15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[Abraham3]

What do you mean "verges on"... The cult of global warming is a well established religion, it has high priests, scripture, punishments for heretics etc. It IS a fully blown religion...

I stand corrected. You are right, it's already a full-blown, mind-bending cult. I was trying to be polite...most likely a wasted effort, considering the intended recipient.
Thanks.

Oh don't be polite with these people....they want to kill you and yours to make the world a better place. They are evil personified, they just call themselves different names but they are totalitarian murderers in sheep skin.

Best to kill them first, right? Then they won't be around to witness the universe proving you to be the narrow-minded idiots they always said you were.

 

[Abraham3]

I must be doing something right.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I stand corrected. You are right, it's already a full-blown, mind-bending cult. I was trying to be polite...most likely a wasted effort, considering the intended recipient.
Thanks.

Oh don't be polite with these people....they want to kill you and yours to make the world a better place. They are evil personified, they just call themselves different names but they are totalitarian murderers in sheep skin.

Best to kill them first, right? Then they won't be around to witness the universe proving you to be the narrow-minded idiots they always said you were.

We shouldn't have to kill them. Their overwhelming concern about the irrevocable damage inflicted by the human race should compel them to kill themselves.

 

[Abraham3]

Bripat bro....do those two photos above crack your ass up or what??!!

Saw them this past weekend and still find myself laughing my balls off!!!

Yep. I think I'm the one who originally posted them. What cracks me up even more is watching those two pathetic drones PMZ and Abraham trying to explain them away.

What's to explain?

Oh, I see the problem. You can't read a simple graph.

The two pictures you've shown represent the Arctic at the next to the last data point and the last data point. It's a nice one season rise; in the same ballpark as the rise in the 95-96 season. But the Arctic is still down almost 3 million km^2 from 1979, the trend is still decidedly negative and this latest datum doesn't even particularly stand out amongst the history of seasonal variation.

Why don't you put your 2013 image up against the 1980 image and see if you don't actually relocate your testicles.

 

[Abraham3]

 

[westwall]

I stand corrected. You are right, it's already a full-blown, mind-bending cult. I was trying to be polite...most likely a wasted effort, considering the intended recipient.
Thanks.

Oh don't be polite with these people....they want to kill you and yours to make the world a better place. They are evil personified, they just call themselves different names but they are totalitarian murderers in sheep skin.

Best to kill them first, right? Then they won't be around to witness the universe proving you to be the narrow-minded idiots they always said you were.

That is your goal isn't it.... Kill everyone you don't like... Here's one of your champions...

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth
Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough.

David Attenborough - Humans are plague on Earth - Telegraph

Or how about this one...


As the world population reaches seven billion people, the BBC's Mike Gallagher asks whether efforts to control population have been, as some critics claim, a form of authoritarian control over the world's poorest citizens.
BBC News - Population control: Is it a tool of the rich?


Yes, your kinds methods are all about death. Death to brown people, death to poor people, death, death, death.... Heydrich would be so proud of you all... The only problem is you're too fucking stupid to know who and what he was...sad...

 

[PMZ]

Still no denier science. Every thing science has discovered has been against their denial. All they have to talk about is their global conspiracy theory. How science abandoned them simply because what they are desperate to impose on the world turned out to be almost perfectly wrong. How can that be. A wrong conservative? Unthinkable!

 

[JoeNormal]

Now you want us to believe that only liberals contribute to science? The fact that your so-called "science" verges on being religious hysteria doesn't seem to bother you.

There is science and there is politics. Science proves the relationship between atmospheric GHG concentration and AGW. It's a given.

Your politics do not trump science. Truth. Facts.

You have nothing but what you want to impose on the rest of the world. It is unaffordable. You don't understand that both because you don't want to and are unable to. Come again when you have some science to support your politics.

Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.

 

[PMZ]

There is science and there is politics. Science proves the relationship between atmospheric GHG concentration and AGW. It's a given.

