificant IR absorption of just 5% of the IR spectrum.

CO2 is a trace gas with an insignificant effect on the heat budget, SSDD showed how insignificant it was by how much INCREASE of energy is leaving the planet, much greater than the postulated warming forcing effect of the hyper overrated molecule.

Here is a nice presentation made about 7 years ago showing that global warming via the CO2 effect is impossible.

EXCERPT:



> A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space.  That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference.  It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.
> 
> If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984.  If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.
> 
> ...



and this you will ignore, but damaging to your CO2 delusions:

What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

EXCERPT:

Here is my take on the issue.  Please feel free to provide any input you have on this topic.

The question I asked of everyone was what would the temperature of the Earth be if everything else was held constant except there was no CO2 in the atmosphere.

So questions of albedo and clouds must be ignored. Another thread can discuss the legitimacy of such feedbacks, but the question I want answered by everyone is what would the Earth’s temperature be if there was no CO2.

My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



The thing you're missing is that water vapor does not regulate the earth's temperature.  Instead, the earth's temperature regulates the amount of water vapor.

So the component to the greenhouse effect we're concerned about is that attributed to CO2.  And yes, it is a trace amount compared to O2 and N2.  But those are not greenhouse gasses.  So it is really the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is important, not the concentration in relation to non-greenhouse gasses like O2 and N2.  And we're adding something like 40 gigatons a year.  And even in their narrow frequency bands and even in their trace gas amounts they are contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the atmosphere and the ocean.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> The thing you're missing is that water vapor does not regulate the earth's temperature. Instead, the earth's temperature regulates the amount of water vapor.


This is so wrong that being wrong is not close enough to describing it.

This is a portion of the hypothesis that fails so miserably that I am amazed that you still try to use it. Warmth causes the increase of water vapor not CO2.  CO2 FOLLOWS the warm up by 80-200 years. It is a trailing factor, not a leading one.

Water vapor does indeed control earths climate and temperature. The convection cycle increase as the temperature increases and decreases as the temperature decreases.

Please provide your evidence of no control as everything I have seen and done in science disproves your hyperbole.

Paradoxical Earth..  Complex responses often misinterpreted...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.




Troll farm thread.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


When you have nothing to contribute... Troll...

 

Please tell us how CO2 controls the climate...  I'll wait...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Warmth causes the increase of water vapor not CO2.



I did not say that CO2 causes increase of water vapor.  You're an idiot.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Good ahead refute NASA.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


LOL..

Which set of facts? You post up shit without a clue and runaway like a little bitch... Please be specific as to what you believe is true.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



How about you just pick one.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Okay, I believe the scientists at NASA over a troll on the internet.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The OCO-2 satellite demonstrates that those numbers are flawed beyond use...the OCO-2 satellites show wild variances across the globe from season to season... Now how do you think that answers either of my questions?
> ...



And of what value is it, exactly if it provides a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 concentration?    And it isn't consistent with satellite measurements at all....

And do you not think that sitting on top of a volcano spewing CO2 might be why mona loa gets 405 while the satellites show an entirely different picture? 

And again, got any science that says that we are responsible for the move from 280 to 400?  I have plenty that finds that we aren't.

and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> And even in their narrow frequency bands and even in their trace gas amounts they are contributing to the greenhouse effect and warming the atmosphere and the ocean.



What greenhouse effect?  The one that "stores" energy somewhere while the amount of energy exiting the earth at the top of the atmosphere is increasing?  Tell me how you think that works...which energy is being stored?  And how is it being stored while the amount escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Says yet another useful idiot who can't even begin to discuss the science....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Already been through that steaming pile of propaganda.....feel free to point out anything there that you believe amounts to physical evidence that we are causing the climate to change...

My bet is that you won't be able to point to anything, but it is always interesting to see the excuses you guys give for not pointing out what you think the links you provide prove.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?




NOAA says there is.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?
> ...


And they used Karl et al manipulations in their models....which fail empirical review... Sorry Charlie.. Your appeal to authority falls flat on its face..

Its hilarious that you all think model outputs are empirical evidence.. MODELS are NOT empirical evidence of any kind.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



No problem...  Lets take on the one about shrinking ice sheets.

The link says:  

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.7

Does that in any way provide evidence that we are causing the reduction in ice, or even that the reduction in ice is unusual?  After all, the earth is warming out of the little ice age and has been for about a century and a half now.

Lets take a look at what climate science calls the gold standard in temperature reconstructions.  It is derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from Greenland, above the Arctic Circle.  As you can see, if you have any graph reading skills at all, it is cooler at present than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.   You can also see temperature changes far greater than any we have seen and in shorter periods have been happening periodically throughout this interglacial period both to the warmer, and to the cooler.  






So we can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,00 years with the except of the little ice age which the earth is still warming its way out of...as you can see, we haven' even reached the temperarue it was at the onset of the little ice age.  Now I can look at that graph of temperatures over the past 10,000 years and be pretty sure that if I looked at a reconstruction of what the ice looked like in the arctic over that same time, I would see that with the exception of the little ice age, there is probably more ice in the arctic regions now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...  You being a denier though, I doubt that you would reach the same conclusion, so lets have a look at some published science regarding what the ice in the arctic has looked like over the same period.

This particular graph showing what the ice in the arctic has looked like over the past 10,000 years is from Stein, et. al. and was published in the Journal of Quartanary Science.  As I predicted, it shows that the ice in the arctic region is greater now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  As you can see form this graph, there have been periods when all of the sea ice was probably absent..8000 years ago, and 9500 years ago respectively...and throughout the past 10,000 years, there was less ice than there is now except for the period of the little ice age...






But lets not stop with a single paper...here is another, also published in the Quaternary Science Review by Perner, et. al. in 2018...note that I am providing fairly recent papers as opposed to the crap you are providing which is nearly 20 years old.  again, as you can see, with the exception of the little ice age, there is more ice in the arctic regions now than there has been for the past 10,000 years.  I can provide more, but there is probably no amount of actual science that could convince you that you have been lied to.  The bottom line is that while the ice is melting in the arctic, it is nothing unusual, or unexpected....and certainly not attributable to us...as you can see, the ice started shrinking at the end of the little ice age and continues to this day and since we aren't even as warm as it was at the onset of the little ice age, we should expect the ice to continue to melt...all by itself with or without human beings producing CO2...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Unfortunate to be in a position where you feel that you must believe people who have been caught falsifying data....


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I won’t pat herself on the back. You don’t discuss science, you parrot denial.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




What data has been falsified? Well, outside of the denial bubble.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > and even more important...do you have any physical evidence that says that the change is in any way influencing the climate?
> ...



You keep showing evidence that the climate is changing...who is disputing that?  What you aren't showing is evidence that we are the cause...you show evidence that the climate is changing with nothing but an assumption that we must be the cause....That isn't evidence of anything more than that you apparently don't know what evidence that we were causing the change looks like.  Your NCEI graph is pretty and all, and they tell you that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature...and then they expect that you will be to ignorant to actually look at the graph and see that what it shows is that increased CO2 follows warming....every ice core ever done shows that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause...  What is it like to be a useful idiot?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




he didn't notice that his graph shows CO2 following temperature around....same as all ice cores...increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Bwhaaaaaaaaaa   

So you believe modeling that has NO PREDICTIVE abilities...  Nice...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




Says the guy who doesn't seem to be able to produce any science to the guy who has backed every claim he has made with published science...  laughable....and pitiful...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have provided nothing which will refute what has been established as scientific fact in regard to AGW. 

You have not refuted a single fact on the NASA website.


When do you think that will happen?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Again what data has been falsified?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Glad to provide you with some...it isn't as if were hard to find....

Here is a fine example...the temperature was adjusted down from the raw data in order to give the appearance of more warming than has actually happened and it completely eliminates the hot period of the 1930's  (the dust bowl years) which were warmer than the present and makes them appear much cooler than the present.






Here is another fine example of the "adjustment" happening at NASA..  Want more?  There's plenty out there.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



I addressed your NASA link not long ago, you ignored it. You also ignored a QUESTION I asked you several times about something in that link, you ignored it.

You never did bother to discuss YOUR link at all, you ran away instead, to spread your ignorant spittle in other threads.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have not proved any argument which convinces anyone (outside the denial bubble) that NASA has it wrong.


Post away


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Just the fact that NASA is having to falsify data in order to support their narrative is evidence that they have it wrong....why else falsify data?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


 

What part of the following NASA statement is wrong in your opinion.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...




Again, what data has been falsified?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Okay deniers, disprove this from NASA.

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade."

News | Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> What part of the following NASA statement is wrong in your opinion.
> 
> "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



I just gave you two temperature graphs that have clearly been altered...that is called falsifying data..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Okay deniers, disprove this from NASA.
> 
> "The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade."
> 
> News | Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise



Ok...first that is about antarctica...not greenland...second, note that they say that West Antarctica is where the biggest changes are happening. It is true, West Antarctica is loosing a good deal of ice.  I don't guess you know what the article didn't tell you about the ice loss in West Antarctica do you?  They sure won't tell you...that article is designed to make you think we are somehow responsible...  They didn't bother to tell you that they have discovered some 91 active volcanoes both under the ice and on the sea bed around West Antarctica.  

What does it feel like to be a dupe?  What does it feel like when the people you though you could trust leave out a piece of information that important?  How does it feel to know that you have been taken advantage of...they let you believe that we were responsible some how for that ice loss and it is actually damned near 100 volcanoes under the ice and on the ocean floor around West Antarctica?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Post the source where you pulled these "graphs" from.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It's determined by process of elimination.  Solar and volcanic forcings don't account for the dramatic increase in temperature we've seen in the 20th century.  That leaves human caused greenhouse gas as the culprit.  If you think it's caused by something else, what is it.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay deniers, disprove this from NASA.
> ...



Yeah dupe, I feel for you. The scientists who discovered the volcanoes have an answer for you. They don't support your ignorant assertion that those volcanoes are causing the ice to melt. They do give a reason and can you post it for the thread to see.

Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So lets see a published paper that makes that claim....all the actual published papers that I have ever seen say just the opposite...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So they changed the scale on the graph.  Diabolical.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You don't think volcanoes under the ice, and on the ocean floor under the sea ice will make ice melt?  You really think molten lava won't melt ice?  Are you that f'ing stupid?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




_Looking at the relative contributions of these forcings to climate change over the past 1,000 years, scientists have concluded from model simulations that: 

_

_ Solar and volcanic forcings have been responsible for some of the variations in Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past 1,000 years._
_ Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Changes in these forcings during the 20th century would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960._
_ Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are currently experiencing.

