# And POOF, it was gone....



## westwall (Jan 20, 2017)

It seems the NY Times was wrong when it claimed that the trumpster was back peddling on his anti global warming mantra....

"At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."

All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 20, 2017)

That must be chilling for some.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jan 20, 2017)

Historically warm has been good for humans.  Cold has been bad.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jan 20, 2017)

At 11:58 it was there and at 11:59, one minute before Trump took Oath of Office, CLIMATE CHANGE got booted off the Whitehouse Website.

For all you libs trying to console yourselves that there really isn't going to be any change.  The change has just begun!!!!!

whitehouse.gov


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 20, 2017)

Yea, I never noticed him acting like he cared.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jan 20, 2017)

westwall said:


> It seems the NY Times was wrong when it claimed that the trumpster was back peddling on his anti global warming mantra....
> 
> "At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> 
> All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website



Ooops, I thought I was careful about not posting over someone and I just posted about this.  My apologies!

But, just want to say to all you libs who have tried to rationalize and console yourselves that Trump really won't change anything!


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 20, 2017)

Texas Town Goes All In on Renewable Energy

Georgetown, a VERY conservative town in Texas, converted to sustainable energy
for the cost-effective advantages alone.  This took years of research and planning.

There is NO REASON to keep pushing the contested 'global warming' agenda
if this merely riles people up, induces rejection division and backlash,
and distracts from real progress needed to invest in developing more efficient energy sources.

Liberals are defeating their own purpose by letting corporate politicians hijack the movement toward sustainable cost-effective energy to fuel political turf wars instead of collaborating on solutions all sides can agree on.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jan 20, 2017)

Hey op is it possible you can put my thread into this one.  Sorry about stepping on your toes.

Bwahahahah.  Climate Change just disappeared from the Whitehouse Website!


----------



## Missourian (Jan 20, 2017)

Did you sign up for emails?


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 20, 2017)

Thank God.  Worst Fairy Tale in history, and it didn't even have a happy ending.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jan 20, 2017)

Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jan 20, 2017)

Missourian said:


> Did you sign up for emails?



I will!


----------



## Meathead (Jan 20, 2017)

Pretty much all of Obama's "poof" was signed by executive order. With a stroke of the pen, they're history.


----------



## teapartysamurai (Jan 20, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.



Yeah Yeah Yeah, and then they delete it from the Whitehouse website.

Bwahahahaaa!


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 20, 2017)

Missourian said:


> Did you sign up for emails?



Sure did, go Trump!!!


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 20, 2017)

Incredible, Trump fixed climate change before lunch on his first day and removed it from the White House website issues list man he's good!


----------



## sartre play (Jan 20, 2017)

Maybe not a good idea, we should still be looking at it.


----------



## Stasha_Sz (Jan 20, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> There is NO REASON to keep pushing the contested 'global warming' agenda
> if this merely riles people up, induces rejection division and backlash,
> and distracts from real progress needed to invest in developing more efficient energy sources.


 
As if there was any reason for the hysteria to start with. The whole scam was based on models built from specious data and hyped by a political hack. Perhaps now the real data will come out and we can all see AGW for what it really was, a method to move large amount of monies from one pocket to another.

Current "renewable" energy technology is not up to the task of the expanding need of energy users. We could cover the country with windmills and fill the spaces in between with solar panels and it would still come up far short.

The real solutions for long term renewable energy will be a combination of space based beamed power, nuclear fission/fusion plants and thermal core taps. High return of energy per dollar and minimal footprint.


----------



## The Original Tree (Jan 20, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.



Some people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Most of them are children.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Jan 20, 2017)

Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.


----------



## TNHarley (Jan 20, 2017)

ClosedCaption said:


> Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.


 Whats the science say?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 20, 2017)

God I love this guy Trump..........when I heard about this, I split my sides laughing.......got a million texts from friends............more laughing.

First thing he does in office is kick the climate nutters in the nut sack!!

Guy means business NOT as usual = *WINNING *

Bend over s0ns............starting next week, here comes the bumpy......coming in at mach 3!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

westwall said:


> It seems the NY Times was wrong when it claimed that the trumpster was back peddling on his anti global warming mantra....
> 
> "At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> 
> All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website


What was expected of the orange clown. Won't change reality one whit, however.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

teapartysamurai said:


> At 11:58 it was there and at 11:59, one minute before Trump took Oath of Office, CLIMATE CHANGE got booted off the Whitehouse Website.
> 
> For all you libs trying to console yourselves that there really isn't going to be any change.  The change has just begun!!!!!
> 
> ...


Absolutely. A change has began. And when the end of 2019 rolls around, let us see where we are. Probably in worse shape than we were in 2008.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> Texas Town Goes All In on Renewable Energy
> 
> Georgetown, a VERY conservative town in Texas, converted to sustainable energy
> for the cost-effective advantages alone.  This took years of research and planning.
> ...


Yes, Texas in leading in the adaption of both wind and solar. And, when they change their outdated laws on generation, will lead in the adaptation of grid scale storage, making both solar and wind, 24-7. Right now, both solar and wind can produce electricity for 1/2 the cost per kw as dirty coal. Coal is dead, and natural gas will follow in a generations time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

Stasha_Sz said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO REASON to keep pushing the contested 'global warming' agenda
> ...


God, are you one really dumb fuck. This alone states that you have no idea what you are yapping about;







Global sea ice records broken (again)


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.
> ...


Virtually every Scientific Society, National Academy of Science, and major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is what science says.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...







Nope.  That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim.  Their membership don't.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 20, 2017)

So, all the deniers are thrilled with Trump's Lysenkoism. They literally think TheParty can dictate how the physical world behaves. If TheParty declares there's no global warming, it will somehow go away.

But then, that goes along with their general Stalinist demeanor in every area.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 20, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> God I love this guy Trump..........when I heard about this, I split my sides laughing.......got a million texts from friends............more laughing.
> 
> First thing he does in office is kick the climate nutters in the nut sack!!
> 
> ...


Trump made it perfectly clear that the political class and their money laundering scheme to make money for themselves was going to end. 

Nice to see that he is keeping his word...


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> So, all the deniers are thrilled with Trump's Lysenkoism. They literally think TheParty can dictate how the physical world behaves. If TheParty declares there's no global warming, it will somehow go away.
> 
> But then, that goes along with their general Stalinist demeanor in every area.








"CONSENSUS=LYSENKOISM"


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 20, 2017)

9 hours later and still.........Im laughing. Have we ever seen a swifter ball kick by a new administration ever?

And the response from progressives is, "But the science says...........!!"

Now.........you talk about inability to connect the dots!! The level of clueless is beyond gone my friends.

Been saying for years now that this climate stuff as presented by the alarmists is nothing more than a hobby. LOL....now it has never been clearer.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 20, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.
> ...



Dear TNHarley the REAL science says
1. the natural occurring causes of climate changes far exceed that part that man is responsible for and can do something about
2. it's our MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AND POLLUTION that's an excessive problem.
To fix it, we'd basically have to go back to restricting human activity from "sun up to sun down"
and shut everything off at night.

Not going to happen in our consumer-driven capitalist dominant culture.

We can work on cost effective environmentally sustainable ways of keeping our society and cultural traditions.
While we are here on the planet, we can try to do the best we can.
But the science all points to the current rate of consumption and production of waste
being unsustainable.  All the scare tactics in the world are not going to create the unity needed.
The key is collaboration, and then the best answers will come from those efforts.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 20, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...





Oh Gawd.........all that "unsustainable" shit was debunked back in the 1970's!


----------



## bodecea (Jan 20, 2017)

ClosedCaption said:


> Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.


Yes, it was pretty funny.....and successful too when all those Texans went down to Galveston in 1900 to watch Hurricane Ike.....who needs to listen to the scientists.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2017)

Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 20, 2017)

ClosedCaption said:


> Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.



What? Did you have one too many cocktails to ease your pain this evening?


----------



## BluesLegend (Jan 20, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.



Controlling the sun riiiiight get back to us when you have any luck with that.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 20, 2017)

BluesLegend said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.
> ...


\
One day I hope humanity can do that! Science is the tool of the possible.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2017)

BluesLegend said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.
> ...


Are you stating that the sun is causing the present warming? If so, how do you explain that fact that the Total Solar Irradiance has been going down since the turn of the century.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2017)

*poof...........
*
Anybody still laughing out loud about this? Its like in one fell swoop, climate change became a relic of a former era, like an original DD shop or a Jack In The Box restaurant. Not sure who came up with the idea, but certainly they ran it by Trump and can you imagine the laughter.........was probably him, Pruitt and Bannon!!!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.



Sure, but Perry is an idiot, and nobody knows what he might say tomorrow.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.




s0n..........a guy can go down into my town this morning, take off all of my clothes and march down Main St shaking a banana at people and telling them the world is about to end. Who knows..........maybe he gets a person or two to join him. He might really believe his cause is noble........as do you!!

But it only matter what the majority thinks.........its the way it is s0n!! The "reality" of climate change, as per your definition, is embraced by very, very few. As a voter concern, it is completely off the radar. Progressive thinking cant quite connect the dots on this!! Essentially s0n........you're the guy marching naked with the banana!!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jan 21, 2017)

Matthew said:


> Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.



/---- how many tax dollars will it take to stop the climate from changing like it has since the beginning of time?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2017)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Putting your head in the sand doesn't charge reality of our changing climate.
> ...



And that's exactly the thing with this nuttiness..........these people don't give a crap about costs. They never do. Who fucking cares.........spend trillions..........it might not work at all, but its worth it.

One of the huge reasons the DUMS are sitting on the sidelines is the people finally said, "WTF?!!".........spending and  spending on stoopid stuff that changes nothing..

That's when you figure out this climate change stuff is so mental........because at the end of the day, if people are taxed into the dark ages, that's fine with them.

Well Trump is saying.................'"fuck you!!".

And thank God!!!


----------



## polarbear (Jan 21, 2017)

Yeah the next thing to watch for is NASA`s new mission statement. Up until Obama it was space exploration and developing the technology to carry out these missions.
First thing Obama did was to oblige the AGW bible thumpers who were whining that:
_responding to a Union of Concerned Scientists survey also expressed concerns that changing priorities and lack of funding were seriously undermining the agency’s ability to continue with high-quality research into climate change._
He then cut the funding for the Mars missions and changed NASA`s priorities to:
_Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good' 

The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities. _
The head of NASA who had been charged by Obama to use NASA as a political tool resigned the moment D.J. Trump was sworn in:
Former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden
_Charles Bolden resigned as NASA Administrator on Jan. 20, 2017. This blog is being kept online for historical purposes, but it will no longer be updated._
And poof he is gone_.
_


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Yeah the next thing to watch for is NASA`s new mission statement. Up until Obama it was space exploration and developing the technology to carry out these missions.
> First thing Obama did was to oblige the AGW bible thumpers who were whining that:
> _responding to a Union of Concerned Scientists survey also expressed concerns that changing priorities and lack of funding were seriously undermining the agency’s ability to continue with high-quality research into climate change._
> He then cut the funding for the Mars missions and changed NASA`s priorities to:
> ...




*poof............
*
Next?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2017)

Skook, are you aware that the rest of the board sees you as "The crazy guy in the environment folder who writes the unreadable posts"?

I you're not, I just told you.

So, I see the denier celebration of Stalinism continues unabated. It's good that they no longer even try to hide their devotion to Stalinism, as they sucked mightily at hiding it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Skook, are you aware that the rest of the board sees you as "The crazy guy in the environment folder who writes the unreadable posts"?
> 
> I you're not, I just told you.
> 
> So, I see the denier celebration of Stalinism continues unabated. It's good that they no longer even try to hide their devotion to Stalinism, as they sucked mightily at hiding it.




And taking bows s0n........at least I don't have a ghey cat in my avatar!

The crazy guy is watching the political landscape and laughing hysterically while progressive heads explode daily!! The WINNING is almost getting boring at this point.........but the fun hasn't even started.

Tomorrow starts the assault on progressivism that will be epic.........and the size of the already giant bumpy cucumbers in the progressives behinds are going to get even more bulbous. Might as well paint the *ENVIRONMENT* forum title red s0ns!!

Oh and Mammoth........don't forget to pick up some extra KY this weekend!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2017)

I really don't know if we have much to worry about with this new admin. They seem too busy claiming that 1/4 the number of people at their inauguration are more than the number of people at President Obama's inauguration. LOL The orange clown looks seriously like he is going off the rails. They are going to be much to busy crying about all those subversive women, like 4 million of them, that marched yesterday to worry about a few scientists that are showing us the evidence for climate change going on right now.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> Nope.  That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim.  Their membership don't.



Totally untrue. The science is in and you're wrong. And I wouldn't get too excited about the Nimrods supporting your POV on this thread. None of them have a clue.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> [
> 
> 
> And taking bows s0n........at least I don't have a ghey cat in my avatar!
> ...



That doesn't make his point any less so. I assume you have Kook in your user name because it about sums you up.

What about my avatar? Like it....you getting a woodie just looking at it (after taking your viagra of course)...

Only total morons don't believe humans are causing climate change. Are you a total moron? (rhetorical question. I don't need an answer)


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> But it only matter what the majority thinks.........its the way it is s0n!



I thought you neocon whacko loons were against the Tyranny of the majority. And if you are for it, you must be mightily disappointed Hills isn't pres. She got 3 million more votes than the Orange Buffoon.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim.  Their membership don't.
> ...




Hey Dr Grump....still waiting on that single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW that you claimed existed in abundance....seems that you have been running away from acknowledging that you can't find any.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Your avatar makes me think you like looking at fat naked men...(shudder)...you like that sort of thing?

And only a moron would believe pseudoscience making claims without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim...Are you the sort of moron who does that?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Well then we have a lot of morons out there because most people......*by far*........don't think climate change is caused by humans!!

*http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/many-americans-are-skeptical-about-scientific-research-on-climate-and-gm-foods/*

*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3476746/posts*

*http://www.hoover.org/research/obsolete-climate-science*



duh


----------



## NLT (Jan 22, 2017)

bodecea said:


> [


Yes, it was pretty funny.....and successful too when all those Texans went down to Galveston in 1900 to watch Hurricane Ike.....who needs to listen to the scientists.[/QUOTE]


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > But it only matter what the majority thinks.........its the way it is s0n!
> ...




Keep telling yourself that s0n........maybe it'll remove some of the stinginess from that vast bumpy cucumber that resides in your backside this fine day!!!

But wait'll tomorrow comes s0n...........best get some KY refills because this shit is gonna get beyond hysterical, especially the climate change shit!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  That's what people heavily invested in the fraud claim.  Their membership don't.
> ...








Show us some quantifiable science then.  Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> Show us some quantifiable science then.  Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.



It is all done on modelling. That is how they work it out. You know that. Empirical data? Arctic ice shelf is melting. Fact.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Well then we have a lot of morons out there because most people......*by far*........don't think climate change is caused by humans!!



I thought you didn't believe in the tyranny of the majority. More people? What does that even mean? I bet most people in Green Bay think the Packers are going to win today. And they might. Then again, they might not. Most people? RAFLMAO...must be true then!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Show us some quantifiable science then.  Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.
> ...



What do you think melting ice proves beyond the fact that it is warmer?....whether the climate changes...warmer and cooler isn't a contentious point....whether or not man is responsible is the argument and again...there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variation...

This gold standard ice core temperature reconstruction taken above the arctic circle shows the temperature for the past 10,000 years...looking at the temperature over the past 10,000 years, how do you think the present arctic ice looks compared to most of the period shown in the graph?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> [
> 
> Keep telling yourself that s0n........maybe it'll remove some of the stinginess from that vast bumpy cucumber that resides in your backside this fine day!!!
> 
> But wait'll tomorrow comes s0n...........best get some KY refills because this shit is gonna get beyond hysterical, especially the climate change shit!!




IE = "you're right Grump. I have nothing."

I know, Kook. I know..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




So now you are just making up arguments to rail against?...guess that's easier than facing the fact that you have no actual evidence to support your beliefs...much better for you to tilt against windmills and rail against straw men.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



I love the hyperbole... no facts... just lots of unprovable BS..


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> I love the hyperbole... no facts... just lots of unprovable BS..



I'm bringing just as many 'facts' as the other side to the debate. All their stuff is unprovable....


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I love the hyperbole... no facts... just lots of unprovable BS..
> ...




Actually, the only fact you are bringing is the fact that you have been duped into believing in a bunch of pseudoscience without the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to back it up...

What's the matter Dr. Grump...you seemed so sure that such evidence existed in abundance...claimed that your climate scientist buds had reams of it...what's the matter...can't they help you out?...won't they set you up with a single shred of such evidence?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Show us some quantifiable science then.  Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.
> ...








Do you understand that modelling isn't science, but science fiction?  Do YOU understand that?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Sure..


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> I thought you didn't believe in the tyranny of the majority. More people? What does that even mean? I bet most people in Green Bay think the Packers are going to win today. And they might. Then again, they might not. Most people? RAFLMAO...must be true then!


So, when a simpleton study says most scientist believe in man made global warming, you agree, it is tyranny of the majority, and it does not prove a thing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Show us some quantifiable science then.  Not a computer model, mind you, but a real piece of empirical data.
> ...




But nobody is caring..............

Show me where anybody is giving a fuck s0n?

You might as well be standing at the north pole screaming "FIRE!".......nothing could be of less interest to the public in 2017......every poll shows it. Only gun control is more of a snoozefest.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Huh? Literally 10s of millions, if not 100s of millions do. What? You live under a rock or something Kookie?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you didn't believe in the tyranny of the majority. More people? What does that even mean? I bet most people in Green Bay think the Packers are going to win today. And they might. Then again, they might not. Most people? RAFLMAO...must be true then!
> ...



Oh please. One minute one of you loons (Kookie) says the majority rules. The next you say it doesn't. Get on the same page. 
Yeah, I believe scientists instead of loons on a messageboard. Gee, I wonder why?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> [
> 
> You might as well be standing at the north pole screaming "FIRE!".......nothing could be of less interest to the public in 2017......every poll shows it. Only gun control is more of a snoozefest.



Oh, lookie. Kookie is wrong....for a change <rolls eyes>

U.S. Concern About Global Warming at Eight-Year High


----------



## Ropey (Jan 22, 2017)

Oh, please, you are far less believable when you say what you believe...even if you pop out with a emo proof of 'concern'.  Concern trolling intense?  Is that what you are now?

Americans are more concerned now, than ever before? You believe this and post crap to prove it?

Because you're so wrong when you believe lies.

You end up screwing good people with your belief of the lies of others...since you take the lies too far without f'n verification.

I've seen you screw people up just for a 'thanks' from a skirt...when you knew you were wrong.


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Oh please. One minute one of you loons (Kookie) says the majority rules. The next you say it doesn't. Get on the same page.
> Yeah, I believe scientists instead of loons on a messageboard. Gee, I wonder why?


Sorry, we are individuals and will not "lock step", as you demand. So you believe majority makes a hypothesis a fact? Based on a study that one man made, claiming the studies he looked out, speak for a majority of scientists? Yea, I get it, you believe. Me, I require proof, which is Science. You follow a study that speaks to what you believe. Good to know.


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


right! according to a poll! that is a year old! stupidity sites an old poll by gallup


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Oh please. One minute one of you loons (Kookie) says the majority rules. The next you say it doesn't. Get on the same page.
> ...



Ah yes. It's all about 'me. me. me!!"


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Well, why don't you and Kookie loon show me a more recent poll supporting your POV?


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Ah yes. It's all about 'me. me. me!!"


As long as that is your only argument I am happy to see you go away as the loser


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Well, why don't you and Kookie loon show me a more recent poll supporting your POV?


Polls are science and fact? You found 650 people who answered your questions that are poised to give specific answers and you think that is fact?

Our recent poll showing our point of view? That would be the election of Donald Trump as president!


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...








You want to know what's truly funny, I can teach any level of climatology class all the way up to graduate level.  A PhD climatologist, on the other hand, is totally lost at the graduate level and unless they are really, really good, there are third and fourth year geology classes that will be beyond them.  That's how a PhD in climatology stacks up against my field.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What's even funnier is i dont believe you.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







And it doesn't matter in the slightest.  What I stated is a fact.  Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist.  Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't.  It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology.  In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.

Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Meteorologists are better educated in the sciences than climate "scientists"....and they certainly aren't on board the AGW crazy train.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. Like the orange clown, you cannot see what is in front of you. 

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*So let us discuss what the geologists state concerning man's effect on the climate;*

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

 Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

 Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

 Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

 Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions

. Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess. 

*You can read the rest of the statement at the link. The American Geophysical Union is one of the largest scientific associations of geologists and physicists on Earth. They meet every years in December for their annual convention in San Francisco and present lectures on the present state of the science. These lectures are available to the public on Youtube. Here is just one of them from one of the world's premier glaciaologists, Dr. Richard Alley;

*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

*And here is the policy statement from the other main scientific society of geologists in the US, the Geological Society of America;*

position10

_Position Statement_
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

_Purpose_
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

*Rationale*
Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.

The geologic record contains unequivocal evidence of former climate change, including periods of greater warmth with limited polar ice, and colder intervals with more widespread glaciation. These and other changes were accompanied by major shifts in species and ecosystems. Paleoclimatic research has demonstrated that these major changes in climate and biota are associated with significant changes in climate forcing, such as continental positions and topography, patterns of ocean circulation, the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere, and the distribution and amount of solar energy at the top of the atmosphere caused by changes in Earth’s orbit and the evolution of the sun as a main sequence star. Cyclic changes in ice volume during glacial periods over the last three million years have been correlated to orbital cycles and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, but may also reflect internal responses generated by large ice sheets. This rich history of Earth’s climate has been used as one of several key sources of information for assessing the predictive capabilities of modern climate models. The testing of increasingly sophisticated climate models by comparison to geologic proxies is continuing, leading to refinement of hypotheses and improved understanding of the drivers of past and current climate change. Climate models have improved continuously and now reproduce observed continental-scale warming patterns over multiple decades (IPCC, 2013).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


http://jvarekamp.web.wesleyan.edu/CO2/FP-1.pdf

Hardly a challenge.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Silly Billy, you have repeatedly presented 'stinky facts', that you pulled from your ass. Or, as the new admin calls them, 'alternative facts'. Hardly matters the name, they smell the same.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

Very interesting article here.......and the thinking becoming far more popular in recent years!!

Guy is a climate skeptic who DOES believe in climate change and DOES believe it is carbon driven!

But................

*"But when it comes to portending doom and gloom, the tools scientists use -- **namely atmosphere and oceanic general circulation models** -- are woefully **insufficient** to render specific predictions about the future.

.................so what does all of this mean? It means that anyone who says they know that climate change will result in (insert apocalyptic scenario here) is not making claims based on solid evidence.

In other situations (most commonly volcanic eruptions) numerous other greenhouse gases also greatly increased the rate of heating. It's really hard to build a model for a situation for which there is little historical precedent."

A Skeptic's View on Climate Models | RealClearScience

*
Been saying for years the "models" have zero validity for predicting the future yet they are promoted by the alarmists as "science". They know it too but they push the narrative still........and as we've seen, frequently, the models end up being wrong!

Clearly there is an *agenda* at play here............. and there are a slew of public comments by world leaders in environment positions where they admit they know the positions are bogus but push them anyway!! Agenda?




duh

It is why in the eyes of the public, the alarmist view has lost a ton of credibililty.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Look, goofus, do you understand that the melting of the arctic sea ice, the Greenland Ice Cap, and the alpine glaciers is not modeling? It is fact. Same for the destabilization of the Antarctic Ice Shelves. That the observed increase in land and ocean temperatures is observed, not modeled? You are like your peer, Silly Billy, you bring nothing but silliness to the debate. A debate long over in the scientific community.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you didn't believe in the tyranny of the majority. More people? What does that even mean? I bet most people in Green Bay think the Packers are going to win today. And they might. Then again, they might not. Most people? RAFLMAO...must be true then!
> ...


LOL  So you have 20 cancer specialists that state that the blemish on your hide is melanoma, but your mechanic tells you not to worry, consensus doesn't mean a thing, it is just a blemish. LOL  Some people are stupid beyond belief.


----------



## Geaux4it (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


A degree in geology demands far less math than does a degree in atmospheric physics. And far less physics. Your claim that you can teach on the same level as Dr. Hansen, Dr. Mann, or Dr. Alley is beyond laughable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


LOL  

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

*Climate Change*
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012) 


The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century. 

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. 

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.


Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate.* It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.* The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years. 

*SSDD, you are completely full of shit.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

You see........when you start connecting the dots on this stuff after spending some time taking a good look at it, you suddenly get this "WTF?" moment. You realize that the intellectual honesty just isn't there at all with the predictions. The predictions have nothing to do with science at all.......they are all politically motivated.......

*http://green.wikia.com/wiki/Agenda_21*


If you don't know the full meaning of the term "sustainable development" and taking the alarmist position in this forum, its like going up to bat against a big league pitcher with a pencil in your hands!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Same old logical fallacy...it wasn't worth the time you took to type it the first time and it still isn't worth squat 10,000 repeats later.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



And there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in any of that that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...which is why neither you nor him nor anyone else can provide such evidence...you provide evidence that the climate is changing and then assume that it is due to man...no evidence whatsoever that it is actually due to man...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



CO2 is not a "Control knob" what a joke


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







How about we use a proper analogy shall we?  You have 20 cancer specialists, and they concoct this fabulous new imaging program that allows you to see what's inside you.  The problem is it doesn't work, so they tell you you need to do the procedure anyway because it "might" be dangerous.  Ignoring the fact that you might die from the operation, that it costs you tons of money (which they, of course, get to pocket) and which has no actual supporting evidence other than their failed imaging program.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...








Yes.  I worked on LANDSAT silly boy.  Look it up.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 23, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.




it is amuzing when a leftard has to lay his hopes for continued global warming polices on rick perry 

--LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> I really don't know if we have much to worry about with this new admin. They seem too busy claiming that 1/4 the number of people at their inauguration are more than the number of people at President Obama's inauguration. LOL The orange clown looks seriously like he is going off the rails. They are going to be much to busy crying about all those subversive women, like 4 million of them, that marched yesterday to worry about a few scientists that are showing us the evidence for climate change going on right now.


i like it folks like you don't get the game yet.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


wow dude, you really are pissed off ain't you? that's all about some butt hurt squabbling there.

And again, Poof it was gone.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> [
> And it doesn't matter in the slightest.  What I stated is a fact.  Geologists are far more capable than a climatologist.  Ours is an exact science, and climatology isn't.  It is a "soft" science, in the same vein as sociology.  In other words it is all about opinion, and not hard, measurable, facts and observations.
> 
> Some day you might be clever enough to understand the difference.



Old Rocks just schooled you a lot better than I ever could....over and over again. You've got nothing but opinion.

And you attempt to appeal to authority is laughable.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2017)

jc456 said:


> wow dude, you really are pissed off ain't you? that's all about some butt hurt squabbling there.
> 
> And again, Poof it was gone.



Pissed off? I'm, laughing fella. The last time I saw something this dumb he was pulling out of the TPPA...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > wow dude, you really are pissed off ain't you? that's all about some butt hurt squabbling there.
> ...


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...










Actually silly boy it is you who are making the laughable appeals to authority or hadn't you noticed olfrauds 98% bullshit meme.  Face it junior, it's all you have.  I trotted out one of the finest minds in science who, in a little over one minute shows what an abject failure AGW "science" is.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

*http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-tells-business-leaders-he-wants-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent-or-maybe-more.html*



OK......really..........how hysterical is THIS?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Actually silly boy it is you who are making the laughable appeals to authority or hadn't you noticed olfrauds 98% bullshit meme.  Face it junior, it's all you have.  I trotted out one of the finest minds in science who, in a little over one minute shows what an abject failure AGW "science" is.



Who did you trot out? I haven't seen all the threads or posts....


----------



## jillian (Jan 23, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



so we should believe what rightwingnuts make up in their little uneducated heads?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

bend over s0ns............this shits just starting!!

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Actually silly boy it is you who are making the laughable appeals to authority or hadn't you noticed olfrauds 98% bullshit meme.  Face it junior, it's all you have.  I trotted out one of the finest minds in science who, in a little over one minute shows what an abject failure AGW "science" is.
> ...









One minute and three seconds that shows how the AGW theory has failed.  Pay especial attention to second number 54 of the video.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

Im having so much fun on here, I cant even take it!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

jillian said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







You demand that we pay attention to leftwingnuts.  How about we pay attention to both sides but apply the scientific method to it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 23, 2017)

Hey Westwall...........is this not the shit? Weve been abusing these k00ks for years in here but the last 8 weeks has been off the hook.

In 2017.........climate change is basically irrelevant!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey Westwall...........is this not the shit? Weve been abusing these k00ks for years in here but the last 8 weeks has been off the hook.
> 
> In 2017.........climate change is basically irrelevant!!












While not irrelevant, it will no longer be the reason to steal vast amounts of cash from the US taxpayer.  And that is a good thing.


----------



## elektra (Jan 23, 2017)

jillian said:


> so we should believe what rightwingnuts make up in their little uneducated heads?


What are you talking about?


----------



## elektra (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  So you have 20 cancer specialists that state that the blemish on your hide is melanoma, but your mechanic tells you not to worry, consensus doesn't mean a thing, it is just a blemish. LOL  Some people are stupid beyond belief.


This is the Environment thread! Not the health thread you blithering idiot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 23, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


I can back up my facts...  Funny that you still have produced no quantifiable, observed, empirical evidence to support yours...


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> [
> 
> One minute and three seconds that shows how the AGW theory has failed.  Pay especial attention to second number 54 of the video.



Not a very compelling argument.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...









Only to a complete idiot.  Feynman was one of the most renowned geniuses ever to walk this planet.  It takes eloquence to make plain the scientific method in so few words.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


This Richard Feynman lecture is from an era when no serious scientist would have resorted to the post hoc method which has been the basis for AGW. But it does lend itself as a litmus test to distinguish real science from post hoc fallacy, which has evolved into an effective marketing tool. It`s success requires a certain degree of  gullibility and people in that category just can`t get a grip on reality. The only time they do is when it`s their money that has gone poof in some scam:
Markets – Carbon Trade Exchange
_Following the Paris Agreement, we anticipate a growing acceptance of and appetite for regulated carbon markets._
"following the Paris agreement"...Muhahaha


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> Only to a complete idiot.  Feynman was one of the most renowned geniuses ever to walk this planet.  It takes eloquence to make plain the scientific method in so few words.



You mistake my post. I'm not saying what he is saying is wrong. I'm saying it doesn't relate to AGW. You think it does. And?


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Only to a complete idiot.  Feynman was one of the most renowned geniuses ever to walk this planet.  It takes eloquence to make plain the scientific method in so few words.
> ...








Provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your theory.  Computer models AREN'T DATA!  It's that simple.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> It seems the NY Times was wrong when it claimed that the trumpster was back peddling on his anti global warming mantra....
> 
> "At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> 
> All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website



Must be Jimmy John's --- because it was "freaky fast". Wonder what's gonna replace the fairy tales? Hope it's real sciency !!!!!   LOL.






Must be still hungry. Daughter stole my dinner..


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> [Q
> 
> Provide EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your theory.  Computer models AREN'T DATA!  It's that simple.



By the time you provide the empirical data, it's over. That's why they model. 

It's like there's this 500ft tidal wave heading for LA and nobody has seen one before. You lot are saying "We don't have any empirical evidence that it will cause destruction! Let's just wait and see"

Are you gonna be the one sitting on the the Long Beach shore seeing if the empirical evidence presents itself?

Galileo didn't have empirical evidence to prove the Earth revolved around the sun (well, none that the Church believed). Who won that battle in the long run?


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...








They've had 35 damned years dude.  How many more do you need.


----------



## Stasha_Sz (Jan 24, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Only to a complete idiot.  Feynman was one of the most renowned geniuses ever to walk this planet.  It takes eloquence to make plain the scientific method in so few words.
> ...