Climate Model Simulations of the Last 1,000 Years | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)_


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

An actual CO2 garph.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It is far more than changing the scale...it is outright fraud...

You are like an abused animal that still licks its master's hand....they lie to you...make you look like a fool, and you apologize for them....how pathetic is that?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> An actual CO2 garph.



And that is fakery as well...you don't attach instrumental readings to proxy reconstructions...it is fraud and there is no other word for it...and do tell me, what do you think it proves anyway other than that as the earth has warmed, the processes by which the earth produces CO2 have become more efficient?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Is that what the actual scientists found that the volcanoes were melting the ice or not.

You can read their findings in the link that I provided.



Now let's discuss your stupid.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Can't be very active to allow the Antarctic ice sheet to form over the top of them.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



What is so dramatic about the warming of the 20th century...I already provided you with a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores from greenland which showed temperature changes far greater than any we have seen in a shorter period of time than we have seen...what exactly is dramatic about 20th century warming when compared to the past 10,000 years?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > An actual CO2 garph.
> ...




Show your "evidence" that the graph is factually wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You are unbelievably stupid....but here...from actual scientists...  How ignorant must you be to not think that f'ing active volcanoes....giant volcanoes according to those who discovered them wouldn't be melting ice..?

Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below

CLIP:
Antarctica is a land of ice. But dive below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and you'll find fire as well, in the form of subglacial volcanoes.

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

NASA discovers mantle plume almost as hot as Yellowstone that's melting Antarctica from below

Clip:
A mantle plume producing almost as much heat as Yellowstone supervolcano appears to be melting part of West Antarctica from beneath.

Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Didn't even bother to look did you?  Just decided on your own to just make some crap up...  The fact is that they are active...  the ice is 2 and a half miles thick...even volcanoes can't melt that much ice very quickly....


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What about this graph from the GISP2 Ice Cores.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It is fine up to the point where they tack on an instrumental record to a proxy record...sorry that you are so ignorant of the scientific method that you don't realize that is a no no...the record prior to that is on a scale where each inch (on a computer screen) represents 100,000 years...the end, from 1950 is putting 70 years worth of data in a space that represents about 1000 years on the rest of the graph...fraud is the word that describes it...or scientific malfeasance if you like.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The alarming part is the increase in the last 50 years which is about double what it was for the last 100 years.  I attribute that to China and India.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Excerpt from article (which shows you can't read.)

The discovery is particularly important because the activity of these volcanoes could have crucial implications for the rest of the planet. If one erupts, it could further destabilise some of the region’s ice sheets, which have already been affected by global warming. Meltwater outflows into the Antarctic ocean could trigger sea level rises. “We just don’t know about how active these volcanoes have been in the past,” Bingham said.

However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska.

“Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active.”

And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already affecting our oceans.



So yeah, we have that.

And this could happen in west Antarctica, where significant warming in the region caused by climate change has begun to affect its ice sheets. If they are reduced significantly, this could release pressure on the volcanoes that lie below and lead to eruptions that could further destabilise the ice sheets and enhance sea level rises that are already affecting our oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Note that that graph only looks at 2000 ..back to the roman warming period, and it is smoothed...the graph below shows the same thing for the past 2000 years...and if you follow it on back, you see that it was warmer and warmer..  Geez guy, learn to read a simple graph.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You're like a confused fool who knows nothing.  Clamping on to every global warming deniers goofed up theories while adamantly denying valid science.  You clearly don't even know how the greenhouse effect even works.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




The only fraud here is you.

Are we at 412+ PPM of CO2 or not?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



And that is alarming how?  As you can see from the temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice core, the change we have seen in the past 50 years is insignificant compared to some of the changes that have happened over the past 10,000 years...both warmer and cooler...what we have seen is in no way unusual, and actually very small compared to some of the changes over the past 10,000 years.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Thus far, you haven't provided any valid science to support your line of bullshit...I have provided published paper after published paper, and work from NASA, NOAA, IPCC...etc etc etc to support my claims...all you have done is just make it up as you go...You also are like an abused dog who still licks his masters hand...They lie to you, make you look like a fool, and take advantage of your ignorance and what do you do?  You apologize for them...how pathetic is that?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What's dramatic about the 20th century is a CO2 concentration that has rapidly increased from 280 ppm to 410 ppm.  And that is undeniably caused by humans.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So you're ok with having the same climatic conditions as the Roman Warming?  How about the Jurassic?  What would be the impact on our economy with a 20 ft sea level rise?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Organizations whose information you consistently deny and claim to be falsified.  You can't have it both ways.  You've denied even the possibility of the existence greenhouse effect.  You're just an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Yes...we are...but what do you think that proves?  When the ice age that the earth is presently coming out of began, CO2  was at about 1000ppm.  Imagine that...an ice age starting with CO2 at 1000ppm,  And if you go further back in history you will see ice ages beginning with CO2 levels higher than that.  What does that say about your greenhouse hypothesis,.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It means that variations in the amount of energy received from the sun due to the wobble of the earth's orbit are large enough to trigger or end ice ages.  You think that's what started happening in 1970?  Prove it.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Now about your GISP2 "gold standard" when it is put thru a fact check.

Fact-check: What Greenland Ice Cores Say About Past and Present Climate Change


So, the "gold standard" cited by YOU is wrong. From one of the scientists that used the data set.

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

So which are you?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




We came out of the last ice age about 11,000 years ago, so where on the graph is 1000ppm of CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



20 feet?  Let see....20 feet that is about 6,096 mm.  Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...at that rate, we will have 20 feet of sea level rise by about the year 4050...hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmist much?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Did you get that from your bullshit climate model?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



There is decent information to be had in the material they publish in the literature which has been through the peer review process...unfortunately, people like you don't visit the actual scientific literature...you read the material from the propaganda arm of the organization and believe you are reading actual science...ignorance on parade.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



How about you prove your contention first...got any hard evidence, or just an unprovable hypothesis?  You guys are funny....sad, but funny...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



guess you didn't look at any of his other graphs...they also showed that the present is cooler than most of the past 10,000 years...you guys are funny....sad and pathetic to..but funny.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
You mean the place where they taught you that sea level rise always occurs at 3mm/year and never changes?  Even after you called the GISP2 graph the "gold standard"?  You're really stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Guess  you don't understand the whole CO2 follows warming thing...The ice cores tell us that CO2 follows warming by about 800 years...It takes a while for the oceans to warm up enough to start out gassing significant quantities of CO2...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



I don't have a climate model...We know that sea level is increasing at a rate of about 3mm per year...in order to get 20 feet of sea level at 3mm per year, it is going to take a couple of thousand years....are you not able to even do the most simple sort of math...hell that was easier than balancing a check book...let me guess, your mom balances your check book for you...or maybe you don't even have a checking account...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Well then, post the organizations which have that "decent information" because so far today your 0 for 2.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sea level has been increasing at about 3mm per year for about a good long while now with no real indication that it is accelerating...the big sea level increases happened some while back... As you can see, at about 14,000 years ago sea level really started going and increased by about  300 feet...that much ice melted at the end of the glacial...Chicago was under 2 miles of ice at the time...and about 600 years ago it sort of leveled off and hasn't changed much since...it may vary by 1 mm a year or so, but not much beyond that...  Anyone who claims otherwise is an alarmist with no evidence to support his claims.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have made up information. The scientists who work with your "gold standard" state that Greenland is warmer now than any point over the last 2,000 years.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry bulwinkle...feel free to look back through this conversation...one of us has supported every claim he has made with peer reviewed, published science...one of us hasn't provided jack that could actually support anything he has said...you have spent the past posts just making crap up and having it shot down with actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature...you have lost point after point after point and are just to stupid to stop digging a hole for yourself.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Now they're saying it's more like 200 years.  This would not be good.  It's a dangerous cycle.  When the oceans warm enough to begin releasing CO2 the global warming accelerates.  Positive feedback.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Based on your nitwit linear extrapolation.  No reason to believe that is true.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Misleading or wrong again.

From NASA.
"Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year."

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


Refute that.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You don't have the first clue about climate science.  All you know about any of those papers is that google listed them under "dumbass global warming deniers central".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



And when you look


otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You are really a goob aren't you?  First off, Desmog is just a blog...it isn't scientific literature..it is just a blog...What i have provided is peer reviewed, published science.. you can't even recognize the difference between a f'ing blog and real science...pack it in, at this point, you are just making yourself look stupid...  Here is an amalgamation of all the greenland ice cores...slightly different from the ones I provided, but then it is composed of multiple ice cores..


----------



## denmark (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I already said that I’m not an expert in this field, but I’m interested in what published experts would say to your rebuttal comments. If you are confident your rebuttal would survive expert scrutiny, then prove it. Submit your comments to that vatican journal, or any journal that publishes climate science research ... or rebuttals. 
Let us know the results. However, I doubt you will submit your rebuttals to experts.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry...its bullshit...they adjusted a hundred years worth of sea level when they went to satellites and the oldest tide gages in the world...several hundred years worth of records don't agree with the adjustments...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You dumbass.  It isn't the current temperature that matters.  It's the rate of change, which is unprecedented.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Sorry guy...thus far, you have just been making it up as you go...which is why I have been able to provide peer reviewed published science to call bullshit on everything you have said...alas, it is you who is clueless and it doesn't look like you are getting any smarter as time goes by..


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What adjustments are ranting about exactly.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Sorry but it isn't....what's the matter...can't read a graph?  If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years....what's the matter?  Aren't you smart enough to even read a simple graph?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




What peer review BS have you provided? Because everything that you have posted tonight has been either misleading, wrong or both.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Your graph has modeling and adjustments, it's wrong.


Next.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief...even if folks like you are going to deny the reality.... This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA. The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....*NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.*






You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate science increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments....* NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.*






Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale. One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.






Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase.

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...






Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.






So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster. Shit happens...right? But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change. In 1990 the IPCC said:







Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990.

And just for fun...take a look at the very early tide information...what sort of new information do you think would require changing tide data from 60, 70, 80, and even 100 years ago?