 
Then perhaps you would care to listen to Freeman Dyson FRS, who has more awards and theoretical achievements than probably all of the so-called "97% of all climatologists" combined, opinion on AGW.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2017)

Th


Stasha_Sz said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This Freeman Dyson:
_Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that 
[one] of the *main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal *and natural gas."[61] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends_
_
Freeman Dyson - Wikipedia
_
Sure, I'll listen to him


----------



## elektra (Jan 24, 2017)

If carbon dioxide increases the temperature of the earth, then the solution is the cause, solar and wind manufacture requires heavy industry, building more, building bigger, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Solution is the problem.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, silly ass, we have had over 150 years, ever since Tyndall. And the Arrnhenius did an excellent job of quantifying the effects of CO2 in 1896. And the effects we are seeing today vindicate their work. From the cryosphere to the acidifying of the oceans. That yokels like you try to deny all of this with 'alternative facts' shows how pathetic your arguments are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Th
> 
> 
> Stasha_Sz said:
> ...


And when you have this





and this






Which none of the models predicted, you can understand Dyson's distrust of the models. None of the models predicted the extent of the warming at either pole. Empirical observations show the warming exceeding almost all of the models.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2017)

elektra said:


> If carbon dioxide increases the temperature of the earth, then the solution is the cause, solar and wind manufacture requires heavy industry, building more, building bigger, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Solution is the problem.


LOL  Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you are truly and idiot? LOL


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 24, 2017)

elektra said:


> If carbon dioxide increases the temperature of the earth, then the solution is the cause, solar and wind manufacture requires heavy industry, building more, building bigger, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Solution is the problem.



Dear elektra 
If you know anyone who's ever been through chemo or through heart surgery,
the process of saving their lives almost kills them, and sometimes it does. They can die from the
same things used to kill the cancer cells that also kills the rest of them, too!
Clearly we need more natural methods and not more dangerous solutions than the original problem.

I have heard from a retired college professor who has researched all the ins and outs
of material consumption and solutions. He confirms the math alone, the rate of consumption
and producing waste and pollutants EXCEEDS any efforts to stop, reduce or prevent these.
Humanity would all have to simultaneously agree across the planet to go back to natural living,
restricting activity to sun up and sun down, and quit straining and maximizing all resource consumption.

Other sources I checked with said similar:
1. the tilling of soil and release of CO2 from just the activities
needed to GROW food to FEED the population is causing more of this effect
than can be stopped or else people would starve 
2. the ratio of manmade causes to natural causes (such as volcanic/radioactivity)
is estimated about 20:80 and of the 20 that man effects, all the prescribed
solutions to corporate and capitalistic reforms would only affect 2% at the most,
at the cost of billions if not trillions.  So the resources may be better invested otherwise.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Computer models AREN'T DATA!  It's that simple.



Directly measured evidence shows the human-caused warming. The stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave are all measured directly, no models involved. There is no natural explanations for those things. They are smoking guns for human-caused global warming.

And we've told you that before, and shown you the evidence many times before, yet you still proudly use your "IT'S ALL MODELS" lie. That's a fine use of the Stalinist big lie tactic.

Your Stalinist heroes have also ordered censorship of the EPA. I'll pause now, to give you time to roll on the floor in ecstasy, enjoying that Stalinist tingle going up your leg.

EPA Freezes Grants, Tells Employees Not To Talk About It, Sources Say | The Huffington Post
---
I just returned from a briefing for Communication Directors where the following information was provided. These restrictions are effective immediately and will remain in place until further direction is received from the new Administration’s Beach Team. Please review this material and share with all appropriate individuals in your organization. If anyone on your staff receives a press inquiry of any kind, it must be referred to me so I can coordinate with the appropriate individuals in OPA.

No press releases will be going out to external audiences.
No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.
No blog messages.
The Beach Team will review the list of upcoming webinars and decide which ones will go forward.
Please send me a list of any external speaking engagements that are currently scheduled among any of your staff from today through February.
Incoming media requests will be carefully screened.
No new content can be placed on any website. Only do clean up where essential.
List servers will be reviewed. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.
---


----------



## elektra (Jan 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you are truly and idiot? LOL


Only an old moron who can't spell or structure a sentence properly.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Computer models AREN'T DATA!  It's that simple.
> ...








Provide links to what you are claiming silly boy.  We have been asking you to do this for well over a year.  All you ever trot out are your failed models.  So, HOP TO IT!


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







Boy, you are dumb.  All those gentlemen did was confirm the fact that CO2 is a GHG.   That's it.  They provided an estimate (which was then retracted) of how much warming CO2 could cause.  That, has never been tested in a lab experiment, nor has it been measured in the real world observations that we make.  In other words this post of yours is an epic fail.  It failed in every case to answer the question I posed, nor did it address the fact that no measurable human impact has ever been accomplished.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Th
> 
> 
> Stasha_Sz said:
> ...







And then, because he is a great scientist he said this in 2014, funny how you didn't post this part of your link..... well, not really, you AGW types are intellectually dishonest.


*"What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago.*[62]

He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[63][64] and has also argued against ostracizing scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, *stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[61]*

Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that *"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."*[65]

"In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> And then, because he is a great scientist he said this in 2014, funny how you didn't post this part of your link..... well, not really, you AGW types are intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that *"[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."*[65]
> 
> "In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled.



So you agree with the red parts? Good...

Talk about being dishonest...


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And then, because he is a great scientist he said this in 2014, funny how you didn't post this part of your link..... well, not really, you AGW types are intellectually dishonest.
> ...









Yes, I DO agree with the red parts.  In other words, dumbshit, there CAN'T be a "consensus" when you *DON'T *even *KNOW* the *BASICS*.

Does your tiny little mind understand that simple fact?  Hmmmm?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Yes, I DO agree with the red parts.  In other words, dumbshit, there CAN'T be a "consensus" when you *DON'T *even *KNOW* the *BASICS*.
> 
> Does your tiny little mind understand that simple fact?  Hmmmm?



So all your so-called evidence you have been spouting on this subject for god knows how long is just as much BS as you claim the AGW people to be talking about ? I couldn't make this shit up..

As I quoted, even Dyson says he believes it, but doesn't know all the ins and out.

And anyway, let's step back a little. Let's say for shits and giggles AGW doesn't exist. All the AGW people ideas and views on how to stop AGW are aimed at reducing shit in the atmosphere. Fill in the gap: "This is a bad thing because____?"


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Provide links to what you are claiming silly boy.  We have been asking you to do this for well over a year.  All you ever trot out are your failed models.  So, HOP TO IT!



That's been done many times before. You've ignored it every time.

Here's just one such example, from me in 2013, in a thread which you were actively participating in. You saw it. You ignored it. You either ignore the evidence which is inconvenient to your political cult, or you wave your hands around wildy and start screaming "IT'S A FRAUD!".

AGW: atmospheric physics

Oh, Trump just ordered the scientific censorship extended to the Agriculture department.

USDA Scientists Have Been Put On Lockdown Under Trump


----------



## miketx (Jan 24, 2017)

NYcarbineer said:


> Trump nominated Rick Perry for energy secretary, who admits that global warming is occurring and admits that at least some of it is manmade.


Nonsense. Get off the crack.


----------



## elektra (Jan 24, 2017)

emilynghiem said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > If carbon dioxide increases the temperature of the earth, then the solution is the cause, solar and wind manufacture requires heavy industry, building more, building bigger, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Solution is the problem.
> ...


Well, you said it in an odd way, but I am glad that you agreed with my post.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Provide links to what you are claiming silly boy.  We have been asking you to do this for well over a year.  All you ever trot out are your failed models.  So, HOP TO IT!
> ...







Neither of those links are to a empirical study silly cat.  Do you even _know_ what empirical means?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2017)

westwall said:


> Neither of those links are to a empirical study silly cat.  Do you even _know_ what empirical means?



Boring.

That is, your standard tactic of simply auto-denying all the empirical data presented to you.

This is why we've stopped trying. You've been doing it for years, and it's all you've ever done.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Neither of those links are to a empirical study silly cat.  Do you even _know_ what empirical means?
> ...



NO!

The difference is knowing  the difference between Empirical Evidence and Fantasy.  Something you don't know how to do..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2017)

More poof................

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-24/trump-admin-orders-epa-contract-freeze-and-media-blackout


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2017)

Empirical?? Not empirical? Pseudo-empirical?

Nobody cares 

lol..........climate change is officially irrelevant!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 24, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Provide links to what you are claiming silly boy.  We have been asking you to do this for well over a year.  All you ever trot out are your failed models.  So, HOP TO IT!
> ...




s0n.......saw this today. Laughed my fucking balls off...........in fact, still laughing!Of course scientific research on climate is going to be smashed to smithereens under Trump.

After all...........its already decided!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2017)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


For damn sure you do not. Empirical evidence is the ice caps and alpine glaciers. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, the increasing acidity of the oceans, and the rise in sea level. The increase in extreme weather events. All predicted by AGW and all occurring as we post.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








No, They're not, you imbecile.  Everything that you are ascribing to AGW has HAPPENED BEFORE through natural means.  Thus, you 'tard, you MUST show the mechanism by which your theory says man is causing it.  So long as I can point to the bazillions of times that your so called evidence has happened naturally, you're screwed.  Completely and totally screwed.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2017)

So the fuck what?  Forest fires caused by lightening have taken place throughout the history of the planet.  Does that mean humans can't start forest fires?

Stupid twat.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 26, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



West......its the whole religion thing. Absolutely prevents information from being assimilated in any way. We've seen it for years........reasoned judgment doesn't apply.

But talk about whistling past the graveyard for these people in the current landscape.........like these people trying to convince a 21 year old how great the Mary Tyler Moore Show was!!

It gets better every day West.....Im hearing that in terms of funding for climate change research, Trump is going to demand that universities absolutely do not get funding unless research by skeptics is recognized. The entire landscape is changing on this stuff......but the k00ks are still stuck in yesterday!


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> So the fuck what?  Forest fires caused by lightening have taken place throughout the history of the planet.  Does that mean humans can't start forest fires?
> 
> Stupid twat.







  But that's not what you're claiming jackass.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2017)

So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?








Why yes, yes indeed.  Every time there is a forest fire you get that.  Now don't you.


----------



## polarbear (Jan 26, 2017)

Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires or that "mother" nature burned the oil we refined.
Crick brings the raven paradox to a whole new level. This is how he "reasons" that man is the guilty black  raven who put the "A" in front of the GW, thus excluding all natural causes:
Ravens are black. If it isn`t black it`s not a raven and if it`s black then according to Crick it must be the raven.
_Crick`s version:
Forest fires caused by lightening have taken place throughout the history of the planet. 
Does that mean humans can't start forest fires?
So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?_


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 26, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires or that "mother" nature burned the oil we refined.
> Crick brings the raven paradox to a whole new level. This is how he "reasons" that man is the guilty black  raven who put the "A" in front of the GW, thus excluding all natural causes:
> Ravens are black. If it isn`t black it`s not a raven and if it`s black then according to Crick it must be the raven.
> _Crick`s version:
> ...



LOL..

Isn't that behavior also known as "running in circles with sharp objects"  The Circular logical failure is stunning..


----------



## mamooth (Jan 27, 2017)

polarbear said:


> Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires



But that's exactly what the logic of Westwall and all deniers says.

You say that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate.

It's the exactly same chain of logic as saying "Forest fires happened naturally in the past, therefore humans can't cause forest fires."

Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.

And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.

It's not surprising that every denier here is so obviously inept at basic logic. If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2017)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you claiming that mother nature burned gigatonnes of fossil fuels at various points in the past?
> ...



Why, no, you do not.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 28, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires
> ...




lol....but the inept basic logic people...........are winning! In fact, now with Trump, its even that much more dominating. In 2017, the whole CO2 "cause" for climate change is laughable. Its seen by the public as well.........laughable. Accordingly, anybody who labels people who don't concur with AGW a "cult", is living in an alternate reality.

cult

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:

"the cult of St. Olaf"



by definition........a significant minority.

These mental cases think a handful of scientists from a rigged system are going to dictate energy policy to global governments. *There is zero evidence of that happening.........zero*.........its fringe stuff. Only mental cases cant connect the dots..............thus, the "religion" stuff.

And nothing is going to change..........especially now with the country sprawling in a vast sea of red. Its so red out there its dizzying........which means btw that AGW stays put in the abyss of the fringe.

Today in REALCLEARPOLITICS >>

*http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/27/new-york-times-our-readers-are-too-dumb-to-understand-numbers/*

lol....nobody cares about 0.12 degrees celcius. But the cultists continiue to scream "FIRE" over such things. The public response the past 10 years? *"Booooooring"
*
What we are seeing is basic human behavior at work......not well understood by many progressives frankly, and especially AGW devotee's. Just look at the anti-Trump rallies the past week. Every time they send out another k00k fringe bunch of people, Trumps numbers go up another 5 points. When you think fringe, you end up fringe!

But you bozo's keep on taking bows and claiming you're winning!! Makes this place a hoot to come into!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 28, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...



The New York Times calling their readership STUPID!   Now that is a way to get people to buy their birdcage cover... And they cant see their own stupidity.. Priceless..  No wonder they are failing as a company.


----------



## Crick (Jan 28, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



If they were speaking to you (and I think they were) they hit the nail precisely on the head.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody in this thread claimed that humans can`t start fires
> ...




lol.......somebody try to tell me there aren't mental issues here?  Look at the last sentence.......reference to "normal people"..._*."If someone wasn't a total failure at logic, they wouldn't have gotten sucked into the denier cult. Normal people recognize the BS of the denier cult, so normal people don't get sucked in.". *_A *VAST MINORITY* of the population think CO2 causes global warming ( undisputable fact). Accordingly, this genius is stating that the vast minority is "normal". You know what that kind of thinking is folks............

Lets all hope this guy is not in charge of anything..........


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



An infinity of years is not long enough to provide observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support that pitiful excuse for a hypothesis....AGW is, and always has been bullshit.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 31, 2017)

saveliberty said:


> That must be chilling for some.


PEOPLE WILL DIE!!!!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2017)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Computer models AREN'T DATA!  It's that simple.
> ...



As you can see hairball...the stratospheric cooling stopped in about 1995...and a slight warming trend began about the time the first signs of a cooling period appeared....this chart calls you a liar.






And there is no back radiation....not the first measurement of it at ambient temperature...but if you believe any such measurements exist, taken by instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, by all means lets see them.

And this chart from NOAA calls your claim of decreasing outgoing long wave a lie as well..






Seems that all you have are lies....maybe that is why you never post any actual data to support your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



So you admit that there is no actual empirical data in support of the hypothesis...now we are getting some where...


OK...you make a claim that something is going to happen based on these models you have which are not based on any sort of actual empirical evidence....and you say that we need to spend thousands of billions of dollars to keep this thing from happening or it will be a disaster...so we continue spending money like we have been but the thing never materializes because the claims were based on a flawed hypothesis....who do you think should be on the hook for the money...and what does the punishment for making such flawed claims and demanding action anyway look like?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 31, 2017)

SSDD said:


> As you can see hairball...the stratospheric cooling stopped in about 1995...and a slight warming trend began about the time the first signs of a cooling period appeared....this chart calls you a liar.



Let's try something more recent. Oh look, still cooling slightly.






The interesting thing is how the big volcanic eruptions are followed by permanent downward plunges. The science of that is not well understood.



> And there is no back radiation....not the first measurement of it at ambient temperature...but if you believe any such measurements exist, taken by instruments not cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere, by all means lets see them.



And you're back to denying that uncooled IR cameras can be bought anywhere now. Pathetic. But hilarious, how cheap consumer electronics show what a sad cult liar you are. I love how capitalism stomped your Stalinist ass.



> And this chart from NOAA calls your claim of decreasing outgoing long wave a lie as well..



Woot! The mystery chart! What is it showing? Where did it come from? Nobody knows. Given the sinusoidal shape, I'd guess it's got some uncorrected orbital factor thing going on. That is, it's uncorrected raw data that needs processing to be made sensible.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 1, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Let's try something more recent. Oh look, still cooling slightly.



Perhaps..if you hold your mouth a certain way and snug down your tin foil hat....but if very slight cooling is the best you can manage in the face of steadily increasing CO2...then your hypothesis still looses...



mamooth said:


> The interesting thing is how the big volcanic eruptions are followed by permanent downward plunges. The science of that is not well understood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 2, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Claiming that the present must behave like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different, that's retard logic. Thus, all deniers depend on it.
> 
> And Crick's point, which sailed over all of your heads, is that conditions in the present are wildly different from the past, due to the burning of gigatons of fossil fuels.



The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that.  In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:

- increased CO2 concentrations isn't data

- reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data

- ocean acidification isn't data

- measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data

- melting, receding glaciers isn't data

- declining ice volumes isn't data

- the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data

- the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.

In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.

Once they're through with the list, they start anew.  SSDD.

Just imagine, these goofs would call 97% of climate scientists working in the field, and those who depend on them rather than the Koch-funded denialingdongs, "idiots" and pretty much every other name in the book, none of them flattering.  Whoever thought satire is dead was dead wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 2, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that.  In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:



You sound more the denier than I am.  You deny that what you call evidence of man's alteration of the global climate is nothing more than some flimsy correlation...and nothing like actual hard evidence that we are having any effect at all on the global climate...you deny the entire history of the earth in favor of a very short window in which there is not the first shred of actual evidence that we are doing anything to the global climate...no human fingerprint can be detected...we are well within the bounds of natural variability?



Olde Europe said:


> - increased CO2 concentrations isn't data



It is certainly data...but proving what?...Suggesting what?...400ppm is very low if you look at the broader picture...in fact, the ice age in which the earth presently finds itself began with CO2 concentrations of about 1000ppm....and for most of earth's history, CO2 levels have been considerably above 1000ppm with none of the wild runaway warming effects claimed by modern climate science.



Olde Europe said:


> - reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data



False...and if you want to bring in the IRIS and IMG data, which is the gold standard,  you will find no difference at all over a30 year spread in the specific CO2 bands..









Olde Europe said:


> - ocean acidification isn't data



What do you suppose the "acidification" levels were like when CO2 was over 1000ppm?...do you suppose the oceans were great dead spaces?  Do you have any real evidence that we are causing acidification?



Olde Europe said:


> - measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data



Warming is proof of warming...cooling is proof of cooling...a pause is proof of a pause...none of them are in any indicative of what caused them...they are only evidence of change which is the steady state of the climate here on earth.



Olde Europe said:


> - melting, receding glaciers isn't data



Glaciers have been melting and advancing for 0ver 14K years now....we are exiting an ice age...what else would you expect...you would prefer a 2 mile thick sheet of ice over the great lakes?



Olde Europe said:


> - declining ice volumes isn't data



Of course it is data...so is advancing ice volumes...but neither is in any indicative of what the cause is...and both the ice gain and ice loss that we are seeing is well within the bounds of natural variability...



Olde Europe said:


> - the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data



But the kind of carbon doesn't matter....the fact is that nothing is happening that is not well within the bounds of natural variability....



Olde Europe said:


> - the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.



Do you have one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting that claim?...of course you don't...you have nothing but models that have proven themselves to be far from adequate....show me one piece of actual empirical data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability.



Olde Europe said:


> In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.



Measuring change is not measuring causality...you see change and assume cause...that isn't science...that is opinion.



Olde Europe said:


> Once they're through with the list, they start anew.  SSDD.



The list is yours...not ours...none of the items in your list above offer any real evidence that we are altering the global climate....they are all attached to assumptions based on models that are based on assumptions....no real evidence in support of the claims at all.

]


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> The denialist ding-dongs are way smarter than that.  In support of the well-captured cretinism above they also offer:





SSDD said:


> You sound more the denier than I am.  You deny that what you call evidence of man's alteration of the global climate is nothing more than some flimsy correlation...and nothing like actual hard evidence that we are having any effect at all on the global climate...you deny the entire history of the earth in favor of a very short window in which there is not the first shred of actual evidence that we are doing anything to the global climate...no human fingerprint can be detected...we are well within the bounds of natural variability?



Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable.  It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try).  Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming.  The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed.  To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence.  You're the denier.



Olde Europe said:


> - increased CO2 concentrations isn't data





SSDD said:


> It is certainly data...but proving what?...Suggesting what?...400ppm is very low if you look at the broader picture...in fact, the ice age in which the earth presently finds itself began with CO2 concentrations of about 1000ppm....and for most of earth's history, CO2 levels have been considerably above 1000ppm with none of the wild runaway warming effects claimed by modern climate science.



A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm.  I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.



Olde Europe said:


> - reduced radiation from earth to space, affecting wavelengths consistent with the CO2 absorption spectrum, isn't data





SSDD said:


> False...and if you want to bring in the IRIS and IMG data, which is the gold standard,  you will find no difference at all over a30 year spread in the specific CO2 bands..



OLR is increasing?  What a surprise.  Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT.  The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space.  And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute.  Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?



Olde Europe said:


> - ocean acidification isn't data





SSDD said:


> What do you suppose the "acidification" levels were like when CO2 was over 1000ppm?...do you suppose the oceans were great dead spaces?  Do you have any real evidence that we are causing acidification?



Acidification (pH) levels were moderate when CO2 was high in the past because the CO2 increase took place over tens of thousands to millions of years and the erosion of calcareous aragonite and limestone had time to buffer the added the CO2.  On the very few occasions when it DID take place as rapidly as it is taking place now, we experienced things like the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction event, when over 96% of marine species and over 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species went extinct.



Olde Europe said:


> - measured temperatures all over the earth isn't data





SSDD said:


> Warming is proof of warming...cooling is proof of cooling...a pause is proof of a pause...none of them are in any indicative of what caused them...they are only evidence of change which is the steady state of the climate here on earth.



The world is warming.  That warming (like any change) has a cause.  All available science concludes that the primary cause of that warming is the greenhouse effect acting on CO2 added to the atmosphere by human use of fossil fuels and deforestation.



Olde Europe said:


> - melting, receding glaciers isn't data





SSDD said:


> Glaciers have been melting and advancing for 0ver 14K years now....we are exiting an ice age...what else would you expect...you would prefer a 2 mile thick sheet of ice over the great lakes?



The rate of ice melt worldwide, has accelerate multifold from anything experienced during the onset of the current interglacial.  And for most of the Holocene global temperatures have been slowly declining, not warming.  And, as we've said many times before, what we'd prefer is for change to take place at an unaccelerated pace.



Olde Europe said:


> - declining ice volumes isn't data





SSDD said:


> Of course it is data...so is advancing ice volumes...but neither is in any indicative of what the cause is...and both the ice gain and ice loss that we are seeing is well within the bounds of natural variability...



It is not and you have no evidence that it is.



Olde Europe said:


> - the kind carbon in the air consistent with fossil fuels isn't data





SSDD said:


> But the kind of carbon doesn't matter....the fact is that nothing is happening that is not well within the bounds of natural variability....



Natural variability doesn't burn gigatonnes of fossil fuel.  Neither CO2 levels nor temperatures have remained within natural variability.  To this you will reply that both have seen greater extremes and to that I will point out that when they did, they had specific causes: those extremes did not represent the bounds of "natural variability", a term you have never defined and are unlikely to do so now.



Olde Europe said:


> - the determination that there's no significant forcing that could possibly effect the changing average temperatures - except for increasing, human-caused GHG - isn't data.





SSDD said:


> Do you have one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting that claim?...of course you don't...you have nothing but models that have proven themselves to be far from adequate....show me one piece of actual empirical data that supports the AGW claim over natural variability.



Yes, you lying piece of shit.  He has "The Physical Science Basis" from AR5 as well as the thousands of published scientific studies on which it and its predecessors are based.  You, on the other hand, *DO - NOT - HAVE - JACK - SHIT*.



Olde Europe said:


> In effect, they're saying if they can't hang a thermometer out, make few temperature readings showing an upward gradient, if, in fact, they cannot measure causality itself, global warming and its human contribution to it can't be regarded as a fact, or as close to a fact humans can get.





SSDD said:


> Measuring change is not measuring causality...you see change and assume cause...that isn't science...that is opinion.



Science has never relied on the correlation.  But no causality exists that doesn't exhibit correlation, does it.



Olde Europe said:


> Once they're through with the list, they start anew.  SSDD.





SSDD said:


> The list is yours...not ours...none of the items in your list above offer any real evidence that we are altering the global climate....they are all attached to assumptions based on models that are based on assumptions....no real evidence in support of the claims at all.



You are an ignorant liar.  That has been demonstrated, here and elsewhere, absolutely beyond all dispute.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> That has been demonstrated absolutely beyond all dispute.



Yep, and you ought to be highly, unreservedly recommended for the patience and the stamina to wade through that swamp.  I couldn't muster either.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable.  It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try).  Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming.  The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed.  To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence.  You're the denier.



All bullshit all the time with you crick...lets see a single shred of observed measured quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.





Crick said:


> A CO2 level of 400 ppm doesn't "suggest" but informs us outright that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher now than when CO2 was at 280 ppm.  I know you love to bring up prehistoric climate parameters, but that CO2 is higher now than it has been at any time since before homo sapiens appeared on this planet is a far more pertinent fact.



And yet, lower than when CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm when the present ice age first began...And since the earth has been in an ice age since we came on the scene..with the associated colder oceans holding CO2, it stands to reason that CO2 has been low...go back to a period before the ice and you see CO2 in excess of 1000ppm...





Crick said:


> OLR is increasing?  What a surprise.  Perhaps that's because the Earth's temperature is GOING UP YOU FUCKING IDIOT.  The greenhouse effect doesn't permanently trap IR in the atmosphere, it only slows it's release to space.  And, since we're talking about EM radiation, it's being slowed from a fraction of a second to, perhaps, a minute.  Did you actually expect to see that on a graph of decades?



But that isn't what the AGW hypothesis predicts...it predicts reduced OLR...yet one more predictive failure for the AGW hypothesis...tell me, how many failures does a hypothesis get in your world before it is deemed a failure?..



Olde Europe said:


> - ocean acidification isn't data[/quot
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That has been demonstrated absolutely beyond all dispute.
> ...




Why commend someone who failed at every point...all he has is opinion as evidenced by the fact that he produced nothing whatsoever to support his baseless claims...such is the nature of you warmer wackos...you are told to believe by people who share your political leanings so you believe....


----------



## Crick (Feb 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Your semantics here are as worthless as worthless can be. That the world has been warming is simply undeniable.  It is undeniable that basic physics tells us that increasing CO2 will have that effect (though several fools here try).  Despite years of study, no other process has been found that could cause the observed warming.  The warming which calculations tell us the CO2 increase we've produced would cause matches what has been observed.  To conclude anything other than AGW is taking place is to deny facts in plain evidence.  You're the denier.
> ...




I named my empirical science.  Where is yours?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Funny crick... for all your "empirical" evidence...you don't seem to be able to pull a single shred of such evidence supporting your failed hypothesis....you are laughing stock...and it is only going to get worse over the coming years....


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 8, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Why commend someone who failed at every point...all he has is opinion as evidenced by the fact that he produced nothing whatsoever to support his baseless claims...such is the nature of you warmer wackos...you are told to believe by people who share your political leanings so you believe.



You know, Crick pegged you perfectly.  Where he finds the stamina to do what he does I cannot fathom, since taking you seriously and attempting to debate you, a seemingly inexhaustible, endlessly repetitive fount of ignorance and disinformation, is not just pointless, it's a monument to pointlessness.  Last I checked, you've run the very same shtick since at least 2012 / 2013, pretty much since you alighted on here.  It takes more than just determination not to learn a single thing in all these years (except perhaps for becoming even more unpleasant than you were back then), though I am at pains to explain what that would be.  Have a good life!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> You know, Crick pegged you perfectly.  Where he finds the stamina to do what he does I cannot fathom, since taking you seriously and attempting to debate you, a seemingly inexhaustible, endlessly repetitive fount of ignorance and disinformation, is not just pointless, it's a monument to pointlessness.  Last I checked, you've run the very same shtick since at least 2012 / 2013, pretty much since you alighted on here.  It takes more than just determination not to learn a single thing in all these years (except perhaps for becoming even more unpleasant than you were back then), though I am at pains to explain what that would be.  Have a good life!



Funny thing...I believe that you actually believe what you said...Tell you what.. since crick can't produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...how about you provide one...just one...doesn't even have to be proof...just a real piece of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

And you know what...you can't do it either because none exists...there is plenty of half assed correlation that you people apparently believe is evidence, but actual evidence...not a whit...

And pretending that it has been presented...or that you have seen it..or that anyone has seen it is the schtick of every warmer out there...actually providing such evidence..unfortunately isn't the schtick of any of you.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Again, I named my empirical evidence; several thousand pages of it.  Where is yours?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



According to you...anyone who sends people off to a web address...or a great big pile of information hoping that they find something that satisfies them is just talking out of their ass...people who have actual data, bring it forward and post it in the faces of those they are arguing with....so lets see it...that single piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in those thousands of pages that support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

You are tiresome and you have absolutely nothing to bring to this conversation.  Nighty night


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are tiresome and you have absolutely nothing to bring to this conversation.  Nighty night




No crick... as you have proven repeatedly, it is you who has absolutely nothing to bring to the conversation...observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability would damned sure be something to talk about...something important to talk about...but you don't seem to be able to produce it even though you say that there are thousands of pages of actual observed, empirical data supporting said hypothesis...all you have is claims that you can't back up which is, in fact, nothing.  I keep asking for something to talk about and you keep not delivering....


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

You're stupid and you lie.  That's about all there is to say about it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> You're stupid and you lie.  That's about all there is to say about it.



Projecting your flaws and shortcomings on me hardly changes the fact that you ca't bring a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to the table that supports your hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

You're stupid and you lie... and you have presented ZERO evidence to support your position.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> You're stupid and you lie... and you have presented ZERO evidence to support your position.
> 
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf



My position, you idiot is that you can't produce a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....and every time you fail to do so, you present more evidence in support of my position...

And again.....you merely post up a steaming pile of shit hoping that I might go there and find what you seem to be completely unable to find...and once again, by your own standards, people who send others off to find what they are unable to bring here for themselves are just talking out of their asses...

If there is something there, then bring it here and lets see it....I understand your hesitance...after all, every time you have brought something forward that passed for actual evidence in your mind, you have got bitch slapped down over your stupidity...but try again if you like...just for our amusement.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.



So you claim..but you don't seem to be able to find a single item to bring here....not a single item....your claims of thousands of pages of evidence stinks of evasion...if there were anything there, you certainly would bring it here to slap me down with it...instead, you get bitch slapped with everything you bring that passes for evidence in your mind....showing mainly that you wouldn't know evidence if it bit you on the ass...


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> I've posted a link to thousands of pages of hard evidence where you have presented ab-so-fucking-lutely NOTHING.



I have proven conclusively that you are unable to bring forward a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability from your steaming pile of thousands of pages...NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED...

I understand your hesitance to bring anything from that big pile of pseudoscientific bullshit here....getting slapped around for being so easily fooled can't be fun.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

You are a bald-faced liar.  And a complete ass to boot.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 10, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are a bald-faced liar.  And a complete ass to boot.




And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from your thousand pages of shit....because there is nothing there that you aren't afraid to bring here for fear of being laughed at...or you know yourself that there is nothing there supporting the  AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

in either case, you are afraid to bring it here.


----------



## Crick (Feb 10, 2017)

Why don't you pull something from that link and prove it false?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 11, 2017)

lol.....the alarmists are in complete denial. I sure do get a kick out of it in here!! Their crusade is not only a derailment at this point. Its a complete train off the tracks...volumes of evidence to support that already very well documented in just the threads you see on Page 1 of this forum.