The fact is that the sea level claims are fraudulent...and anyone who believes them has either been fooled, or is being nothing more than one of the legion of useful idiots.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Practically everything I have provided has been peer reviewed...like I said, you aren't even able to recognize actual scientific literature when you see it..you are accustomed to f'ing alarmist blogs...I actually go to the science for my information..you go to alarmists, the media, politicians, and environmental activists...you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So lets see some peer reviewed evidence to contradict it...mine is peer reviewed..yours was from an alarmist blog...given a choice, I will go with the peer reviewed science till some better peer reviewed science comes along...you stick with your alarmist blog...they will give you just the opinion they think you should have.  No effort on your part necessary...of course it does leave you looking like a clueless idiot when you try to talk to someone who can actually provide real science to support their position, but luckily you won't be bright enough to even recognize the fact that you are taking a real drubbing in public...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





I stand by the 8 inches and the NASA data that you have not disproved.

A graph from 40 years ago and you so desperately want to be taken seriously.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have not disproved any of the peer reviewed data that Desmog cited. You have used some cut and paste BS backed by nothing.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...



That's the problem genius.  It proves that the warming we're experiencing is greater that what can be accounted for by solar variations or volcanism.  Exactly what I said before, stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Actually a series of graphs covering the 20th century into the 21st century...and an explanation and demonstration of the fraud being perpetrated.


Of course you will stick with 8 inches...becasue you are a useful idiot..what else could you do?  I don't expect that you could even understand what I wrote regarding sea level change and surely the graphs don't mean much to you..except for the ones with pretty colors...and tell me, do you think they didn't know how to take tide readings in 1979?  Is that what you really think?  Did you notice that the graph from 1979 was published in a paper by James Hansen?  He is the hero of the global warming movement...hell he is the godfather of global warming...you are about the most ignorant person I have spoken to in some time on this board...you are right up there with cosmos on the idiot scale...you must be so proud...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Actually, I disproved it all...do I expect that you would be bright enough to recognize that fact?  No...not a chance in hell.  You keep reading your blogs and stay just as ignorant as you are...it is precisely what you deserve.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > If you could, you would see that the amount of change, and the rate of change have been far greater than anything we have seen multiple times over the past 10,000 years...
> ...



Explain how greater changes and faster changes in the past prove that the relatively small changes we have seen  are greater than natural variability could account for?  This should be interesting...and f'ing hilarious...but go ahead...Im all ears....I love comedy.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 15, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> ...



I think the question is misstated.
Has Global Warming and Climate Change caused the Polar Shift?
As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century, Greenland's ice mass decreased. In fact, a total of about 7,500 gigatons -- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings -- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period. This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis.
Scientists ID three causes of Earth's spin axis drift – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

But to answer your question, when their is evidence of the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced is occurring, we don't need 100% of the scientific community concurrence nor do we need to be 100% correct.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You have not disproved this peer reviewed paper from 2018.

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era


You have NOT disproved anything from NASA.


You have offered bullshit and paraded around in a little skirt.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So now you're reversing yourself.  Proving once again you're nothing but a babbling idiot.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

More issues with your "gold standard" GISP2 data set.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

Can you address those.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 15, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

In the first graph according to the text below the graph, the measurements are taken from tidal gauges. To really compare these 2 graphs the same gauges at the same locations would have to be used. Until sometime in the 20th tidal gauges were basically mechanic devices and measuring sticks. The early tide gauges were expensive and difficult to maintain, and accuracy was always a problem.  In the 1960's, the first digital tidal gauges were automated recording of data became widely used improving the accuracy and reliability. 

In the second graph, more recent data was taken from satellite altimeters which are much more accurate than tidal gauges and tidal gauges for prior dates.    The data collection for the second graph is described on the cmar.csiro website.  It states the data prior to 1992 is uncertain because of the use of tidal gauges.  The following graph from their website was created form satellite altimeter data which shows 3.5 mm/yr rise or 350 mm over a hundred years which translates to 13.8 inches over a century.






I would think a global average rise in sea level of a 13.8 per century would be pretty alarming.

Past sea level changes - Sea Level, Waves and Coastal Extremes


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 15, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


If it was so easy why didn't you rebut his argument point per point instead of providing this nonsense bullshit link?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 15, 2019)

Slyhunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Okay, first his argument point is stupid.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 15, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No, it wasn't.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Flopper said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



First, in spite of your hysterical, handwaving and hyperventilating, this is not the most catastrophic event that mankind has ever faced...the little ice age that we are coming out of was...it is estimated that the shortened growing seasons which reduced food stores, and the cold itself along with the diseases it brought with it (the black death among them, more than 55 million people died due to the change in climate.  Cold is a killer, not warmth.

Second as with all the hysterical claims of climate science about everything, the claims about greenland are false as well.  Parts of greenland are losing ice because volcanoes have also been discovered under the ice on greenland..  Imagine that...volcanoes melting ice..

 From Kelly; 2017





From Nature:






There is plenty more....suffice it to say that you have been misled...unfortunate but that is how life is for useful idiots.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Of course I did...as I pointed out already:

2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. *A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. *Here is what the adjustments look like...







Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale.







You are so far out of your depth (and you reside in the very shallow end of the pool) that you don't even know when your questions have been answered...The acceleration happened when they applied a global isostatic adjustment.  Isostatic adjustments are used to determine if the sea floor is sinking...it has nothing to do with sea level rise... And the graphs show the effect of the adjustment...there is no acceleration in sea level rise...there is only fraudulent adjustments...which tide gages....do not agree with...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You really are a piece of work...First you claim that because nature has shown us larger temperature increases in shorter periods of time than anything we have seen that that is evidence that the small change we have seen over the past 150 years is larger than natural variability could produce....then you claim I have changed my position?  How stupid are you?

My position stands where it has always been...since nature has shown us that it can change the temperature to a greater degree and faster


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> More issues with your "gold standard" GISP2 data set.
> 
> https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337
> 
> Can you address those.



Sure...skeptical science...run by a cartoonist...caught lying and fabricating data more times than one cares to count.  Here is the fearless leader of skeptical science..John Cook who likes to dress up as a nazi...






Source:  Skeptical Scinece  Forums

It is moderated by hysterical, handwaving, hyperventilating alarmists who heavily censor any data that disagrees with the topic thread out of existence...if you want to know the problems with the data on that thread, ask them what they edited out..

Am I surprised that this sort of place is where you get your opinion given to you?  Not at all.  You are a prize graduate of that joke of a site...congratulations.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It might be if it were real..it isn't..your graph is comparing models to models...tide gages don't agree with them...do you get your opinion from skeptical science as well?

Sea level rise is just one more example of the abject failure of climate models...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You got it all backwards, dipshit.  If you actually knew anything instead of how to cut and paste maybe you wouldn't come off as such an idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Ask him why photons can't travel from cooler matter toward warmer matter. It's a trip.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



  Still waiting....If natural variability is capable of changing temperatures to a greater, or lesser degree than anything we have seen in a shorter or longer period of time than anything we have seen...how does that support the claim that the changes we have seen must be due to mankind's activities?  You made the claim, lets hear an explanation?  Or do you not have one beause the claim is just something you made up because you could't think of anything else to say?  You seem to be claiming that you know something that I don't....so lets hear it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


SSDD;

You are dealing with religious zealots who will not respond to facts.  They believe because they are told to believe. Nothing will make them doubt the Gia religion. No amount of Empirical Evidence will change their minds and they will kill themselves and billions more to keep the lie alive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Billy, when you get a chance, post the molar mass of photons. Thanks!


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

You deniers have no facts to offer.

Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.


Just one.


I'll wait.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Yeah...but some people who don't necessarily ever post anything read these posts and are swayed...I occasionally get a PM regarding a discussion with one of these types and they appreciate seeing alarmists arguments torn down with actual science rather than talking points and hysterics...so although the useful idiots like otto and cosmos will never be convinced, tearing down their arguments does serve a purpose.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Still working on that one scientific organization that supports your opinion.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Er....denial.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> You deniers have no facts to offer.
> 
> Name one scientific organization which supports YOUR position that Global Climate change is happening and is not cause by human activity.
> 
> ...



Funny thing...most heads of scientific organizations never ask their membership about what their "official" position on man made climate change should be.  The heads of organizations are political after all.  
The American Physical Society the most influential organization of all decided to ask its membership for advice on what their official policy should be...they found out in short order that the working scientists that made up the organization had an entirely different idea about what the society should say about man made climate change than what the political head thought...so they quietly closed the whole thing down and went against the working scientists that made up the membership and toned down their rhetoric, but maintained a consensus view...

So the statements that scientific organizations make are from the political heads of the organizations...not the working scientists that make up the membership of the society...and they reflect the political heads need to raise funds...and collect political capital...you can't get any money or political capital if you go against the consensus so they sell out to money and power over scientific truth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Last time I checked, the list of scientist who do not agree with the AGW hype has grown to over 56,000.  While not an official organization it dwarfs all of your organizations put together.. But then you folks like to throw out science that doesn't fit your narrative...



 

You folks like to throw away papers who do not toe the line....


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > You deniers have no facts to offer.
> ...




So you realize that you can't find one scientific organization that supports your denial position  instead offer an organization for physics... as something. Or rather as the "MOST INFLUENTIAL ORGANIZATION OF ALL" to convince of of anything.

Well your source supports my position on Climate Change...  www.aps.org/policy/issues/upload/CVD-Climate-Change-2019.pdf

Why is that?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It has been posted in this forum a number of times only to be ignored by warmists who KNOW they can't address it, here is one that is a new expose of PISS temperature data. From No Tricks Zone:

NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Short Excerpt:

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

*Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids*
When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Lets see if you ignore these charts from PISS using *THEIR* source links. It is all PISS/NASA here.




NASA 1998





NASA 2019

Cooling the past, warming the present is obvious here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Karl Et Al made the data useless for any purpose except propaganda.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




The graph you cited from Legates et al is a joke.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.

Like this one





or this one.






Or this one


----------



## Flopper (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


I'm sure there is more since a cottage industry on the Internet has been cranking this shit out for over 20 years.  I'll stick with the findings and opinion of vast majority of the scientific community.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The change in level between 1992 and 2016 appears to be about 80 mm or an avg of 5.7 mm / yr without any adjustment.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Why don't you links go back to NASA? I could post 1000's of NASA cited graphs which don't show the supposed adjustment that you claim.
> 
> Like this one



Not the sharpest knife in the kitchen are you?  How do you think you could see adjustments by looking at one version of a graph?  You see the adjustments by looking graphs showing the same same data produced in different years.

The graph above, that you provided,  shows US data was produced in 2017.

Here is the graph of US data that they produced in 1999






Here is an overlay of the two graphs...by comparing one to the other, you can see the adjustments. As you can see, the temperatures have been adjusted pretty heavily since 1999.  You can see that they raised the temperature starting point in 1880...then proceeded to cool the entire period from about 1883 to 1970. and then increased the temperature of every year after 1970.  It is blatant.

 They significantly cooled the 1930s period, known as the dust bowl years which were warmer than the present in order to claim that the present is the warmest EVAH.....clearly it isn't.  The 1930s saw temperatures warmer than the present.







then there is your graph of the global temperature....






I'm not sure where that came from ..it does't say that it was published by NASA....  Here is one that was published in a paper in 1999 by James Hansen, the godfather of global warming while he was working at NASA.  He shows 0.6C  of warming between 1880 and 1997.






In the most recent graph, they now show more than 1.0C of warming during the same period.







Here are a couple of overlays of the 1999 and 2006 versions.  They show how they cooled the years prior to 1980's and warmed the years after the 1980's.






Here is a closer view...






You can apologize for them all you like...I would expect nothing less, but he fact is that they have been tampering with the data for years and now, they are even tampering with the raw data so that it will be impossible to ever know what the actual temperatures were...

Here..from October 2017...






Then in May of 2018, they restored much of the 1940's warmth that they had adjusted out of earlier versions






Then by July 2018, they had cooled the 1940's again.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Based on the fake numbers....sure that's what it appears to be...the tide gages don't agree....but accurate measurement isn't what it is all about...it is about supporting an alarmist narrative...The graph indicating 5.7mm per year has had a global isostatic adjustment applied which is an invalid adjustment when looking at sea level...isostatic adjustments are applied when looking at the sea floor..and the rate at which it might or might not be sinking...the increase in the rate of sea level rise is due to a fraudulent adjustment that has nothing to do with measuring sea level..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....




Like I said..the one time an organization attempted to involve its membership in their statement on global warming, they found out that their membership had an entirely different view of global warming and what its causes may be than the political heads...

And can you name any other branch of science that holds up "consensus" as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?  When you question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of physical science, you get bombarded with more observed, measured evidence in support of the hypothesis than you might care to wade through...you question the AGW hypothesis and you get called some names, and told all about the "consensus" as if that were evidence of anything more than group think on the part of climate science..  It never fails to give me a chuckle when you wackos hold up consensus as if it were scientific evidence...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You seem to be under the impression that consensus is evidence of something besides group think...Believing that it is evidence of anything else is a logical fallacy...but then you guys live by logical fallacy....


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....
> ...




You cited the American Physics Society and when I checked their policy statements they don't agree with your dubious climate assertions.

So why is it you can't cite ONE scientific organization to support your view?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



What is your specific objection to it?  Can you state anything that is particularly wrong with it and provide some actual data to support your claim?  The answer to that would be a resounding NO would't it?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Consensus is only evidence of groupthink...a terrible situation for any organization.....especially in science when you are supposed to be taking about a group of individuals who can't seem to agree on anything...hell, there is a raging debate over what actually causes gravity...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

Or what causes matter at equilibrium to stop radiating. DURR...………...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



*Consensus on the Climate Change issue has been reached by scientists *

Which question did they reach consensus on? 
Because when it comes to "climate change" there are thousands.

*because they zeroed out any other explanation for the warming.*

They decided man was totally responsible? Partially responsible? How much?

At least post the question they voted on.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Apparently on the question that you're a parrot because no other explanation withstood review.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



So you'll be posting the question?
I bet it's a good one.
Very precise.

Not wishy-washy at all, eh?

Come on......make SSDD look like an idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



As I pointed out...when they polled their membership, it became very obvious very quickly that the membership had very different ideas about what the organizational statement should say...they closed the poll down, toned down their rhetoric and vowed to never ask the actual working scientists what they thought again.  

In typical fashion, you go and look at something and seem to think that you know all you need to know.

Here is the 2007 statement from the American Physical Society on climate...

The 2007 statement:

*"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.* Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

*"The evidence is incontrovertible: *Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

"Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases."


After they involved their membership, the rhetoric was toned down considerably.  Here is the 2015 statement on climate:

The 2015 statement:  

 "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries."

They no longer claim that the evidence is incontrovertible....and they now include the fact of uncertainty without actually raising the specter of uncertainty.

And still it really doesn't mean anything other than science is unfortunately experiencing an episode of groupthink that is going to damage their credibility for decades to come.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Says the parrot who gets his opinion from alarmist blogs...what a goob...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




SSDD makes himself look like an idiot. I just keep him posting the proof.

Now maybe YOU can post why it is impossible for you deniers to cite one scientific organization that supports your climate change assertions.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




I have cited the leading scientific organizations from every authority on the issue. 

And you can find them all here...  Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



tell me.....do you really believe consensus is actually evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct? 

Repeating a logical fallacy over and over as if it were actually evidence of something is strange, and stupid, but you are what you are.  Do tell me what sort of evidence you think group think among scientists represents...

I guess after having all your attempts at making up science torn down, logical fallacy is all that is left to you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



And you can do your part by posting the question.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



And yet, among all those leading scientific organizations, and all the science they have produced, you can't find a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you cite a single published paper in which the claimed warming due to human activities has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses.  That being the case, what exactly do you suppose that consensus is based on?..because it certainly isn't the overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Maybe you aren't aware, but NASA, and by default, every other organization that is subject to truth in advertising laws has been petitioned by the CEI to cease using the 97% lie...a quick read of their case, and basis for the complaint makes it pretty clear that NASA doesn't have a legal leg to stand on with regard to the 97% lie....When that is gone, what will you use for evidence then?  Name calling?


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 16, 2019)

Flopper said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




You didn't even bother to read my links.

I am talking about the MAGNETIC drift, of the MAGNETIC pole.

Your article is talking about a spin of off the gravitational axis.  Everyone know about procession, my links were not addressing procession.  We are talking about much deeper forces here than what man's silly amount of C02 in the air can affect.  Any corporate source that is trying to convince you that our industrial activity can affect the molten core of the planet?  Take it to the bank that it is propaganda.  The iron core has shifted the magnetic pole before, and it is likely doing so right now.

These are two different things, and the corporate media is, and has been doing it's damnedest to conflate the two and confuse people about how planeto-physical processes work, so they can pull the wool over uneducated simpletons.


CO2 and Greenhouses gases certainly cannot affect the iron rich, magnetic molten core of the planet, OR ANY planetary body which shifts the magnetic poles of the field of the planet.



DO YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE MAN'S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING AN UPTICK IN EARTHQUAKE AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITY?

SERIOUSLY?  DO YOU THINK WE ARE THAT DUMB?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



The first link goes to the WAYBACK Machine, with THIS URL used to find that 1998 chart: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/1998.fig3.GIF

The second link IS from NASA themselves, here is the entire URL for the 2019 chart: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/U.S._Temperature/graph.png

You are so bereft in critical thinking skills that you didn't pay attention to the URL's.

I correctly stated it was THEIR own links in post 418, and you disputed the obvious evidence I gave you.



That is really dumb.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Not much point in telling him.  He seems to have given up on even pretending to use something like evidence...now he has gone into logical fallacy mode...appeal to authority as if citing consensus among a bunch of natural born skeptics were evidence of anything more than an unfortunate case of group think... 

He thinks that the political heads of scientific societies speak for the membership and that the working scientists agree with the political head's statements on climate change.   

Same old mode they all go into when their feeble attempts at evidence inevitably get shot down.


----------



## jillian (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


No “subscribes” to science. There are only morons who choose to ignore the science. 

Oops.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2019)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


Awww....Looks like the benzodiazepines aren't working.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.


She has no point....Being a bitter, pissed off old hag will do that to ya.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 16, 2019)

Oddball said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that statement made sense in your head when you thought of it, but I am afraid that I miss your point.
> ...



Liberals tend to be a miserable humorless lot aren't they?


----------



## Flopper (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....


And there won't be.  AGW deniers like most conspiracy theorist rely on false clams, half truths, misinterpretation, and mistakes made by researchers years ago.  Instead of doing real research climate change denier try to discredit those that do.  Often their cut and paste in threads is research and articles done 10, 20 or even 30 years ago which has been superseded by other more accurate and generally better research.  There are still many internet sites, publications, and authors that make good money producing anti-AGW material.

Like most conspiracy theorist, AGW deniers are not concerned that for their contentions to be correct would requires a great worldwide conspiracy of not just climate scientists but thousands of scientist in other fields such as*, geology, paleontology, glaciology, marine biology, etc.*  And of course dozens of government research organizations such NASA, and NOAA all of which have to be a party of this great conspiracy. The conspiracy much include research funding groups such the National Academy of Science, Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nations, and dozens of other international agencies funding research.

Al Gore had one thing right about climate change, it is a very inconvenient Truth.  Putting the planet on the right track to stop climate change requires huge expenditures and worldwide cooperation, something that has never occurred.  IMHO, it's not going to happen. People will continue to have lingering doubts regardless of what scientist say.  The world is not going make the sacrifices needed, until the truth is so obvious that it can no longer be ignored.  Hopefully it will not be too late.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Left leaning people have all the humor and with that great comedians and shows. 

What has the right been but milk toast boring ass shitholes.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Since we are discussing a global average chance in sea level over just a 14 year period, (1992 to 2016) I don't see how an glacial isostatistic adjustment would make that much different over that time period.  Over a hundred years, yes but not 14 years.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers.  Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.  It may first appear in scientific journals or it may be introduced in a society of peers.  Endorsement by a society of a theory as explanation of a phenomena general takes years.  In at least one case it took several centuries.  Other scientist in the field with hypnosis's will submit papers and often original research, sometime backing up the theory and sometime opposing it.  Most major theories are met with skepticism by other scientist anxious to make their mark.   Most theories die on the vine but often spur on other scientist to submit similar or opposing theories.

My major point is scientific theories are not popularity contest conducted by the media.  They are the result of endorsement by scientists within the field that offer supporting evidence or criticisms and changes.

In regard to AGW, there is not one theory that explains all the phenomena associated with global warming but many, some are sea level studies, other are glacial ice melts, others are biological studies such dying coral, decline of polar bears, etc.

However the granddaddy is The greenhouse effect first proposed by  Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote, later expanded upon by John Tyndall, investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and the hypothesis was reported in the popular press as early as 1912.  The scientific description of global warming was further developed in the 1930s through the 1960s by Guy Stewart Callendar. An influential 1979 National Academy of Sciences study headed by Jule Charney followed Broecker in using _global warming_ to refer to rising surface temperatures, while describing the wider effects of increased CO2
as _climate change_. Many studies were later presented that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect, some in the laboratory and some in the atmosphere.  By 2010, essential all major Scientific Academies and dozens of scientific societies accepted the fact that climate is changing and man is the cause or at least a major reason for the change. 