*Coal miners projected to go back to work*

By John Siciliano • 2/7/17 2:24 PM

*"The new short-term forecast shows coal mines rising from their lowest production numbers in nearly 40 years to experiencing a 3 percent increase in production in 2017 due to a surge in demand from coal power plants, the agency said. The forecast shows coal mining production increasing by 1 percent in 2018 as power plant demand continues to increase."*

*http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/coal-miners-projected-to-go-back-to-work/article/2614154*



Meanwhile, Scott Pruitt is taking a baseball bat to the heads at the EPA. The goofball Paris agreements are fucked and the goals completely obliterated without US full participation.

 DUH!

*https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603582/how-much-damage-could-scott-pruitt-really-do-at-epa/?set=603597*



Like Ive been saying.........the k00k warmist contingent can scream from every mountaintop abut how locktight the "consensus" is. But spiking the football in internet forums is ghey. The "consensus" is having absolutely zero impact outside the little hamlet of the bogus science........energy policy makers aren't caring for dick. Paris exists to line the pockets of the DUMS at election time from the green industry profiteers. Again..................DUH!

In the real world, you meatheads are not winning..........even a little bit.

We cant even get a single link from these bozo's when asked, "Where is the science mattering in the real world?". Not a single link



Now to the mental case part...............

We have a couple of board members in here that don't even acknowledge the reality of the situation. They keep on debating the science only. Its fascinating. And they've been doing it for years and years in here and the football hasn't moved a single yard beyond the journal stage. For ten years, I keep seeing a link posted up about THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT by these people. Ten years!! And the silly Arctic Ice graph.....over and over for ten years!! Think about this.........the intellectual equivalent is running your car into a thick steel wall 100 times and heading back to see if you can finally break through the next time!!



Time for a Plan B s0ns.........been saying it a long time!! Your Plan A is proving to be profoundly ghey.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> Why don't you pull something from that link and prove it false?



Not my job...and not what I have been asking for....I requested a single piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and after all your bluster, insults, and name calling, you still haven't produced the first piece of such evidence....


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 11, 2017)

westwall said:


> At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> 
> All References to Climate Change Have Been Deleted From the White House Website




Just imagine what an infantile goof you have to be to celebrate the removal of any mention of "climate change" from the White House website as some kind of accomplishment, as if it changed one whit in the real world.

And here we see the denialingdongs, a veritable Who's Who, sorting themselves into the various categories to which they belong.  I haven't seen such eagerness to do that ever before, so that's quite something:







 Winner x *20*

defcon4
Stasha_Sz
Hossfly
WillowTree
NLT
Dale Smith
teapartysamurai
Little-Acorn
depotoo
Iceweasel
Billy_Bob
koshergrl
Old Yeller
Tilly
skye
CrusaderFrank
jc456
Missourian
Indeependent
Weatherman2020






 Thank You! x *3*

HereWeGoAgain
Toddsterpatriot
Cellblock2429






 Informative x *2*

SassyIrishLass
AnCap'n_Murica





Funny and Agree!! x *1*

jon_berzerk

So, westwall, prudently and admirably documenting evidence for the GOP's war on science, facts, and common sense, flushes out the knee-jerkers amongst the denialist crew.  I'm just missing skookerasbil and SSDD.  What happened?  You know you belong there, so stand up and be counted!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> ...





s0n.......the denialist crew...........is winning!! Overwhelmingly btw. The website change is nothing more than a giant poke in the eye to the religion, and celebrated widely by skeptics. Have you not seen the massive influx of bumpy cucumber Photobucket Classics on display in this forum in recent weeks?

War on science?

Not needed s0n. The religion still has not made its case?

How do we know?

Because in 2017, absolutely nobody is caring about the science!!

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html']
	
[/URL]

Indeed..........the science stands on its own............a hobby for the OCD's of the world. Nothing more than a big poker party on Friday nights......much losing.

Congress hasn't done shit in almost 10 years. Nobody cares!! Skeptics winning!!

Renewable energy is a *total joke*......and will be by all projections for the next 30 years ( according to the Obama EIA in 2016 .....would you like me to post the graph?  )

A quick look at Europe circa 2017 lets you know all you have to about how much the science is having an effect on energy policy!! In the last 3 years, Germany is importing coal at staggering rates AND are building 20 new coal fired plants between now and 2020!!. China will be increasing its coal production..........ready for this.........50% by 2050!! ( about 250,000 links to this within this forum ).


And here comes Scott Pruitt at EPA!!!


The infantile celebrating could not be more fabulous!!



But the alarmist religion can keep taking bows on its "consensus" science. 


[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/laughter.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/laughter.gif[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/laughter.gif.html']
	
[/URL][/URL]


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming."
> ...







It's the other way around mr sock account.  As any reasonably intelligent person can discover for themselves (leaves you out, the intelligent part I mean) there is NO science in what you are preaching.  You are merely just another silly person, wearing a sandwich board, clanging a bell, bellowing "the end is nigh!  Repent lest the LORD slay thee!"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> Why don't you pull something from that link and prove it false?


How about you put forward the relevant section you think proves your position...  Lets start there.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you pull something from that link and prove it false?
> ...




Been through that...he has brought some idiocy forward that amounts to nothing more than mild correlation..but hey, that is what passes for actual evidence in his mind...as a result, he is afraid to bring anything else forward for fear of getting bitch slapped again...so instead, he hopes that we will visit the site and find something that satisfies us....he wouldn't know actual evidence if it bit him on the ass as evidenced by the crap he has already brought forward.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

The purpose of the entire work is to show what is demonstrated by the physical science.  I'd have thought you'd prefer to select your own bits to nitpick.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2017)

Crick said:


> The purpose of the entire work is to show what is demonstrated by the physical science.  I'd have thought you'd prefer to select your own bits to nitpick.







Please.  By all means show us physical science.  Not computer generated fiction, but real, boots on the ground actual science.  Go ahead.  I dare you.


----------



## Crick (Feb 11, 2017)

Go to the fucking link you fool.  The work is chock-a-block with empirical evidence, despite your lies to the contrary.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> Go to the fucking link you fool.  The work is chock-a-block with empirical evidence, despite your lies to the contrary.



Again with the dishonest weaseling.....I never said that there was no empirical evidence there...I said that there was none that supported the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....are you really so stupid that you can't grasp the difference?

Now go find some piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....oh wait...you can't...because there is none...evidence that glaciers are melting is just evidence that glaciers have melted...they did it before we came on the scene so clearly glaciers melting is within the realm of natural variability...as to how quickly anything is happening...claims that it is happening more rapidly now than in the past are bullshit...the only proxy reconstructions with that sort of resolution are ice core studies and they show larger temperature changes over shorter periods than anything we have seen...no other proxy study can even begin to claim that sort of resolution...

So sorry crick..you lose...there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick said:


> Again and again and again: you're stupid and you lie.



You are the liar crick...haven't I said to you repeatedly that the temperature of the room where the paper was written would constitute empirical evidence?....of course the temperature of the room wouldn't constitute empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...it would just be empirical evidence that the room was x degrees...

And in your own post, you merely say that it is chock full of empirical evidence...so what?...the existence of empirical evidence doesn't mean that said empirical evidence even supports the AGW hypothesis...much less that it supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

So if you think there is some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...by all means...lets see it...just one single piece....just one shred....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again and again and again: you're stupid and you lie.
> ...



So you think you can toss out 500 million years of natural variability?...and if you believe there is an identifiable forcing...a measurable forcing...an observable, measurable, quantifiable forcing changing the climate...then lets see one single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence of that forcing...just one...so run along now and find for yourself that no such evidence exists...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 12, 2017)

Crick s0n......best check out of this thread. You're getting your clock cleaned by SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick s0n......best check out of this thread. You're getting your clock cleaned by SSDD.



He isn't even bright enough to know that....in his mind, he is winning....reality isn't his best thing.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 12, 2017)

westwall said:


> Please. By all means show us physical science. Not computer generated fiction, but real, boots on the ground actual science. Go ahead. I dare you.



That's nice snark, but in the end, it's just dumb, that is, you playing to the audience of denialist bobbleheads.  You're smart enough to know that underlying those computer models is the very science you've been asking for, and Crick linked to the most detailed, fact- and evidence-based account of this science and its findings available at the time (#191).  You're also smart enough to know that with myriads of interacting parameters, impossible to process by the human brain, our only path towards generating viable predictions is, exactly, those computer models based on science.  These scientists, you know, didn't just invent them because they like playing with computers - also as you well know.

So, why on earth you'd climb down to SSDD levels, and act just a spoiled brat demanding its pie, and demanding it now, is patently staggering in its obliviousness, given that the IPCC's latest report on "Forcing" (Chapter 8) alone runs over 80 pages, and none of it amounts to concepts that would fall within the brat's limited comprehension.  "Gimme the science" contributes to the debate just about as much as "gimme the evidence", that is, nothing.  And that is particularly true since, as far as I have seen, the brat has failed to understand each and every one of the concepts to which he's been introduced with near inexplicable patience.

So, really, as you're acting as the denialingdongs' head coach and chief ceremonial master, inviting all to celebrate that the word "climate change" had been purged from the White House website, to the denialingdongs' frenetic applause, I can't help but restate how happy I am that this thread exists as your (so far) main insult to your own intelligence.  And no, no amount of snark and neither questioning the intelligence of others are going to change that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 12, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick s0n......best check out of this thread. You're getting your clock cleaned by SSDD.



SSDD's idiocy isn't cleaning anything.
Do you also believe in his smart photons?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> That's nice snark, but in the end, it's just dumb, that is, you playing to the audience of denialist bobbleheads.  You're smart enough to know that underlying those computer models is the very science you've been asking for, and Crick linked to the most detailed, fact- and evidence-based account of this science and its findings available at the time (#191).



Newsflash...computer models are not, and never will be observed, measured, quantified, empirical data...and climate models have failed so miserably that even warmer wackos avoid presenting model data these days..

The fact is that there is no real evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...none...smoke...mirrors..and models..that's all you have.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Please. By all means show us physical science. Not computer generated fiction, but real, boots on the ground actual science. Go ahead. I dare you.
> ...










No, I'm smart enough to know that underlying those self declared "simple computer models" is nothing but air.  Air, and a desire to defraud the public of their hard earned cash, and for politicians and bureaucrats to gain more control over people.  That is the only thing underlying those computer models.  There _IS_ no science.


----------



## Crick (Feb 12, 2017)

You have admitted that empirical evidence is found in WG-I.  Why do you keep bringing up models?  And if you ARE going to bring up models, why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with SPECIFIC models?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2017)

Mr. Westwall brings up the models because he dares not acknowledge what is happening in the cryosphere and with extreme weather events as we post. He has abandoned all pretense of science, and is just repeating the lines of the 'Conservatives' that put the orange clown in the White House. He is fully committed to the Lysenkoism that the new administration would like to put into place.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> You have admitted that empirical evidence is found in WG-I.  Why do you keep bringing up models?  And if you ARE going to bring up models, why don't you tell us SPECIFICALLY what is wrong with SPECIFIC models?




You really are that stupid aren't you....without a doubt...you are unable to differentiate between evidence of "something" and evidence supporting a specific topic...I have repeatedly said that there is empirical evidence there...hell, if they have a temperature chart, they have empirical evidence...but they have no empirical evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and again...if you can muster up enough IQ points to understand what you are looking for, go bring some observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence that SUPPORTS THE AGW HYPOTHESIS OVER NATURAL VARIABILITY...


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

Why do I bother?  You're still stupid and you still lie.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> Why do I bother?  You're still stupid and you still lie.




Sorry crick..your lies are right there for anyone to read....and you are stupid...without a doubt....


----------



## jillian (Feb 13, 2017)

elektra said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Well, why don't you and Kookie loon show me a more recent poll supporting your POV?
> ...



yes, there's no such thing as science....and the world must be the way the orange sociopath and his puppet masters say it is.

funny how you believe garbage, but not the best information we have at our disposal at this point in time.

this is why you're so easily manipulated. and clearly you don't understand polling or legitimate information


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2017)

jillian said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...




Show me where the "best information" is mattering in the real world sweets!

Provide links please...........

The reason for the phrase,* "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER"* is because these people have an inability to connect the dots past the billboard. I find it fascinating. All the debate about the science.......but outside that little academia/media/internet forums realm, its not mattering for dick. Its like standing naked on a stool in central Siberia and taking bows!


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

jillian said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...









The person being manipulated is you jillian.  Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world.  Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them?  That's right, an actual stop to pollution.  EVERYONE is still free to pollute.  You merely have to pay a tax to do it.  A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians. 

If the consequences of inaction were so dire do you not think that there would be actual draconian measures in place to stop it?

You are a lawyer.  Think like one.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.



We're paying taxes to the wealthy and to politicians?  Is that so?

Of course, you know as well as the next guy that a complete stop to burning FFs would immediately collapse the world economy, and result in billions starving to death.  Not even the most hysterical of "warmers" demand as much.  Moreover, it takes just a basic understanding of supply and demand to know that increasing the price of a commodity (and promising more of same for the future) tends to suppress demand (and maybe sparks research in efficiency and alternative, sustainable sources of energy), which is exactly what we need given the dire threat we are facing.  So, the tiny straw man you erected still withstands your pseudo-reasoned onslaught.

BTW, and off topic, what's with that jet in a tutu?  Care to provide a bigger, higher resolution version thereof, and explain what it depicts?  TIA.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> We're paying taxes to the wealthy and to politicians?  Is that so?



When a tax increases the cost of a product...who do you think pays that tax...the manufacturer...or the consumer?

And it isn't a jet wearing a tutu you moron..it is what happens when an aircraft breaks through the sound barrier...  some science guy you are...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And it isn't a jet wearing a tutu you moron.



Bummer!  And I have already bet the farm on the existence of a jet in a tutu.

But thanks, found it:






There's even more tutus.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> [
> 
> The person being manipulated is you jillian.  Take a look at every single global warming control piece of legislation throughout the world.  Do you notice the one thing missing from all of them?  That's right, and actual stop to pollution.  EVERYONE is still free to pollute.  You merely have to pay a tax to do it.  A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
> 
> ...



The tax is there to discourage pollution. And I don't know about the US, but Australia and NZ both have plenty of legislation stopping pollution. When I was growing up everybody had an incinerator in their back yard to burn shit. Now illegal. There was no constraints on car emissions. Now there is. I could go on...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> You are tiresome and you have absolutely nothing to bring to this conversation.  Nighty night


so you can't present what you claim you have.  interesting.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...








The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > EVERYONE is still free to pollute. You merely have to pay a tax to do it. A tax that enriches those who are already wealthy, and of course the politicians.
> ...







Yes, that's so.  Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax?  He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out.  It was Ken Lay.  I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.



You're so needy a guy, you have to assume, for the sake of your self-aggrandizement, I'd need to google Kenny boy?  Really...

Of course, Gore denies Ken has had anything to do with the carbon tax, and the late Ken himself cannot defend himself.  Whatever, this is infowars-, Alex Jones-grade stuff, just like your World-Wide Grand Conspiracy for population control and 97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme, probably with fat bank accounts in Switzerland or the Grand Caymans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*The tax is there to discourage pollution.*

CO2 isn't pollution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that's so. Who do you think gave gore the idea of a carbon tax? He sure wasn't smart enough to figure it out. It was Ken Lay. I'll let you google the name so you can figure out who set this part of the scam in motion.
> ...



*97% of publishing climate scientists in on the scheme*

75 out of 77.....sounds serious!!!


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> The tax does nothing but take money from people who can't afford it, and give it to wealthy bankers who do nothing with it but buy fancy cars, golden thrones, private jets that they use to fly celebs around in, and all the while they laugh at the rubes, like you, who made it possible for them to pull off the greatest scam in the history of the world.



Of course it does....


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Take it up with Westwall. It was his call. That aside, most causes of greenhouse gases is pollution


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



*Take it up with Westwall. It was his call.*

Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And there it is...the idiocy of liberalism on display...all the tax does is result in a higher consumer cost to be paid by people who can least afford it...because consumers pay the taxes for business...

Draconian fines, and prison sentences discourage pollution because it is the actual polluters who get stuck with that cost...and I favor prison over fines....but fines of a magnitude that would bankrupt a company would be acceptable...that is how you actually do something about pollution..you make the punishment so terrible that only a real idiot would take the chance of getting caught...