What is commonly referred to as AGW theory was first proposed almost 200 years ago but it took 185 years of research and observation before it was widely accepted by the scientific community.

Consensus of the scientific community is essential in acceptance of a scientific theory. 
Global warming - Wikipedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 16, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Still can't find that question?
It's a shame, it must have been a doozy to get 100% agreement, eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 17, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Cook and SKS are liars and frauds.. When you create false personas with false credentials to peer review your own work in an effort to give it credibility your a deceiver and a liar. I wouldn't give Cook the time of day to put up his propaganda.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 17, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....


Not one scientific organization will put it to a vote of their constituents because just like APS their crowd attacked them for their purely political BS that has no basis in science.  All your societies have are political statements by the very few at the top who are political whores..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I think she forgot to take her psyc meds...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 17, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



SSDD has ripped your bull shit apart. Its funny how you project your own failure...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Still not ONE scientific organization cited by any denier here....
> ...



Keep flopping around like a dead fish there flopper...  You have nothing but broken modeling to claim as proof and they have NO PREDICTIVE POWER... Keep whining there loser..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I wouldn't expect you to...but the fact is that tidal gages across the globe don't agree with the adjustment.  Tidal gages say that sea level continues to rise at about 3mm per year on average and is actually dropping in some locations.  The adjustments are the product of models...and don't reflect reality.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers.  Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.



And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong.  Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist?  They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in.   And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.  

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink.  At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of  infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.   If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else.  Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced.  In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures.  Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way.  Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error...  That is not science...that is pseudoscience


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It never ceases to surprise me at what constitutes a win for them...he has had every one of his attempts at providing science to support his beliefs torn down, so he switches to politics and logical fallacy and finds what he perceives as scientific proof, and victory there...Climate science was absolutely correct when they termed people like that as useful idiots....people who would ignore the actual evidence or lack thereof and continue to argue and lie to any degree necessary. the party line based on nothing more than their political leanings.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


wow!!!!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Define "wow!!!!".


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


1. expressing astonishment


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers.  Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.
> ...


If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?


----------



## Flash (Jul 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.




Not only is there no proof that man made sources of CO2 has contributed to global climate change but there is no credible evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

In fact there has been times when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere was more than 10 times what it is now and the earth was much cooler.  There have also been times when the earth was warmer and the CO2 levels lower.  Even in recent times.  There is substantial and credible evidence that CO2 emissions lags temperature increases.  

There is a theory that it should be a greenhouse gas and a very weak correlation between the rise of CO2 emissions and possibly an increase in post glacial warming but that is bogus science.  Theories have to be proven and correlations validated and that just hasn't happen with this scam.  Not by a long shot.

If there was AGW then the principle scientists would not have to fabricate data like they have been caught doing many times.  Also, there prediction would come true, which they never do.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets.  Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater.  Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.
Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then?  you mentioned it, not me.  come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there.  Melting of floating ice.  hmmmmm.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper silly words,

"If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence."

This a classic example of warmist hyperbole, one who tries hard to conjure up unlikely or impossible scenarios to promote a lie.

Arctic Ice is already in the water, negligible to zero sea level effect if it all melted.

People already live in areas of the Southwest, having no problem coping with 115 Degree highs every summer. Heck the average high in Phoenix AZ in July is 104 degrees F.  

Sea levels rose around 400 feet higher in just a few thousand years, a heck of lot faster rate than now. Doggerland, where people used to live on gets covered so did the Bering's Straight and more.

Where I live it gets over 100 degrees F about 15 times summer, no big deal, while in France they die like flies...…., because they don't prepare for the occasional heat waves that comes along.

You need to stop making absurd hyperbole statements as they betray your science illiteracy very well.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

Flash said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...


The greenhouse effect was demonstrated more 150 years ago.  In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation reflected back into atmosphere from the earth. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming.  NASA and NOAA become involve in late 1980's and have producing tons of data confirming global temperature rises and sea level increases.
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Please explain what the fuck a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I can't take you serious dude, you think if the arctic melted it would raise sea levels.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


you aren't the brightest bulb I see.  you said floating melting ice.  now does floating ice melting raise water levels.  it was a test to see how stupid you really are.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Flopper silly words,
> 
> "If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence."
> 
> ...


As I said, the two factors which cause the global rise in sea level are increasing temperature of the oceans and melting freshwater glaciers.

Melting sea ice is just an indication of the rising ocean temperatures. Icebergs and frozen seawater *do not cause sea* levels to rise.  Hopefully you understand that or I'm wasting time in this discussions.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Then I guess it means nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


so you won't answer what happens to water levels when floating ice melts?  hmmmmm, I guess that's the smart thing to do since you don't know the answer.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


A melting ice cube in a glass of water has nothing to do with AGW nor is it analogous to changes ocean level.

The water level remains the same when the ice cube melts. A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And can you provide any real evidence that what we are seeing is anything other than natural variability?  Any observed, measured, quantifiable evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> The greenhouse effect was demonstrated more 150 years ago.



Actually, it wasn't, but I suppose you can't be blamed for believing the fiction...It was demonstrated with a glass greenhouse...professor Woods soon after did the experiment using panes of salt  which are transparent to IR and demonstrated that the hypothesized greenhouse effect was false.



Flopper said:


> In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation reflected back into atmosphere from the earth.



The improvements were adding cooling to the instruments so that they were cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere..  They were not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth which would have been a violation of the second law of thermodynamics...they were measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an uncooled instrument right next to the cooled one and it will not be reading any discrete wavelengths of energy from anything that is cooler than itself.



Flopper said:


> At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation.



Actually, it was hypothesized...nothing more...and eventually computer models demonstrated it although it has never been actually measured out here in the real world...Like I said...there is not one single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.

There is, however, about a million hours of experiment, development, testing, and commercial and residential application by the infrared heating industry that prove pretty convincingly that infrared radiation does not, can not, and never has warmed the air.  Leave it to engineers to not believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and get to work at actually seeing how things are in the real world.



Flopper said:


> In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming.
> 
> And then NASA launched the OCO-2 satellite and rendered all those land based measurements claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere false...CO2 is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> As I said, the two factors which cause the global rise in sea level are increasing temperature of the oceans and melting freshwater glaciers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


As I said, you guys could be witnessing world wide coastal flooding, high global temperatures, and complete disappearance of arctic ice  all evidence of global warming and predicted by scientist and you would still be denying AGW.  I know, it happen 10 million years ago, so it's a natural event or it's an act of God.

I've wasted enough time on this thread.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yep..if you can't learn anything, then it is indeed a waste of time...warming, melting ice, flooding, whatever you care to mention is only evidence of warming, melting ice, flooding and whatever...it isn't evidence of what caused it.....simply assuming that it is us, is political, not scientific .. 

And actually, it happened a lot less than 10 million years ago...most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age have seen very nearly or completely ice free summers...

You keep wanting to ignore the fact that there is a hell of a lot more ice now than there has been at any time during the past 10,000 years except for the period of the little ice age...


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


So water levels would go down, not up, when the ice melts. Great, I always wanted to see Atlantis.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jul 17, 2019)

Flopper said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Dude nobody disputes that climate changes over the course of time. We only dispute how much of it is our fault.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

Slyhunter said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well, that's not really true.  The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.  He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is.  And he denies the validity of modern measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  So I'm going to deny and refuse believe that he has any knowledge of climate science beyond the 3rd grade level and all this nitwit knows how to do is cut and paste garbage off the internet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.


Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.
> ...



You're equally as stupid as the other one.  CO2 does not "warm the air".  The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air.  CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Well, that's not really true.  The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.



You really don't comprehend very well do you?  As I have said, there is an effect...you can even call it a greenhouse effect if you like, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.



Cosmos said:


> He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is.[/uote]
> 
> Really?  You can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...so how exactly is it obvious.  You ran away before we actually started discussing the science so you wouldn't have your beliefs challenged.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's not really true.  The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.
> ...



You're an idiot.  You're not here to discuss science that you don't understand.  You're here to spread bullshit and propaganda.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out?  There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



So you say...but then clearly you have proven yourself to be a liar so everything you say is suspect..


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You're an imbecile.  A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



 Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists  swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and* he misused the Kridging process,* which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 18, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



It's a difficult question to analyze.  Sherwood is not alone.

 American Geophysical Union


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Hilarious....a "HOT SPOT" that can't be measured with a thermometer.  What sort of hot spot can only be measured with an anemometer? Sounds more like a windy spot to me.. How gullible are you?

Let me guess..I bet you actually believe that the observer makes the reality, and that 96% of the universe is invisible too...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 18, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



From your paper...

Clip:  
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that?  How gullible did you say you were again?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 19, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions.  Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. *Radiant heat does not heat air *– which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, _you_ will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Reality vs Models....reality wins every time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial.  That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect.  How gullible do you have to be to think that?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



No...it is neither unsettled, nor controversial...it is absent.  So says over a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and all of the satellite data.   The only thing controversial is how the frauds who tried to claim a hot spot existed in wind retain their position within the scientific community.  And of course, it serves to invalidate the greenhouse effect.

Again...in real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to either have a hypothesis tossed out to begin work on a more workable hypothesis, or have that hypothesis modified in an effort to avoid future predictive failures.  In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are ok so long as the funding continues.

Both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have both literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with predictive failures...and the only modification that has been made to either hypothesis is a steady increase of the margin of error.....so that as their predictions deviate further and further from reality, they can make the claim that they are still within the margin of error.  Note how the margin of error continues to get larger and larger as the graph moves into the future.

If this were real science, by now both the hypotheses would have been tossed out and work would have begun long ago on hypotheses that didn't litter the landscape with predictive failures...funding has continued, and in fact increased, so being pseudoscience, there is no need to adjust the actual hypothesis...all they need to do is keep increasing the margin of error so that no matter how badly they get at reflecting observations, they can still be claimed to be within the "margin of error?    At present, the margin of error is larger than the actual amount of warming that has been observed.  Pseudoscience masquerading as science..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron.  And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 19, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


 NO!  This question has been settled by empirical experiment and evidence.





Your modeling fails without exception. The reality is no hot spot exists and that cooling of that region is caused by increased convection as indicated by the white region of colder air where thunderstorms and micro cells remove the heat faster than it can be received. The exact opposite reaction than that supposed by the AGW hypothesis.

The AGW hypothesis is not only wrong it can not predict anything and the empirical evidence is proving the exact opposite is happening. Hmmmmm.. I recall producing a paper on the Paradoxical Presentation of the earths climatic systems.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I gave you an estimated equivalency...  I'm not going to debate relative physics (QM) with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I gave you an equivalency...*

I don't want an equivalency...I want the molar mass.

*I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.*

I'm happy for you, because you're not very good at it.

Maybe this link can help?

Molecular Weight Calculator (Molar Mass)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 19, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Its a whole lot more complicated than that..  First you need to know how much of this radiation is present and at what wavelengths.  Then you need to know the change rate of the BB or GB mass it is striking. At this point determining mass is a guess at best, as it is not quantifiable as an atoms mass is.

Again this is a hotly debated subject. One you disbelieve, so trying to explain it to you is a pointless endevour.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Its a whole lot more complicated than that.. First you need to know how much of this radiation is present and at what wavelengths.*

Great. 

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

What's the molar mass of UV photons?

What's the molar mass of X-ray photons?
​*Then you need to know the change rate of the BB or GB mass it is striking*​
The mass of a photon changes, based on its target? And the target's "change rate"?

Are you so jealous of SSDD's epicycles that you've decided to create your own?​​*Again this is a hotly debated subject.*​
What is there to debate? You said a photon has mass. Tell me how much mass.
Or link to someone who can tell me how much mass.​​*One you disbelieve*​
And you believe, so post your back up already. Dispel my disbelief.

Or spew more bullshit, like you always do.​


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Bullshit.  That's just garbage.  Show me something from NASA/NOAA that says global warming is invalid because there's not "hotspot".


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Are you under the impression that NASA/NOAA are in charge of the AGW hypothesis?

And again, you don't seem to be able to grasp the topic...No one is disputing that the earth has been warming...after all, it is still exiting the little ice age...the dispute is whether we are causing it...and at this point, even if the greenhouse hypothesis  is worth looking at since it has produced so many predictive failures.

The greenhouse hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot, and a decrease in outgoing long wave radiation...these two things were supposed to validate the fact that additional CO2 caused warming...both failed..and in fact, reality shows us that exactly the opposite is happening.  The tropospheric hot spot, and decrease in outgoing long wave radiation due to the "trapping" of heat which is supposed to be causing the hot spot was supposed to be the fingerprint of greenhouse warming...it isn't there...something else caused the warming...and one doesn't have to look far to see what.

Unfortunately you can't even discuss the basics of the hypothetical greenhouse effect, so it isn't even possible to describe to you what is actually happening and why a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 19, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Are you under the impression that NASA/NOAA are in charge of the AGW hypothesis?



I think they're a more reliable source than some dipshit on the internet that refuses to believe greenhouse effect is even possible.  I think the next paper you need to link is one that proves you're not a total idiot.  Your silly-ass denier papers don't prove a thing.

_Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).


Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"*1* — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."_


----------



## otto105 (Jul 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Source of graphs and year produced.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 19, 2019)

*Reality Check Time*

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 19, 2019)

otto105 said:


> *Reality Check Time*
> 
> Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.



Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 19, 2019)

otto105 said:


> *Reality Check Time*
> 
> Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.



repeating a logical fallacy is not going to get you any closer to supporting the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2019)

otto105 said:


> *Reality Check Time*
> 
> Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.


Right back to an appeal to authority in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary... Do you fools ever get tired of running in circles?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> I think they're a more reliable source than some dipshit on the internet that refuses to believe greenhouse effect is even possible.  I think the next paper you need to link is one that proves you're not a total idiot.  Your silly-ass denier papers don't prove a thing.



Why would you think that?  They have been caught tampering with data...Hundreds of billion dollars of funding depends on them maintaining the narrative, and literally thousands of jobs and careers.  What exactly makes them a reliable source?  Is data tampering a rational scientific tactic in your mind?

_


Cosmos said:



Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Click to expand...


More claims with no actual evidence to back them up.  What did you say makes them a reliable source?  



Cosmos said:



			Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).
		
Click to expand...


Yeah...we have been through that as well.  If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing.    Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
_
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature  object to a higher temperature object.

Tell me, what do you think that means in the context of a claim that either heat, or energy is moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth?  Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth?  Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.   You keep ignoring these critical questions and going right back to the same old boilerplate talking points that these questions are asking about.

No tropospheric hot spot, and the energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicts.  Failed predictions.  Once again, in real science, a single failed prediction is enough to have a hypothesis tossed out, or at the very least have it modified in order to avoid future predictive failures...In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are ok so long as funding continues.

Now...aside from the whole business regarding the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm, lets look at what is actually happening with energy in the atmosphere.  The claim is that 90% of the energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gasses is then radiated back to the surface is a bold faced lie.  Even if every greenhouse gas molecule that absorbs a photon were able to actually emit that energy in the form of a photon, and even if they could emit that energy back to the warmer surface of the earth, they would be emitting that energy in random directions...that being the case, even if they could radiate energy back to the warmer surface of the earth, if they were radiating in random directions, only about 30% of the radiation would be aimed towards the surface...the rest would be going off in other random directions.

That whole scenario, and the radiative greenhouse effect itself depends on greenhouse gas molecules absorbing energy radiated by the surface of the earth and then emitting photons most of which go back to the surface of the earth.  Lets take a look at how energy actually moves through the atmosphere as opposed to the flawed model which experiences predictive failure after predictive failure.

Here is an email reply from Dr. William Happer, a top shelf physicist, recognized by the world to be at the top of his profession,  to someone who attended one of his lectures and had some questions regarding energy movement in the atmosphere...   The questions are in black and Dr. Happer's responses/comments are in blue.  I will add an underscore to parts that I believe are particularly important to this conversation.

From: *William Happer* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will


*From:*David Burton
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
*To:* William Happer
*Subject:* Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly?    [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too?     [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)?  [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True?    [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education






Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere?   [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.    [YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct?     [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me!     [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

So, if only one CO2 molecule per billion that absorbs a photon of energy radiating from the surface actually gets to emit a photon,  what are the ramifications of that fact to the hypothesis which states that 90% of the energy absorbed by CO2 gets radiated back to the surface of the earth...never mind the second law of themodynamics which states that it can't happen anyway?


_


Cosmos said:



			Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"*1* — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
		
Click to expand...


And yet, there has never been a single paper published in which the warming due to our activities and greenhouse gas production has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.  You would think that in order to attribute an effect and a cause like that, at least one paper would have been published which measured, and quantified the effect and actually blamed it on greenhouse gasses wouldn't you?  I mean, if we were talking about real sceince instead of pseudoscience that is. 

And then there is the fact that there is no observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere while there is an overwhelming body of experimental, developmental, observational, and practical evidence from the infrared heating industry which demonstrates that infrared radiation does not warm t



Cosmos said:



			Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."
		
Click to expand...


So, if these "certain gasses" are blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere, where is the tropospheric hot spot?  You keep repeating this claim which is central to the greenhouse hypothesis...which is also a predictive failure.  If these "certain gasses" were in fact, blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere, the inevitable result would be a tropospheric hot spot...it isn't there...a million + radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and a host of satellites have failed to detect anything like a tropospheric hot spot.  And in order for a tropospheric hot spot to exist, it would mean that there would be a reduction in the amount of energy escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere...satellite measurement tells us that the amount of energy that is escaping the atmosphere is increasing...not decreasing as the greenhouse hypothesis predicts...yet another blatant predictive failure of the hypothesis..and as we know, even a single predictive failure, in real science, is enough to have a hypothesis tossed out and have work begin on a new hypothesis, or at the very least, cause the hypothesis to be modified in an effort to avoid future predictive failures...we also know that in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are OK so long as the funding continues.

How about you stop repeating obviously failed predictions made by the greenhouse hypothesis and start discussing why the failures keep occurring...and why the hypothesis doesn't get modified in an attempt to prevent future predictive failures._


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Source of graphs and year produced.



The graph showing the modeled tropospheric hot spot is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.

The second graph is produced by the US Climate Change Science Program and shows actual observations as opposed to the predictions of the models.  If that hotspot existed, it would require less energy escaping from the top of the atmosphere..NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and  has been for a good long time.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > *Reality Check Time*
> ...



Scientific organizations tend not to publish scientific papers...papers are published by scientists who tend to belong to scientific organizations...and if you would like to see some papers on alternatives to the greenhouse hypothesis...papers which, by the way, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here, and only then if you apply an entirely ad hoc (made up) fudge factor, I will be glad to provide you with some.  Although I am pretty sure that you won't bother to read them, and even if you did, you will reject the information they provide because of your political leanings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Clip: _ This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.
_
New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Clip: _ A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate._


The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative

Clip:  _In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novelmeasurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions formitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorptionof incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influencedby human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.
_
Holmes, 2017

Clip: 
_Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.

This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate.  It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.

Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.

In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.
_

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

Clip: 
_In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed._



_
_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> .NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.


It also parallels the solar SWIR increase, indicating there is nothing slowing increased solar radiation from escaping as the AGW premise hypothesizes. (increase is directly proportional to BB release at TOA)


----------



## SSDD (Jul 20, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.
> ...



Of course as the solar cycle deepens into minimum, both the energy coming in and the energy going out could be expected to decrease.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > *Reality Check Time*
> ...


Still looking for the molar mass? Or any backup? At all? Durr


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



So the answer to the question is still no.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > *Reality Check Time*
> ...




So NO scientific organization is willing to stand behind "massive empirical evidence" and declare global warming a hoax.

What? They don't risk their creditably for you deniers.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > *Reality Check Time*
> ...



So, no scientific organization is willing to risk their credibility for deniers?

Huh....


----------



## otto105 (Jul 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Source of graphs and year produced.
> ...




So you (denier website) picked a modeled graph from one of the IPCC Reports (year not mentioned) and compared that to actual observed graph....for what reason?


So, if the weather person says that it's going to 85 tomorrow and it only turns out to be 81 your going to use that to deny meteorology?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



What is it like to come to a thread and have nothing to contribute other than a weak logical fallacy?  If you want to talk about your faith, there is a religion room on this board isn't there?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Easy....funding and political power.  Like all politicians, their position is rarely about reality.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Again...if faith is what you want to talk about, there are more appropriate places than on a thread where actual science is being discussed...Now, if you can provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence from any of those organizations you have so much faith in that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means, lets see it.

Or of you can find a single paper published by any of the scientists in any of those organizations in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our CO2 production has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses, by all means, lets see it.

If you want to say that you trust these people because you have so little grasp of the science, that you simply must put your faith in someone, again, there is a religion room for that...it certainly has no bearing on science..