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

He just told you that Australia and NZ (and the US and Britain and all of Europe) have loads of laws and regulations preventing and controlling polluting practices.  And using taxes to control behavior goes back as far as taxes.  It's effective and everyone here knows that if the government passed laws directly prohibiting such behaviors, you and yours would be screaming about it like a two-year old with a fire ant in his diapers.  It's what you scream and whine about now.

Applying pressure through taxation allows that free market system you all adore to evolve efficient and cost effective means to solve the problem.  

It's rather obvious here that you don't have a side.  You just oppose contemporary thinking no matter which way it goes.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.



Neither did I...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall didn't say CO2 is pollution.
> ...



Glad we're all in agreement then.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Are we?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Aren't we?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> Aren't we?



I was talking pollutants. You're talking CO2


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...







So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

westwall said:


> [
> 
> 
> So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?



Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> 
> CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.



*CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.*

Yup, because an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses would be better........DERP!


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

In levels above those under which humankind evolved and human culture developed - yes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> In levels above those under which humankind evolved and human culture developed - yes.



LOL!


----------



## Crick (Feb 13, 2017)

How about oxygen?  Do you think oxygen could be a pollutant?  What would happen if we raised it to, say, 60%?  Anything?  Think everyone would feel better?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 13, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?



Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?
> ...



_Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas._

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...








Water vapor is THE dominant GHG.  Is it a pollutant?


----------



## westwall (Feb 13, 2017)

Crick said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> 
> CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.








Really?  Why is 280 ppm the "magic number"?  Where is the actual lab experiment (not computer modeled fiction) that supports that contention.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Crick said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> 
> CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.



Bullshit....lets see one shred of observed measured quantified empirical evidence...or we can talk about that equation describing the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect that claims that one radiator radiating up at -18 degrees and another radiator radiating down at -18 degrees result in a radiating temperature of about 29 degrees...want to talk about that?

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!



The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air.  Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away, and thus adds to the CO2 in the air.  That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.

How does it feel if it turns out you've been laughing (out loud) at your own ignorance and incomprehension?  (I, for one, found it very funny.)   Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose, and too much, or too little, of most is detrimental, which is when even essentials turn into, for lack of a better word, pollutants.  Heck, without water we don't survive.  Drink eight or ten liters of the stuff, and you're dead.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!
> ...



Of course all that depends on there actually being a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation  T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said...you ran away when challenged to say what you think it says...what's the matter guy?....afraid of proving that you can't read even a basic equation?.....

And if you can't read such a simple equation and say what it means...exactly what credibility does that lend you in talking about a greenhouse effect that is based on terribly flawed physics?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.



I see, you still can't correctly interpret the equation you've been hyperventilating about for about a week, and you're further compounding your embarrassment by spreading it to non-pertinent threads.  Good job exposing yourself for what you are, Same Shit, Different Day.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.
> ...



I see that you are still talking out of your ass and don't have the first clue as to what the equation says.....obviously the topic is waaaaaaayyyyy over your head even though it is fairly easy math....so lets hear it...and it is pertinent...you were just explaining how CO2  and the greenhouse effect combine to spell disaster for us...so the greenhouse effect is certainly pertinent...and if you are such an authority on the greenhouse effect, that you feel comfortable lecturing on it..then surely you can tell us what the equation at the heart of the description of said greenhouse effect says....so lets hear it....or lets hear another mewling excuse as to why you won't say what you think the equation is saying....

T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> I see that you are still talking out of your ass and don't have the first clue as to what the equation says.



Obviously.  And you then move on to demand I explain the equation to you.  You've gone to great lengths to insult all who understood the equation, and pranced around cock-certain you got it right, even while you didn't, and after a week of chasing that equation through at least three different threads, you still can't figure it out.

Look, you never listen, and thus you learn nothing, and therefore debating you is like erecting a monument to pointlessness, as I pointed out elsewhere.  All there's left now is to expose you for the troll and ignoramus you are, although I have to admit you're making a better job of it than I could hope to do.  By all means, Same Shit, Different Day, please proceed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!
> ...



*The CO2 you exhale is just giving back the carbon your food stuff, while growing, extracted from the air.*

Yup, used to be in the air, then in a plant, then back in the air.

*Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away*

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

*pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away*

Carbon that used to be in the air is in the air again.
*
That's what the term "excess" in Crick's definition means.*

Excess? Because 280 ppm is the correct amount? Why?

*Our ecosystem, our very life depend on the presence of necessary ingredients in just the right dose,*

Cool. What's the right dose? How do you know? What happened in the past when the "dose" was higher?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away*
> 
> So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.



So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point?  Isn't that a bit sleazy, Toddster?  Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions.  That's not rocket science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away*
> ...



*So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point?*

Your point was that carbon that was in the air months ago is safe to release but carbon that was in the air millions of years ago is dangerous.

When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?



Read carefully, and for comprehension this time, okay?

"Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions."​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?
> ...



Yup, just awful.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away*
> ...







How is his point distorted?  It is absolutely factual.  You are the person resorting to religious analogy to vilify a gas that is the fundamental building block of life on this planet.  It is you who has determined that 280 ppm is a somehow magical number that MUST NOT BE CROSSED.  The history of this planet shows the majority of the time the CO2 concentrations have been much higher.  Thus, a thinking person would infer that THAT is the normal level.  What we are experiencing now is the abnormal.  

That's how science works.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > When it was in the air millions of years ago, did it harm the planet? Kill all life?
> ...










Your entire statement here has not a single bit of factual data to support it.  Not one.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup, just awful.



I get the impression you're still not quite up to speed.  So, just a few observations:

First, the earth's ecosystems worked, obviously, during the hundreds of millions of years, except for prior instances of Great Extinctions.  We wouldn't want to bring about one of these events, would we?

Second: Of course, some forms of life would survive even significantly warmer conditions.  The question is, would these conditions support humankind?  That is in doubt, because our ecosystem is ill-adapted to those conditions, and we see species die out at an unprecedented pace (except for Great Extinctions).  These species may not all be dying out because of climate change but because of increasing human land use (etc.), but remember: ecosystems are many closely interacting parts that need to fit together to function properly, and we never know in advance which is the last pillar supporting that system before it collapses.  So, the cautionary principle would suggest we preserve as many pillars (species, environmental circumstances) as possible to keep these systems healthy and functioning properly.

Third: Just as one thing heading our way:  50% of our oxygen in the air is actually produced by plankton in the oceans.  Scientists tell us that it's starting to die off because increasingly acidic oceans are beginning to dissolve the plankton shells, and not only may we have to learn to make do with less oxygen, but the food chain in the ocean collapses.  So, what then?

Yours is just a variant of, "The earth's climate has always been changing, so what, me worry?"  That's a failing argument, and for quite obvious reasons.  At the most basic form, it's this: A changing climate is bad news for ecosystems not adapted to the climate we are bringing about.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual.



Is it?  FFs accumulated over hundreds of millions of years.  So, that carbon wasn't in the air all at the same time, say, in just a few hundred years, as we're in the process of doing.  So, no, that's not the same (as he suggested) as the life cycle of growing crops, eating them, and exhaling the carbon we've digested, your insisting on "absolutely" notwithstanding.  280ppm of CO2 in the air is known to support life as we know it.  Doubling that results in huge changes, the magnitude thereof we just begin to fathom, but we already know - well, those informing themselves know - for many parts of the world these changes will be devastating.  Obviously, sloppy thinkers and ignoramuses can't be bothered.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, just awful.
> ...


*
I get the impression you're still not quite up to speed.*

I'm up to speed. If we keep the carbon in the ground, we live. If we extract and burn it, we're doomed.
Is that it? 

*First, the earth's ecosystems worked, obviously, during the hundreds of millions of years, except for prior instances of Great Extinctions. We wouldn't want to bring about one of these events, would we?*

If we burn coal we'll cause a Great Extinction? What would that take? 500 ppm? 550 ppm? More?
Be as specific as you can.

*Second: Of course, some forms of life would survive even significantly warmer conditions.  The question is, would these conditions support humankind?* 

How did mankind do during previous colder periods? During previous warmer periods?

*50% of our oxygen in the air is actually produced by plankton in the oceans. Scientists tell us that it's starting to die off because increasingly acidic oceans are beginning to dissolve the plankton shells*

Sounds scary!!!
When CO2 levels were 500 ppm, did all the plankton die off?
Did it die off at 1000 ppm? What about at 6000 ppm?

*Yours is just a variant of, "The earth's climate has always been changing, so what, me worry?"* 

Almost. Closer to, "How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to ensure the climate never changes?"
How will we know we've succeeded?


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual.
> ...









CO2 is locked in an endless cycle.  There is no "just right" amount.  When it is abundant we get lots of huge plants, fauna have it easy and life is good for everything on the planet.  When CO2 is sequestered away, plants are small, fauna fights for limited resources and all life is harder.  That is a scientific, and historical fact.  The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control.  All the while the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that mankind produces less than 5% of the entire global budget of CO2.  And as they become aware of that fact, your stranglehold on their pocketbooks will diminish.  As it should.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Obviously.  And you then move on to demand I explain the equation to you.



Did you not make the claim that I had terribly misinterpreted the equation?...does that not imply that you understand it?...and now you admit that you don't have a clue...



Olde Europe said:


> You've gone to great lengths to insult all who understood the equation, and pranced around cock-certain you got it right, even while you didn't, and after a week of chasing that equation through at least three different threads, you still can't figure it out.



In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..


That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't help but notice that after you claimed that this equation T = (239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 X 10^-8) = 303K said something entirely different that what I said that it said.
> ...


then why is adding CO2 to the atmosphere bad as crick states?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..
> ...


it's not his computation. Please for fk sake get it right.  It was from a link at a university citing it as an equation to find surface temps. By old socks.  How is it his when most all of us you've been arguing with have stated it came from the link at the university?  Are you just trying to be an a-hole?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control.



I?  I am making money off carbon control?  Can you point me to the bank account of mine where that windfall accrues?  I'd really like to know.



westwall said:


> All the while the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that mankind produces less than 5% of the entire global budget of CO2.



What does that prove?  Let me tell you, nothing at all.  During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away.  Humankind changed that, not only by burning FFs, but also by greatly reducing carbon sinks, such as rain forests, which results in the exploding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  It's like a bath tub that loses just as much water as is added.  Increase the water flow just a little, just 5%, and it will eventually flow over.  And that's not even accounting for the tipping points towards which we're heading, such as the evaporation of the methane deposits in the Siberian permafrost or in the northern oceans, which might cause run-away, disproportionate climate change.  You know all that, don't you?  But still, in order to uphold your paranoid, "They are after our pocketbooks!  They're into controlling the population!", you have to play SSDD.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control.
> ...








Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.  A more laughable claim I think I have never heard.  How many "tipping points" are you going to claim this time around?  Last decade I can remember at least five tipping points that all came and went and nothing happened.  You are quite literally the "boy who cried wolf".  The wolf never came, nor will he ever.  It is a scam.  Always has been.  Always will be.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.



For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced.  What does that tell you?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That's carbon monoxide...


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.
> ...







That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows.  For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day.  Try again.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...








CO is a lesser byproduct.  My car emits none.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.
> ...


well you do know it was higher before that right?  So how do you know it isn't normally rising back to where it once was?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows.  For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day.  Try again.



That's ridiculous.  Here's my text again:

For at least 400k years, the *CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm*, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?​
That seems precisely "what the Vostock ice core data shows."

Currently, CO2 stands at around 404ppm.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows.  For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day.  Try again.
> ...







Then you don't know how to read a graph.  Not surprising.  The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing.  Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day.  TWICE!  That makes your entire statement *false*.  Like I said.  Best try again.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.



It was, according to you an accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...now your claim is that it was something else entirely...and it is clearly titled  "energy balance at the earth's surface...not the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere...lies upon top of lies topped off with a great big cherry of ignorance....you still don't have a clue...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



All they have at this point is a bunch of hooting like baboons..nothing more...nothing less...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Then you don't know how to read a graph. Not surprising. The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing. Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day. TWICE! That makes your entire statement *false*. Like I said. Best try again.



Twice through the last 400k years (290 and 300 ppm, respectively), the CO2 concentration was above the pre-industrial average of 280ppm.  Still that is way below current-day 404ppm.  I haven't claimed that during that time it was below 280ppm, but that it didn't rise above 300ppm.

You really want to go with accusations of "scientific illiteracy"?  My statement was entirely correct - excepting that I referred to the historical record, which was breached just during the last decades.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.
> ...



Go back to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is presently in and you will find CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm...at the point that the temperature started dropping...the claim of CO2 causing warming falls flat in the face of that fact..


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

Okay...

"During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

... let me rephrase that:

"During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was dynamically self-correcting to keep the CO2 concentration between 180 and 300ppm, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink of roughly equal size, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

Industrial nations changed that into an out-of-balance system of continually increasing CO2 concentrations, with the impact on the climate one would expect with increasing greenhouse gasses, that is, rising temperatures.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Then you don't know how to read a graph. Not surprising. The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing. Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day. TWICE! That makes your entire statement *false*. Like I said. Best try again.
> ...









It was?  Hmmm.   I don't think so.  And once again for the learning impaired, *CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION*.  Everything you have presented is simple correlation.  Correlation that stopped 18  years ago.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Okay...
> 
> "During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."



Since for the vast bulk of earth history, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been way in excess of 1000ppm, the claim that 300 ppm was somehow balanced is bullshit....even the 400ppm that we currently have is CO2 starvation insofar as the "normal" level in the atmosphere is...




Olde Europe said:


> During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was dynamically self-correcting to keep the CO2 concentration between 180 and 300ppm, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink of roughly equal size, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."



again..bullshit.. CO2 levels have been low because the oceans have been cooler...after all, the industrial revolution started at the end of the little ice age...cold oceans sequester more CO2 than warm oceans...warming out of the little ice age released a great deal of CO2 from the oceans that the colder water was capable of holding...


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, *CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION*. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.



I am missing your retraction of your false accusations - not able to read a graph, scientific illiteracy.  I am also missing you acknowledging your falsehood that 300ppm is above the current level of CO2 concentrations (404ppm).  The historical record of relatively steady CO2 concentrations is the result of causation, namely, production roughly in line with storage, not correlation.

Okay then.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Since for the vast bulk of earth history, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been way in excess of 1000ppm



Yeah, with a cooler sun, another distribution of continents, other types of flora and fauna, adapted to those climates, it worked.  With our flora and fauna, and a considerably hotter sun, it wouldn't.  But you don't know that, because all you have is denialist nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, *CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION*. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.
> ...




404 as measured by instruments on top of an active volcano....it is to laugh...you really don't have any idea what is going on..do you?  You have bought the biggest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated on humanity hook line and sinker...history is going to laugh its ass off at you and everyone like you.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, *CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION*. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.
> ...








That's because I didn't make a false accusation.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 14, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.
> ...


I was not referring to the University diagram and analysis as being inane. 
I was referring to your inane computation that lead to a value -18C. That has nothing to do with the diagram nor the GHE. Yet you thought it did.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.



Bully for you. And the millions of cars in China, India and other third world countries that have no pollution monitoring?


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...






How about we deal with the very real particulate, and toxic material pollution that China suffers from, instead of the imaginary "pollution" of CO2.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 14, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...








Nope.  This is what I'm talking about...  These two pictures are from the chinese textile industry...









This one is from their dirty coal fired power plants.  They could be using anthracite coal, which burns very cleanly, but they use lignite, which is the cheapest, dirtiest form of coal to burn.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And finally, this gentleman is the victim of the chinese mining industry.   He is afflicted with heavy metal poisoning from a closed lead mine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 14, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Pollute more. And?


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




and?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....but hey, I don't mind doing it again, at an even simpler level for you....

At the university of washington site, they begin with this graph....  a single input..the sun...a single radiator, the surface of the earth...it assumes no atmosphere....simple radiation in...radiation out.....if you see anything other than that, then you know even less than I had given you credit for and after the past few days, that is very little....