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> 
> If you have it....lets see it.  If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.


You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance.  The current warming trend began 20000 years ago


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> So you (denier website) picked a modeled graph from one of the IPCC Reports (year not mentioned) and compared that to actual observed graph....for what reason?



The models still predict a hot spot which is why alarmist scientists went so far as to claim that there is a hot spot, but it just can't be measured by a million thermometers...it can only be measured by a device that measures wind speed..

The reason is obvious to anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of science....which you have demonstrated that you do not.  After all, you offered up single graphs and claimed that they showed no adjustments...as if you could detect adjustments without something to compare them to.

compare - v - to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similaritie sand differences

By showing the hot spot predicted by climate models, and by showing the absence of a hot spot as verified by observation of a million + radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and the satellite observation record, we are able to see the abject failure of the climate models...we are able to see that they experienced a major predictive failure...and then by look ing at the satellite measurements of energy escaping from the top of the troposphere, we can see that there can be no hot spot as predicted by climate science because the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...yet another prediction of climate science that has failed.

I am sure that you would be satisfied, and convinced by the single graph produced by models predicting an upper tropospheric hot spot....you have faith after all, and simply can't imagine that the people whom you put your faith in would let you down.




otto105 said:


> So, if the weather person says that it's going to 85 tomorrow and it only turns out to be 81 your going to use that to deny meteorology?



Why is it not surprising that you don't know the difference between weather and climate...and even meteorologists freely admit that the system is far to chaotic for any sort of accurate prediction beyond a few hours...the purpose of 24 hour weather reports is to be able to constantly change the predictions, and even then, they are often wrong....meteorology makes no bones about the fact that their models simply aren't accurate more than a few hours out...climate science, on the other hand, is working within the same system as meteorologists, and claim that they can predict what is going to happen in 100 years...and you believe them...how gullible are you?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.

Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?

Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother

As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
> ...



Actually, 1970 is relevant.  That's about the time Nixon opened up dialogue with China  (Feb 1972).  And subsequently, China became the world's largest and most egregious air polluter.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> _Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
> _
> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



I see.  So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You are a typical numbnut.  In your mind pollution is climate change, well it's not.  Pollution is pollution nothing more, and point in fact pollution was not responsible for either the glaciation of the earth or for that glaciation melting. Nothing will change the past or the truth


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > _Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
> ...


The greenhouse effect is a religious belief nothing more.

Glaciers began melting 20000 years ago so get used to it.  The pyramids werent even built yet.  But still you blame humans


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.



Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water.  That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it.  Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.

This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted.  What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was?  We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.








Frannie said:


> Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
> 
> None at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > _Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
> ...



Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
> ...


The fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago.  With no help from humans.

Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summer


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



Do you read anything?  Are you out of your f'ing mind...I am one of the biggest skeptics f AGW on this forum...and when the hell did I ever claim that the glaciers didn't start melting 20,000 years ago...if you were bright enough to actually read the graph I just provided to you, you would see that it shows that the glaciers started melting about 20,000 years ago...

If you aren't bright enough, or interested enough to actually look at the data and make sense of it, you are no better than wackos like cosmos who bases his opinion not on science but his politics...a skeptic who doesn't grasp the sceince is just another believer....you just believe something different.  

I am skeptical because the science demands that I be...my position isn't based on any sort of belief...get a clue...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?  

And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Again glaciers began melting 20000 years ago.  My claim backed by science

Seems to bother u


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


1970 is irrelevant why even go there?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I see he has the boilerplate


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted.  Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.

Lol u r funnypoo


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.

PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



I know about the ice, stupid.  Try not to wet your pants.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Doesn't bother me at all...in fact the graph I provided for you is some of the science that proves that the ice started melting about 20,000 years ago and you might have recognized that fact if you weren't such an idiot...


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Angry that the worlds glaciers melted beginning 20000 years ago are we


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > _Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
> ...


Bwhaaaaaaaaaa...

And the predictive ability of your model is what?  Zero...  indicating those who built your model do not understand the system they tried to model. IE; Predictive failure


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Still trying to con yourself....  keep up you might succeed one day


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Hey no picking on my idiot without permission.

Lol

Permission granted


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...








*Laurentide Ice Sheet*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Laurentide ice sheet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The *Laurentide Ice Sheet* was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square kilometers, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during the Quaternary glacial epochs, from 2.588 ± 0.005 million years ago to the present.[1]

The last advance covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day and, among other geomorphological effects, gouged out the five Great Lakes and the hosts of smaller lakes of the Canadian Shield. These lakes extend from the eastern Northwest Territories, through most of northern Canada, and the upper Midwestern United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) to the Finger Lakes, through Lake Champlain and Lake George areas of New York, across the northern Appalachians into and through all of New England and Nova Scotia.

At times, the ice sheet's southern margin included the present-day sites of northeastern coastal towns and cities such as Boston and New York City and Great Lakes coastal cities and towns as far south as Chicago and St. Louis, Missouri, and then followed the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude mid-continent.[2]


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Check frannie out...she is as nutty as cosmos...she thinks I am an AGW believer...


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


They do not acknowledge that the ice age both grew and ended without fossil fuel emissions.

Which is why they never look past 1000 years back


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


What in the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



I realize you're nothing but a sniveling little rat begging for attention here.  You should understand from my graphs that is is entirely possible for shorter term climate trends to exist on top of the long term trend.  Have we already reached the end of the inter-glacial period?  Probably not.  That does not preclude the existence of a comparatively short term and minor AGW trend that will probably all be over in the next 50 years anyway.  And when it is over, the inter-glacial warming will continue.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Who is "they" you bloviating idiot?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



We understand this.. We also understand that the rates of change in CO2 and temperature far exceed current day changes.  Another reason they refuse to look beyond the end of their 35 year long (warming by natural causes) noses..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


She is one confused person...  She cant see you agreeing with most of her assessment..


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Such anger from the sucker

Yo its snowing in the summer in Colorado

So much for al gore saying snow will be a rare event

He he he


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Actually I bought apple Google and Raytheon

Play on con children


----------



## justoffal (Jul 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> 
> I.E., the global scientific community. But you dont ply your nonsense with them, necause you qould get laughed out of the room.  By the way, they are the ones who have the evidence.



Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY. 

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > *Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....*
> ...


Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Correlation does NOT equal causation.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Did you watch 60-minutes last night?  Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe. 

So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitble natural events disasters.  we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.

That is the gist of the link above.  Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.


A beleif not supported by empirical evidence.


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



It might though.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Actually moron you could create that same graph but instead plug in the rise of cell phones or computers.  You are too ignorant to see the corellations


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



LOL.  You really are dumb.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


No It doesn't..

The last fifty years we have seen a input increase from the sun of 0.5w/m^2 globally.
The last fifty years clouds diminished by 0.6%. Allowing further energy to reach earths surface.

With just those two more likely scenarios your whole premise goes out the window.  And now we see cloud cover increasing and solar output decreasing..  and the Cooling has already started..


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


So that is why Apple pays me taxable dividends

Thanks


----------



## Cosmos (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Try that again without contradicting yourself in the same post.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



The point went right over your head...



Both of those events correlate with the warming and both can be provably linked with the warming of the earth.  Your point is pure conjecture with out a basis or link..


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.
> ...




It's supported by ALL the empirical evidence.

Deniers have "beleifs".


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe.
> ...



You're nuts.  However I reserved in my comments that fools like you would post what you did.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


There is no evidence of agw


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Provide the evidence.  As of today nothing approaching evidence exists, it is all modeling that has no predictive powers.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Did you watch 60-minutes last night? Probably not, so for the not so willfully ignorant, take a gander at this link:*

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes

*Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe. *

*So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's disasters. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.*

*That is the gist of the link above. Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.



*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


LOL

I have provided pages of evidence and others have provided paper after paper with links to evidence and to date you have provided.........  Nothing but propaganda.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Do you believe 60 minutes is real


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



*YOUR HAVE NOW PROVED YOURSELF TO BE TOO STUPID TO DEAL WITH.  *


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


She asked you a legitimate question.  Is 60 Min CREDIBLE as a source?  Are their sources Credible?


And by the way ...  Didn't the dutch build windmills to pump out water in the 1700's?  This problem has been ongoing even before evil oil...


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You believe everything on TV and this makes me stupid in your mind.

PS who pays you dividends


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



*No, I don't believe everything on TV, and you have proved to be too stupid to even write a proper Straw Man.*


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


It's amazing how intellectually proficient the big red font makes you seem......

Yawn


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You're as stupid as Frannie, and neither one of you read my post, and if you did you didn't comprehend the message.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You like big red font because you believe that is gets you noticed by the 4 people here.

It's still snowing in colorado


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:

*Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe. *

*So instead of making the climate a political issue, maybe the Congress ought to spend the money to protect people and property from inevitable natural event's & disasters**. we can't prevent super storms, earthquakes' but we can mitigate deaths and injuries, protect property and maybe store water for future droughts.*

That is the gist of the link above.* Watch it, tell your congress critter to get of his/her ass in gear and work together to protect the people and property from what may happen to you in the future.*


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:
> 
> *Then consider this entire argument on AGW should be tabled; we will suffer floods, droughts and super storms in the future, as most of us so believe. *
> 
> ...


Yea floods droughts hurricanes and down syndrome would all stop if I believed you

Take your pills


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Those references are very unreliable. They are known for publishing fake science.

Your first reference is from Sage Publishing
_As part of the submission process you will be asked to provide the names of 2 peers who could be called upon to review your manuscript._​You get to choose the reviewers!! They should be anonymous. The corresponding author, Hans Schreuder is from Principia-Scientific International. That organization has published credence to clear conspiracy theories such as the Pentagon weaponizing Lyme Disease ticks, fake moon landing, anti-vaccination, etc.

Your second and third references are from OMICS International.
Wiki: It has come under attack by numerous academics and the United States government over the validity of the peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of its fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission.

Your fourth references is from Science Publishing Group
Wiki: Two test articles that were purposefully  nonsense were accepted for publication.

These references are clearly substandard to say the least.

.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...



BTW you didn't watch the segment, and thus you're ignorant on the issue.  Then you damn the segment  and 60 minutes because you are brainwashed that they and the entire MSM is fake.  No wonder so many of your kind continue to post stupid comments.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Just for Frannie and Billy_Bob:
> ...



NO!  FLOODS, DROUGHTS AND OTHER NATURAL DISORDERS WILL BE WITH US FOREVER.  SO ONCE AGAIN YOUR STRAW MAN FAILS

GO STALK SOMEONE ELSE.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Nope because aoc your hero says the earth blows up in 11 years....... no more floods then


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.


You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.



SSDD said:


> and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm


Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before. 

.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.
> ...


What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago

Yea we know great grandpa's Ford


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


You mean you want me to let you win


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




There is no evidence of you either.

You can only believe what you touch or feel.... and that can also to be denied.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago
> 
> Yea we know great grandpa's Ford


The sun heats the earth. 

.


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


The evidence is that Glaciers covered America, then melted all without Exxons jets help.

Accept this or die being ignorant


----------



## Frannie (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago
> ...


The Sun was heating the Earth when the glaciers formed as well.

Simple mistake, made by simpletons


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




Are you really trying to make the argument that because some ice melted 20,000 years ago that explains what is happening today?

BTW Exxon produces refined petroleum products not jets. Additionally, their own research on burning their products confirms AGW, not your ice cube theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Got any actual physical evidence to support the claim...or are you just saying that man made global warming is indistinguishable from natural global warming...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> The Sun was heating the Earth when the glaciers formed as well.


You are implying that he earth should maintain the same temperature for millennia? Climate has complex forcings and has been changing for millennia. 

.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?

Additionally, still looking for a scientific organization willing to sell their souls to the alter of denial.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Such anger from the sucker



I have little patience with stupidity...had you read any of my posts, you would see that I am skeptical of the entire man made global warming scan...



Frannie said:


> Yo its snowing in the summer in Colorado



So what?  You seem to think that a snowfall in colorado, at high elevations in the summer means something.  What exactly do you think it means?



Frannie said:


> So much for al gore saying snow will be a rare event



Gore is, and always has been an idiot?  What's your point?



Frannie said:


> He he he



Do you still have no idea that you are talking to one of the biggest skeptics on the board?  Any idea at all?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...



Correlation in no way infers causation....The past 2 decades have seen a grand increase in chinese prosperity, and atmospheric CO2...but the temperature has been on hold...there has been no warming for the past 2 decades beyond the tiny fractions of a degree that climate science has been able to torture the data into saying via massive homogenization, infilling, and plain old data tampering.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




You should probably get out of your 1998 denier bubble mindset.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Not a rational basis for asking for trillions of dollars...not nearly good enough...not even enough to ask for 50 dollars...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Cosmos said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



No contradiction there...only reality not behaving as climate models predict...what contradiction do you think you see?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




And yet, you guys don't seem to be able to provide any empirical evidence to support your claims...look back though the thread...all you have done is provide pretty convincing evidence that you have no idea of what empirical evidence might look like.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Those references are very unreliable. They are known for publishing fake science.



Says the king of fake science...got any specific complaints about the work....or just a string of logical fallacies?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




I have presented all the information and have the backing of every scientific organization to support AGW.

What do you have?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.



Perhaps in your made up version...climate science, however says that the atmosphere radiates energy down to the surface of the earth and warms it up resulting in the surface radiating more energy than it would from solar input alone...



SSDD said:


> and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm


Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before.[/quote]

That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..you have a made up version of the greenhouse effect to go with your made up interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics...which apparently allows energy and heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm...same old tedious bullshit...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > What melted 99 percent of earth glaciation 20000 years ago
> ...




And according to climate science, so does radiation from the atmosphere...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?



The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...



otto105 said:


> Additionally, still looking for a scientific organization willing to sell their souls to the alter of denial.



That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...

































































































































Not much


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Sorry guy...but the pause is real...every attempt from climate sceince to prove it isn't real has ended in disaster...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?
> ...




What pause are you referring too?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



No you haven't... you provided some evidence that the climate is changing (no dispute there) and then a big assed assumption that man was the cause was tacked on to the evidence of change...that is not evidence of what caused the change...not even close...it is evidence that you wouldn't know what empirical evidence was if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...
> 
> 
> Not much



Just to point out what a liar you are...I will provide links to the posts where I have provided evidence to support my position in this thread....

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

See a trend developing here?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

See the trend yet?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

How about now?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22731109/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22747793/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22752767/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22752846/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/22765414/


Now compare that to the amount of actual science which you posted...which is zero...The bulk of mine was peer reviewed...I don't  think you even posted a single published paper...  Maybe you meant to say that big blank space is the amount of science that I posted which you actually understood...

Why tell a big assed lie like that when it is so easy to prove that you lied?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



You really are out of it aren't you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.
> ...





> That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..you have a made up version of the greenhouse effect to go with your made up interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics...which apparently allows energy and heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm...same old tedious bullshit...



*That's not what the second law of thermodynamics says..*

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.

And you have no source, none at all, that agrees with your claim that photons cannot be emitted from a cool object toward a warmer object. Weird.

And no one agrees with your even more ridiculous claim that objects at equilibrium will cease all radiating.

Same old baloney. The only people who agree with your idiocy are your fans here who understand less of the science than you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



We have an apples and apes conflict. 

Do you deny we will not suffer from super storms, floods and earthquakes in the future?

Did I state human behavior created these natural events?

Do you want me to name some empirical evidence?  Katrina, Sandy (annual events in tornado alley; hurricanes on the south coast, earthquakes on the West Coast,and potential volcanic activity o the west coast and Hawaii, + a super volcano below Yellowstone).


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) tells us that were in a lul and nowhere near a historic high..

Real-Time Global Tropical Cyclone Activity


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...




1. That CO2 would continue rise.
2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.
3. World temperatures would continue to rise.
4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.

So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...
> ...




The only thread I see here is the fact that you can’t produce one scientific organization which supports your denial.


You have produced tons of meaningless junk science from dubious sources and presented them as your facts.


Sorry, not buying until you have a credible scientific organization to counter all the actual ones that I have presented.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.



What a doofus...

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue4/Version-3/O0904038289.pdf

clip:  

the second law of thermodynamics is defined to explicitly account for radiation thermodynamic effects.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And you have no source, none at all, that agrees with your claim that photons cannot be emitted from a cool object toward a warmer object. Weird.



So long as the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, what else could I possibly need?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And no one agrees with your even more ridiculous claim that objects at equilibrium will cease all radiating.



Again, I hold my position based on what the second law says...it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...who am I to disagree?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> We have an apples and apes conflict.
> 
> Do you deny we will not suffer from super storms, floods and earthquakes in the future?



Since there were super storms (if you want to use such a ridiculous term), floods and earthquakes in the past, there is no reason to suspect that they won't happen in the future...business as usual on planet earth.



Wry Catcher said:


> Did I state human behavior created these natural events?



AGW believers think so...climate science makes the unsupportable claim.



Wry Catcher said:


> Do you want me to name some empirical evidence?  Katrina, Sandy (annual events in tornado alley; hurricanes on the south coast, earthquakes on the West Coast,and potential volcanic activity o the west coast and Hawaii, + a super volcano below Yellowstone).



How is any of that physical evidence that the warming we have seen since 1970 is attributable to mankind and our production of CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> 1. That CO2 would continue rise.



Got any real evidence that we are responsible for the rise?  I provided plenty of peer reviewed science that says that we are not.  You think just because you say it that it must be true?



otto105 said:


> 2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.



The ice has been melting for 20,000 years...and right now, there is more ice in the world than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age.



otto105 said:


> 3. World temperatures would continue to rise.



The earth continues to warm out of the little ice age and it isn't even as warm as it was when the little ice age began...what would make you think that it would't get at least that warm again...or warmer since there have been far warmer periods in the past 10,000 years?



otto105 said:


> 4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.



That is due to population, and cost of labor, materials, and insurance and nothing to do with the weather events themselves.



otto105 said:


> So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.



Actually the truth is inconvenient to you..not me.  Everything you name is just business as usual on planet earth.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. That CO2 would continue rise.
> ...



Nothing in your post is either true or relevant.


Why is that?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




So post one that goes thru 2018.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> The only thread I see here is the fact that you can’t produce one scientific organization which supports your denial.



And for all those organizations who are lined up at the funding trough....you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you name a single published paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...

I would rather have evidence to support my position than a tired assed logical fallacy...tell me, if it isn't money that has the political heads of those organizations in line, what is it?  It certainly isn't evidence since you don't seem to be able to produce any.



otto105 said:


> You have produced tons of meaningless junk science from dubious sources and presented them as your facts.



Sorry guy...you are only describing yourself...only it wasn't tons you produced...it was mere ounces...and none of it was peer reviewed...



otto105 said:


> Sorry, not buying until you have a credible scientific organization to counter all the actual ones that I have presented.



Without actual evidence your logical fallacy is meaningless....if those organizations you worship are so right, by all means, lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence from any of them that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.
> ...



*the second law of thermodynamics is defined to explicitly account for radiation thermodynamic effects.*

Which part of that paper supports your claim that photons are never emitted by matter toward warmer matter?

_When a radiation field is also present, we need to consider that there is a radiative entropy flow in the radiative field, and a radiative entropy flow associated with the absorption-emission of radiation heat by matter [9, 10]. _

It wasn't this part, was it? LOL!

*So long as the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, what else could I possibly need?*

Because it doesn't, actually, is why I'd like to see some backup.
And that's why you can't provide any.

Any luck finding a source that agrees "matter at equilibrium ceases radiating"?
Even one? No?
 
*Again, I hold my position based on what the second law says...it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...who am I to disagree?*

You should have hundreds of sources that agree with your unique misinterpretation......but you have none.
Weird.

Did you ever ask Dr. Raeder, explicitly, if photons can move from cooler to warmer?
Or any of the other college professors you correspond with? Not one, eh? Weird.

And still no list of spontaneous photon emitters in the solar system either.
              


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It is all true...and all relevant...but feel free to provide some credible evidence that calls anything I have said into question..

Nothing in your post is honest...clearly you realize that you can't score any points based on evidence so you have decided to just lie your ass off...typical warmer tactic...of course lies are even more easy to discredit than junk science...you are going to lose no matter what you do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support...it is clear what sort of nut job sites you get your information from if you are unaware of a pause in warming that has gone on for damned near 20 years now...  Note the temperature is at 1999 levels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




*Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support..*

Now there's a laugher!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Sour grapes because the physical laws don’t support your claims?  You are as tedious as wuwei...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why would your complete lack of backup give me sour grapes?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.
> ...



What about the OTHER 95% of outgoing IR that CO2 doesn't absorb?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2019)

SSDD said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





22 years 2 months...  the pause is getting real long..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 22, 2019)

*There's now an Official Thread for this GroundHog Day debate... USE IT !!!

Basically ANY 10 page redundant repetitive argument over the 2nd law of Thermo -- belongs there... *


----------