See the equation at the bottom of the page?  The 239.7 wm2 is representing the radiation going out from the surface...it isn't claiming any temperature that the earth would be without an atmosphere...it is simply stating what the earth radiates out after it has absorbed the incoming radiation from the sun...note according to their model...239.7 wm2 is coming in from the sun.  You understand that...or do you think it says something else?  

And your claims that I was somehow being dishonest for calculating a radiating temperature from the radiating wm2 from the various radiators is nothing more than bullshit because that is precisely what they have done in this graphic and the next...see the T = (239.7)/(5.67 x 10^-8) = 255K...that is nothing more than calculating the radiating temperature of the radiation leaving the earth's surface...an object radiating at 239.7 wm2 has a radiating temperature of 255K   255K is -18.15 degrees C...






Then they move on to this graphic...which is according to them and you, describing the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...  Not much has changed on the graphic...except they have now added radiation from the atmosphere......the real 239.7 wm2 radiating out to space through the atmosphere...and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...

Now look at the equation at the bottom of the graphic...  T=(239.7 + 239.7) / (5.67 x 10^-8)....again, all this equation is stating is that they are adding the 239.7 wm2 leaving the earth to the 239.7 wm2 radiating down from the atmosphere...and the graphic above says clearly that the 239.7 wm2 equals a radiating temperature of 255K or -18.15C....I suppose I will do the addition for you also...math doesn't seem to be your best thing...

(239.7 + 239.7) = 479.4....run that through the SB equation and you get a radiating temperature of 303K...or 29.85 degrees C...that is all that the equations say and according to the source, it is a simple, bare bones, description of the greenhouse effect...you can certainly make the model more complicated, but when you begin with such a terribly flawed basic model, you ca't make it complicated enough to fix it...the model doesn't describe reality and no matter how complicated you make it, it is never going to describe reality....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....


Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....
> ...



And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...
> 
> You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...
> 
> And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..


Nope. Wrong again. I already said why in a different thread.


----------



## Dr Grump (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> 
> and?



Exactly.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what? I think that you think you have proven something. You haven't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

Dr Grump said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > > and?
> ...



The CO2 I exhale is identical to CO2 from my car exhaust.


----------



## Crick (Feb 15, 2017)

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes



So what?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...
> ...



And you were wrong there....you have been wrong all along...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Of over 16,649

0.03%..... ooooooo so scary!


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes








Yeah?  So?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> 
> CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.


Wrong....

What a delirious moron..

7,000ppm yet here we are today... how did the earth survive?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes
> ...



CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is magic...Gaia has imbued it with the power to destroy us all...3000ppm of natural CO2 is fie, but a hundred ppm of CO2 from natural hydrocarbons burned by man will wreak havoc on everything..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 15, 2017)

westwall said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm..  just say'in


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2017)

Crick said:


> He just told you that Australia and NZ (and the US and Britain and all of Europe) have loads of laws and regulations preventing and controlling polluting practices.  And using taxes to control behavior goes back as far as taxes.  It's effective and everyone here knows that if the government passed laws directly prohibiting such behaviors, you and yours would be screaming about it like a two-year old with a fire ant in his diapers.  It's what you scream and whine about now.
> 
> Applying pressure through taxation allows that free market system you all adore to evolve efficient and cost effective means to solve the problem.
> 
> It's rather obvious here that you don't have a side.  You just oppose contemporary thinking no matter which way it goes.




No....I just oppose stupidity wherever it may be found....and unfortunately....liberalism seems to have a never ending supply of stupid...there is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences....taxes invariably hurt the people least able to afford the hurt....


----------



## Muhammed (Feb 15, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Your argument is fallacious.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 15, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........


Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?


.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm.. just say'in



Why is that relevant?  Because, it is not.

At the current level of solar irradiation, the glaciation point (the CO2  concentration below which polar icecaps start to build) is estimated to be 500ppm CO2.  450 million years ago, for instance, the younger sun's radiative output was 4% lower.  That might not seem a lot, but it is: The glaciation point back then was somewhere near 3000ppm CO2.

Just sayin'.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........
> ...



You guys just aren't very bright are you?  First, you have no idea what the graphic is stating, second, you have no idea where the numbers are coming from....third, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the whole exercise was to point out how far from reality the basis of the model is....

Either not very bright...or congenital liars who simply can't operate in the realm of truth...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm.. just say'in
> ...



Since CO2 has no effect on temperature whatsoever, your estimate is nothing more than a number pulled out of someone's ass for political expedience...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Now you are being a troll again. You put up graphs from universities.

We all understand what the graphic is saying.
We all agree on where the numbers are coming from. 
We all agreed it was an oversimplification from the get-go, and not based on reality.
And now you are saying: 

We have no idea of what the graphic is stating.;
We don't know where the numbers are coming from;
Not based on reality.
That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth. 
In short you are a  veritable a troll.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....
> ...


he did, what post number did he make that accusation?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...
> ...


you have no idea what you said in that other thread. cause you misrepresented the entire thread here again.  you all love rat holes.  it must be where you live.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


what post did you agree you knew what the numbers were?  Dude, I've been following the discussion in both threads and so far you acknowledged jack, except that you misrepresented and continue to misrepresent what was discussed by SSDD.  PERIOD.  Now you explain which post number you said you agreed where the numbers came from in the university's two graphs?  It's a challenge for you that I'm sure you'll flunk.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Crick said:


> CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> 
> CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description.  Excess CO2 is a pollutant.


again, here you are stating man and most life forms contributes too much CO2, so you want what exactly?  say it out loud your solution!!!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


BTW, here is a post from you where you acknowledge that you have no fking idea where the numbers came from.  LOL....


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


like they have an experiment that shows the difference between man's CO2 and natures CO2 and the magic quality of both and their differences.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So is your dishonesty coming out of your denial...or are you basically just dishonest and really don't know any other way to be?

Post # 41 here  I said as clearly as possible:



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?
> 
> If yes, then I have questions.



To which you replied....in post #44   Yes...

So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....

And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think that they have finally realized exactly how f'ked up that graphic is and are making some sort of attempt to distance themselves from it....wuwei is now claiming that he never agreed that it represented a basic stripped down model of the greenhouse effect when he explicitly agreed with me that it was...this whole exercise on their part is what running for the tall grass looks like...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



At this point, a person could construct an entire thread showing nothing more than the inherent dishonesty of these people.


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.



Naw, "we" don't.  SSDD still thinks the equilibrium equation he kept howling about adds the atmosphere's downward longwave radiation (239.7W/m^2) to the earth's surface radiation (also 239.7W/m^2) to arrive at 303°K.  That was his gross error from the start, that was what he thought demonstrates climate science in general, and the GHE in particular, are hoaxes, and he has yet to correct himself.



Wuwei said:


> That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
> In short you are a veritable a troll.



BTW, have you ever read Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"?  If not, I find you ought to remedy that.  It's an enlightening and entertaining read - how often do you get that?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Naw, "we" don't. SSDD still thinks the equilibrium equation he kept howling about adds the atmosphere's downward longwave radiation (239.7W/m^2) to the earth's surface radiation (also 239.7W/m^2) to arrive at 303°K. That was his gross error from the start, that was what he thought demonstrates climate science in general, and the GHE in particular, are hoaxes, and he has yet to correct himself.


That's right, but he, for some reason, didn't repeat that idiocy in the post I was referring to. Also he agreed to accept the downward radiation "fantasy" for purposes of discussion.


Olde Europe said:


> BTW, have you ever read Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"? If not, I find you ought to remedy that. It's an enlightening and entertaining read - how often do you get that?


I will have to look int Frankfurt. How often do I get bullshit? Enough to fertilize the earth.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.
> ...


since it was what it said, he used it to draw you to a conclusion.  one you've done the twist with since his first post.  so which is it, is that equation a good one or not?  step up man make a difference and finally give your answer.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
> 
> So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....
> 
> And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...


More troll crap. 
You are the one who wanted someones opinion on the diagram, and we told you. We all agreed that the graphic assumed isothermic atmosphere all at the same pressure, with no convection currents. And we all agreed that those assumptions were unrealistic.  And you are the one who allowed to assume the "fantasy" of back-radiation. So what's your problem now.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
> ...


you did?  when? OMG!!!!!!...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...
> ...



And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model...


All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory. We already know you are in denial, so what is your point?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 16, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory.



No.  He's saying that a simplistic model, which was developed for teaching purposes and doesn't match reality, cannot be changed and ameliorated to become, and cannot be replaced by, a model that more closely aligns with reality.  So, because he found an alleged flaw - which is mostly a figment of his incomprehension - in that teaching model, climate science and the theory of the GHE are irreparably flawed.

You savor a good joke just as much as the next guy, don't you?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 16, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> No. He's saying that a simplistic model, which was developed for teaching purposes and doesn't match reality, cannot be changed and ameliorated to become, and cannot be replaced by, a model that more closely aligns with reality. So, because he found an alleged flaw - which is mostly a figment of his incomprehension - in that teaching model, climate science and the theory of the GHE are irreparably flawed.
> 
> You savor a good joke just as much as the next guy, don't you?


Yes the thought processes of SSDD and his sock puppets are astoundingly funny.

Some time ago someone introduced a bill in Indiana that Pi should be 3.2. All of the Senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition, so it was shelved.

It seems that this is a similar situation to the simplistic climate model SSDD was all excited about. It seems fair to say that SSDD would be tempted to consider Pi = 3.2 so that he could attempt to trash trigonometry along with back-radiation.

.


----------



## Crick (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > All you are saying is that you conjured up a new way of saying that you don't believe in thermal radiation theory.
> ...



You give his "flaw" too much credence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2017)

Ummm.....how about back to topic s0ns!!!

How did this morph into a science debate? dud........the title of the thread is "poof it was gone", which by extension means, climate science is not a priority. Like at all.........in other words, the administration has concluded nobody is caring about the science, which by the way, is not mattering in the real world anyway!! Tons of evidence to support that!!

So essentially, for members of the religion, this thread should be about posting up your Plan B to get people caring. Plan A going on for 20+ years now and haven't moved the ball even one yard toward the goalposts.........tons of evidence to support that too!! In fact...........let me present the evidence here..........

Hundreds of links........epic # of "views" ( well over 200,000   ), an all time historic thread on the USMB dominated by skeptics and page one daily for over 3 years now on the ENVIRONMENT forum >>

*http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/page-526#post-16578019*


Just volumes of stuff decimating the ghey arguments of the religion............



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/football-field-gridiron-sports-poster-print.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]

.......illustration necessary for members of the religion who fail to connect the dots!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2017)

Hey SSDD.........Billy..........JC...........

Is it about time to update the ENVIRONMENT scoreboard Photobucket Classic?


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 17, 2017)

Crick said:


> You give his "flaw" too much credence.



You think?  Maybe that is because it doesn't matter.  For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument.  A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict.  So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.

It all reminds me of Rick Scott issuing a decree in 2015 banning the term "climate change" from Florida officials' language.  Another State, also under severe threat from climate-change related changes, I forgot which, ceased collecting climate-change related data altogether.  In all cases, the denialists were all giddy, humming "the witch is gone", nothing more to worry about.  Of course, down the road they (as we all), and their offspring, will reap the rewards in increased warming and reduced preparedness.

All the while, as you correctly noted, the earth's average temperature should be -18°C, given the radiative flux it receives from the sun.  Without the GHE, there's no way to explain the 15°C on average we are actually seeing.  Once that is acknowledged, along with the rising CO2 concentrations, all else falls into place, inescapably.

And yet, all we're seeing and hearing is, "The witch is gone!", nothing more to worry about, and the warmers' underhanded designs on our pocketbooks and control of our lives are thwarted.  They even go so far to declare their fealty towards the poor, not usually a group whose interests would rank high up on their priority list, and their inability to make a living in a society heading for a post-carbon future.  Cheers!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Ummm.....how about back to topic s0ns!!!
> 
> How did this morph into a science debate? dud........the title of the thread is "poof it was gone", which by extension means, climate science is not a priority. Like at all.........in other words, the administration has concluded nobody is caring about the science, which by the way, is not mattering in the real world anyway!! Tons of evidence to support that!!
> 
> ...



*How did this morph into a science debate?*

We're not debating science, we're pointing out SSDD's lack of science.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> You think? Maybe that is because it doesn't matter. For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument. A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict. So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.


I think Crick has a point about reading too much into SSDD. SSDD isn't that smart. I can see your point. SSDD said,,

_And again...if you build a model that is flawed when it is stripped down to its bones...no amount of fleshing out is going to make it a valid model..._​
But that was 355 posts into this thread, and I see that as an afterthought.

SSDD as a premise for the sake of argument, said he would allow the idea of back-radiation. Then he backs out of that in post 345. I still think he has no point in this thread that is any different than his other rantings. Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".

 .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > You think? Maybe that is because it doesn't matter. For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument. A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict. So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.
> ...



*Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".*

"Two radiators at -18C can't warm up anything above -18C"

But he was the only one claiming one of the radiators, the Sun, was at -18C.
But then he claimed it wasn't at -18C, just that "its radiation was at -18C".

It's pointless arguing with his idiocy.

"Cooler photons can't travel toward warmer matter"

Ummm...photons from the Sun's surface travel toward the warmer corona.

"Yeah, but work was dome"

He still doesn't see the problem with his latest claim.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".*
> 
> "Two radiators at -18C can't warm up anything above -18C"
> 
> ...


Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.



And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...


Troll, you are not telling the truth. Your crap doesn't work anymore.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.
> ...



*I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...*

It didn't say that. Anywhere.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Maybe he thought it was a "gotcha" moment for the scientists, but he was the one that suffered the "gotcha".*
> ...


post SSDD's post that he made that statement genius.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...
> ...


poof it was gone


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question.  I'll take that win thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 17, 2017)

Pruitt in at EPA........now the "poof" is official.

May the dismantling begin s0ns!! A great, great day for America, and especially American businessmen!!

Fucking WINNING!!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 17, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You give his "flaw" too much credence.
> ...



*"A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict."
*
If you have to "tweek" the model, your understanding of the process is flawed and the model will have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. This is also why modeling should NEVER be used to make policy decisions.

You morons want to destroy nations and world economies using FANTASY.  *Model outputs are not empirical evidence of any kind.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Errors?

LOL..  That is all you have..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Your incapable of the math? He even gave you the damn equation..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 17, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
He even gave you the damn equation..*

He gave me an equation that shows the Sun radiates at -18C? DERP!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 17, 2017)

Todd, You have infinite patience with these derps. It's like discussing Immanuel Kant with three year olds.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser


----------



## jc456 (Feb 17, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


He did? Hmm prove that or are you going back from our earlier exchange?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


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



Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

*Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser
*
_239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees..._

_Questions.....RE:  The Greenhouse Effect
_
No clue. Moron.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 18, 2017)

lol........more AGW k00k losing...............

Science
*Possible Trump science advisor says global warming is a 'non-problem' not worth investing in*
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 | 3:25 PM ET

*http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/possible-trump-science-advisor-global-warming-is-not-worth-investing-in.html*


Now that Pruitt is confirmed, the bumpy cucumbers will by flying out of the White House real soon!!


poof


----------



## Olde Europe (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
> 
> *Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser
> *
> ...



You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate.  Your quote - "_239.7wm^2 *equates to* a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" _indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood.  Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it.  Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
> ...



_Your quote - "239.7wm^2 _*equates to*_ a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood._

That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.

If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.
> ...



Old Europe...meet toddster...toddster....meet Old Europe....this is the level at which toddster communicates...he rarely adds anything to the conversation...he doesn't think...he misinterprets, looks for punctuation errors...and in general...trolls....if you expect more from toddster, I am afraid you will be disappointed...he doesn't engage in conversation...one liners in line with the conversation of a 5 year old is about as good as it gets with toddster.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



*Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature*

Wow!


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> _Your quote - "239.7wm^2 _*equates to*_ a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood._
> 
> That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.
> 
> If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.



This is to amplify what you are saying. 

Two ice cubes above a surface will will increase the *rate *at which the local surface changes temperature. The ultimate equilibrium temperature of the surface depends totally on the configuration of the ice cubes and what other possible radiators are involved.

First. The idea of two ice cubes plugged into the calculations involved in the diagram from the university simply doesn't work. I asked very early on what is the configuration of the ice cubes he is imagining and SSDD said it didn't matter. But it does. That is his downfall. He simply plugged numbers into an equation that represents a totally different configuration. 

Secondly, If you are given a flux, (e.g. 239 W/m^2) and plug it into the S-B equation to back-calculate the temperature, what you are really calculating is a surface temperature that is creating that flux. That use of the S-B equation has nothing to do with the origin of the input flux. The S-B equation can only calculate an output flux. SSDD confuses it with the input flux.

SSDD calculated what a surface at -18C would radiate, NOT a flux that is impinging on a surface. He used and interpreted the equation totally wrong. The origin of the flux (sun) is immaterial in that calculation except to give a specific value of flux, 239 W/m^2. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 18, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...


Todd very correctly and succinctly answered your post.  
The subtraction in the S-B equation is a difference: *output radiation* from a surface minus *input radiation* to the same surface.
Thinking that you can plug in two ice cubes in that equation and get anything better than insanity is, for lack of a better word.... WOW.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


OK, then let us do it differently. Dr. Hansen proposed a carbon tax that would then be divided up among all citizens equally. So if you have a couple of 4 ton pickups with huge engines, and spend a whole lot on fuel, you would still get the same amount back as the fellow with the Prius C. An open oversight committee to see that the handling costs are not inflated. That way, you reward those that create the least CO2, and the people that create the most get to pay for it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...






Who all get millions of dollars by perpetuating the fraud.  Not a compelling argument on your part, dude.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...









And let's take it a step further, the wealthy person gets compensated for his pollution, and gets to tax every poor person on the planet for their "pollution".  Who wins?  Oh yeah, the wealthy dude.  Who gets to make billions and billions and billions of dollars for doing nothing more than shuffling a pile of paperwork from one side of his room to the other.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You need salt to live. Without it, your body will die. So, knowing that, you can go ahead and just consume a quart of it, right? At that level, salt is a pollutant to your body.

CO2 at 180 ppm to 280 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2 at 800 ppm is not a pollutant. CO2, increased from 280 ppm to 800 ppm in the space of three centuries is a pollutant, in that the rate of change is much faster than the biosphere can keep up with. Especially a biosphere with over 7 billion humans living off of it. There may be a very rapid reduction of that number if the changes proceed rapidly enough.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I really think what concerns you is the pay you get for lying on this board. For the individual scientist, there is far more money in becoming a shill for big energy corporations than doing real science. Lindzen and Singer have proven that.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Gosh, i wish I got paid for listening to brain dead 'tards like you...  I really do!  No, poor olfraud, I'm in this for purely personal reasons.  I have a daughter and i don't want to see her enslaved by assholes like you.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...








Non sequitur out the wazoo dude.  Try coming up with an argument that actually makes sense.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That wealthy person being compensated for his pollution is already a fact. And they are taxing every person on the planet for the pollution that they do by the increasing extreme weather events.

The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. Kind of like the orange clown's statements. 

As stated, the carbon tax goes into a fund that is equally distributed to all US Citizens. So, the fellow that rides a bike almost everywhere, makes a good profit off of it. And someone like me, that goes on frequent road trips, will lose money on it. But it will provide an incentative to use less fuel for most.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*increasing extreme weather events.*

Sounds scary! Tell me more.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


On the contrary, it is exactly what we have seen in paleontology. Sloths, three species of buffalo, and a great many other large mammals survived quite well in North America through several cycles of the ice ages. But, in the rapid change of the Younger Dryas, went extinct.
The extinctions seem to have occurred both at the beginning and the end of the Younger Dryas. In other words, in the periods of rapid climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



*Extreme weather events – Signs of climate change? | Munich Re

Loss trends*
“Our database clearly indicates a sharp rise in the number of weather-related natural catastrophes per year, in terms of overall and insured losses. For instance, there has been a threefold increase in floods since 1980. There has also been a rise in the number of windstorm losses, Atlantic hurricanes being particularly destructive.”

“In Germany, extreme precipitation resulting in floods is becoming increasingly common. This affects not only people living on rivers: there are more and more cases of heavy rain and flash floods. Anyone may be affected.”

“Both the hundred-year flood in 2002 and the current flooding on the River Neisse were caused by what are referred to as Vb weather conditions, that is to say, a low-pressure system from the Mediterranean region which passes to the east of the Alps and then heads south again. This produces extreme precipitation on the northern slopes of the Alps and low mountain ranges. This situation has occurred much more often in recent years – and explains a substantial proportion of the many floods in Poland, the Czech Republic, eastern Germany and parts of the Alpine Foreland.”

*Current weather extremes and climate change*
“Climate change cannot be identified from individual events but our figures, backed by verifiable changes in meteorological data, indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change.”

“The current state of knowledge leaves no doubt about the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Whether the current weather extremes are caused or intensified by climate change is uncertain, but there is considerable evidence indicating that climate change is involved at least to some extent.”

Swiss RE calls for adaptation drive as extreme weather events rise | Climate Home - climate change news





Number of weather-related catastrophes, 1970–2013 (Swiss RE)

*The people who insure the insurance companies have a very good grasp on the increase in extreme weather events. That chart is number of events, not the cost of the events. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What the hell do you care about pollution in any case? You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal. The rate of change of the GHGs does make CO2 and CH4 a pollutant. And it is already having a negative effect on our environment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change. Which in not at all good for the biosphere. That is clearly seen in past extinction periods.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So an insurance company says they have to raise their rates, because...extreme weather.

Wow, I'm convinced.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


*
Because a rapid increase or rapid decrease leads to rapid climate change.*

And no increase or decrease leads to no climate change.....wait, what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...


*
You clown has just made is legal to pollute streams, rivers, and watersheds to mine dirty coal.*

When did Obama make it illegal to do those things?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere.  A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".
> ...


Now that is a silly statement. What is being discussed is the rapid increase in GHGs. Without any GHGs, there would be glaciers at sea level at the equator.However, too fast of an increase in GHGs, and the climate changes too fast for the biosphere to adjust. And that equals periods of extinction.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Todd, you are not that stupid. We have had a really remarkable period of fairly constant climate since the end of the Younger Dryas. Even the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were minor changes. We have already surpassed, by far, on a global level, the changes experianced during those periods.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes, he did. And then the energy corporations squealed like stuck pigs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 18, 2017)

westwall said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


That you ask such a question either shows that you are vastly ignorant, or a purposeful liar. Water vapor is only in the atmosphere for ten days or less, and is then rained out. The temperature of the atmosphere determines how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere, worldwide. A warmer atmosphere will have more water vapor in it. As there are 3 square meters of water for every meter of land, there is a constant addition of water vapor to the atmosphere, and a constant raining out of that water vapor. It is the GHGs with longer resident times, CO2 and CH4 that determine the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

As for whether it is a pollutant, it is definetly not welcome in large amounts all at once. Just ask those in Southern California right now. Or those living below the Oroville dam.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*We have had a really remarkable period of fairly constant climate since the end of the Younger Dryas.*

Fairly constant?

*Even the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were minor changes.*

Changes....with unchanged CO2 levels.
*
We have already surpassed, by far, on a global level, the changes experianced during those periods.*

What huge, global level changes have we seen? Be as precise as you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*Yes, he did.*

When?


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Why did they go extinct?  Couldn't have anything to do with native Americans hunting them to the end could it?  Naaaaah.  That's a well established theory.  Yours is a theory born of desperation.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







What "increasing extreme weather events"?  There are none.  In fact the 1860's were among the worst storm decades ever recorded.  And those don't hold a candle to the immense storms of the 1600's.  Your statements are uninformed OPINION.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







The COSTS have gone up due to there being more people, thus more targets, and the fact that with inflation a storm back in the 1960's would be far more expensive than one from today if corrected properly.  Yet another loser dude.  And these facts have been pointed out to you many times before.  Why do you continue to trot out crap that has already been shown to be false?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 18, 2017)

Extreme weather as related to "climate change" has been debunked......have posted many links on this. Have posted up *THE CHRONOLOGY OF EXTREME WEATHER* link a million times. Waaaaaaaaaaaay too tired now. Interested parties should google it......provides hundreds and hundreds of extreme weather events going back about 1300AD.

Only the hard core religion gives credence to an extreme weather/climate change link.

Everybody knows that.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I don't see how since he never made that claim! You ok? I think you have a screw liose


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I don't see how since he never made that claim!*

_so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees _

^
Who made that claim?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2017)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The university. As I've stated probably ten times now. But you stay sleeping


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 18, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
The university. As I've stated probably ten times now.*

Wrong. SSDD said the following.

_so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees_

The university never said this. So unless you can produce a link where the university did, your lie is noted.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


For the eleventh time , the university do you know what that is.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 18, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


The university claimed it, it's posted over multiple times


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Every time it was posted, it was SSDD.
The university never made that claim.
Learn how to read. Moron.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Too funny! Sure it did read their equations derp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Too funny, it didn't.

P.S. Just because SSDD misinterprets the university info doesn't make them responsible for his idiocy.

Once again, your failure to post the university saying the two radiators are radiating at -18C, is proof of your lie.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You're right, the university is responsible for their own idiocy. Seems you've joined them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*You're right, the university is responsible for their own idiocy.*

And SSDD is responsible for twisting the info given into a giant pretzel of idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope . You're confused


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 19, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect_

DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Huh? Are you referring to the university finally? I agree they are derps


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He knows he is wrong jc...but like the 5 year old he emulates, he can't bring himself to admit it so he just keeps doubling down on his error...again...like a child...he will never admit that he is wrong even though he has known it for pages now...you are dealing with a willful child...


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Where you get the idea that you're smarter than all the world's scientists is beyond me.  You'd think it might be telling that the ONLY person here siding with you is jc.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2017)

Crick said:


> Where you get the idea that you're smarter than all the world's scientists is beyond me.  You'd think it might be telling that the ONLY person here siding with you is jc.


really?  hmmmmm, seems there's polarbear, billy.  You ok?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2017)

Really?  Let's ask them outright.  

PolarBear, BillyBob, 

do you believe that cold matter CANNOT radiate towards warmer matter?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2017)

Crick said:


> Where you get the idea that you're smarter than all the world's scientists is beyond me.  You'd think it might be telling that the ONLY person here siding with you is jc.



I don't...I have just not fallen victim to group think and misplaced science worship...

Of course, I have been correct twice now while medical science the world over was wrong...regarding cholesterol and stomach ulcers....


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2017)

So, you're more resistant to group think and misplaced science worship than the rest of the world's scientists?  Is this because the photons are secretly helping you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 21, 2017)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Where you get the idea that you're smarter than all the world's scientists is beyond me.  You'd think it might be telling that the ONLY person here siding with you is jc.
> ...



Three times now....because smart photons see the future. DERP!


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, you're more resistant to group think and misplaced science worship than the rest of the world's scientists?  Is this because the photons are secretly helping you?




Appeal to ridicule...the last resort of a loser...congratulations...


----------



## Crick (Feb 22, 2017)

So, the photons are helping you but don't want you to reveal the fact.  I understand perfectly.  Mum's the word!.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, the photons are helping you but don't want you to reveal the fact.  I understand perfectly.  Mum's the word!.



Still appealing to ridicule...doing it more doesn't make you smarter...it just highlights your defeat...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2017)

Well, ridiculing the ridiculous is a reasonable approach. LOL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 22, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, ridiculing the ridiculous is a reasonable approach. LOL



People who believe in AGW are ridiculous...and it figures that you would view a logical fallacy as reasonable...after all, you are a believer..


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

westwall said:


> *And POOF, it was gone....*



*....my IQ and my rational mind, just gone, just like that, in a hot second, as soon as I joined this crackpot cult of reality denial because my political puppetmasters told me to....and that is how I became the Wall-Eyed-Retard that I am now....*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 23, 2017)

Well folks......we all know the old saying. When the progressive starts hurling incoherent, angry, miserable rants with highly personal attacks ( take a gander through the thread  )........you know who's not winning!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 23, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Well folks......we all know the old saying. When the progressive starts hurling incoherent, angry, miserable rants with highly personal attacks ( take a gander through the thread  )........you know who's not winning!!


And the kooksucking troll spews more delusional insanity....as usual.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2017)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *And POOF, it was gone....*
> ...


well you can leave?  It is an option.


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2017)

Crick said:


> So, the photons are helping you but don't want you to reveal the fact.  I understand perfectly.  Mum's the word!.





SSDD said:


> Still appealing to ridicule...doing it more doesn't make you smarter...it just highlights your defeat...



Pointing out that all your conclusions re radiative heat transfer are based on an insane belief in the ability of photons to detect distant (ie future) conditions and react to them is your defeat, not mine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2017)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, the photons are helping you but don't want you to reveal the fact.  I understand perfectly.  Mum's the word!.
> ...



He's adjusted his idiocy, now photons from the cooler surface of the Sun are allowed to travel toward the hotter corona because........work or something.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


funny,

BTW, why is the sun opposite from the atmosphere and surface of earth?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It's different because it's a star and the Earth is a planet.

So why do smart photons only work for planets?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why do the thermals act differently just because the star is generating its own heat source?  Isn't IR IR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why do the thermals act differently*

Thermals? We're talking about smart photons.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so nothing


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Just smart photons traveling from cooler to warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


like I already stated, nothing


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 24, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yup.
Nothing about those photons going from cooler to hotter.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2017)

Is it not amazing that for years now in this forum, threads started by skeptics become the ePiC ones and the threads started by the religion go for a day or two.....a few days max.......and fizzle out altogether. A quick gander through the first three or four pages shows you all you have to know...........

Replies in their authored threads rarely break 50 responses = ghey

Translation?

Nobody takes their shit seriously!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 25, 2017)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Again the reasons photons are either absorbed, reflected, or re-emitted depends on the state of the molecule and the fields within it. There is a reason Duality remains a theroy and Quantum Mechanics remains a hypothesis. We cant even agree on what that photon is or how it should react to fields on a molecular level. 

Being disingenuous and circular in your degrading of others who hold differing opinions on what they OBSERVE and how they hypothesize the function happens is really the mark of a zealot and not one of a scientist. Demeaning others because of your internal biases is low budget.

SO tell me what effect a photon at low energy of 16um (-80 deg C) affects matter that is radiating at 23 deg C.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 25, 2017)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Again the reasons photons are either absorbed, reflected, or re-emitted depends on the state of the molecule and the fields within it.*

Tell me more about the charge on the photons and the fields that prevent photons emitted by cooler matter from hitting warmer matter.
*
SO tell me what effect a photon at low energy of 16um (-80 deg C) affects matter that is radiating at 23 deg C.*

A "low energy photon" absorbed by any matter will warm it, of course.

Now, if -80C matter and +23C matter are emitting toward each other, SB tells us the warmer matter emits more/faster and will cool, even though the incoming photons from the cooler matter will slow the energy loss, compared to emitting  in a 0K vacuum.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

I'm particularly anxious (still) to hear about the charge on the photon.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2017)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


The sun is what? That is one silly question.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> Is it not amazing that for years now in this forum, threads started by skeptics become the ePiC ones and the threads started by the religion go for a day or two.....a few days max.......and fizzle out altogether. A quick gander through the first three or four pages shows you all you have to know...........
> 
> Replies in their authored threads rarely break 50 responses = ghey
> 
> ...



Glassy eyed cultists chanting their chants just isn't very interesting...


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2017)

Same Shit, you have repeatedly now suggested that photons possess a charge.  We all want to hear more about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 26, 2017)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, you have repeatedly now suggested that photons possess a charge.  We all want to hear more about it.



I think that was Bob's idea.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2017)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, you have repeatedly now suggested that photons possess a charge.  We all want to hear more about it.



You talking to me skid mark?  If so, I never said anything like that but since we don't even know whether photons exist...as they are still theoretical particles, it would be damned tough for you to make any rational argument that they don't possess a charge at any given time..


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2017)

nobody cares about the protons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 27, 2017)

skookerasbil said:


> nobody cares about the protons.



Protons have a charge, photons......not so much.


----------