Your politics do not trump science. Truth. Facts.

You have nothing but what you want to impose on the rest of the world. It is unaffordable. You don't understand that both because you don't want to and are unable to. Come again when you have some science to support your politics.

Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.

The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being. Absorbers of longwave radiation. That’s good, by those pledged not to learn here, will only find another reason to avoid it.

But, you probably already know that.

 

[JoeNormal]

Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.

The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being. Absorbers of longwave radiation. That’s good, by those pledged not to learn here, will only find another reason to avoid it.

But, you probably already know that.

I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.

The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being. Absorbers of longwave radiation. That’s good, by those pledged not to learn here, will only find another reason to avoid it.

But, you probably already know that.

I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.

Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.
For two --- the added gas PRESSURE is not compensated for..
For three -- you've changed the chemical composition of the liquid which MIGHT encourage more water vapor (the most dangerous gas) to sublimate into the "atmos".. (even if chem. diff doesn't do it, the addtnl heating from the CO2 will also vaporize more water, thus tainting the magnitude of the result)

That's enough ain't it?

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..

 

[JoeNormal]

The experiment demonstrates what GHGs are defined as being. Absorbers of longwave radiation. That’s good, by those pledged not to learn here, will only find another reason to avoid it.

But, you probably already know that.

I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.

Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.

For two --- the effects of heating the bottle are overwhelming to the gas content.

That's enough ain't it?

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo&feature=endscreen]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.

Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.

For two --- the effects of heating the bottle are overwhelming to the gas content.

That's enough ain't it?

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ion0QQmzOeo&feature=endscreen]Lecture 7 - Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks for that.. I WILL watch it later..

For the record -- I FULLY accept that CO2 has a role as a GHG.. I even accept the calculations that show a doubling from 250 to 500ppm ought to result in a surface temp. increase of about 1.2degC.. ( I think less, but WTF)

But that's NOT what AGW preaches.. THey admit that CO2 is only the "trigger mechanism" for the heating that will occur.. It's this extraneous horseshit that is not supported by evidence, --- not the basic EM absorption, heat capacity or other phys. properties of CO2 that is being denied. At least by me...

 

[bripat9643]

I know it's probably a long shot to break through but I gotta try.

Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.

For two --- the effects of heating the bottle are overwhelming to the gas content.

That's enough ain't it?

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[JoeNormal]

Good effort, but no trophy.. A guy with a grounding strap on his arm is a sure sign of someone who's all process and no common sense..

You can't measure IR induced temp. increase in a bottle..

For one --- the IR source is NOTHING LIKE the long wave spectrum that the Earth emits.

For two --- the effects of heating the bottle are overwhelming to the gas content.

That's enough ain't it?

The experiment COULD BE DONE. You'd have to have the right radiation spectra, a constant pressure in the chamber, and NO THERMAL RADIATION coming from the container or surroundings.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING in the real world tho --- because the POWER of CO2 to generate backradiation to the surface is burdened by (primarily) water vapor which acts as a denser filter and absorber of incoming EM IR..

There is more influence from CO2 over a desert -- than there is over an ocean for example. The climate clowns like to AVERAGE all these effects globally, make guesses as to feedbacks and water vapor extents and toss out a weakly supported number for how much temp. forcing will result from the addition of CO2.

You can't reproduce GLOBAL AVERAGES in a laboratory.. That's why it hasn't been done.
It would add uncertainty to the fairy tale that the public couldn't handle and deliver the realization that the problem is MUCH MORE complex than the cartoon version of the AGW story..

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.

You have to ask individual posters.. But BriPat is correct. The majority of skeptics are not denying much at all.. They acknowledge the world is long-term warming (slightly), they acknowledge the validity of the Greenhouse effect in principle, some of us will even give credit that man-made CO2 has some MARGINAL effect on the observed warming..

The fantasy we're all bent on seeing debunked -- is the Warmer belief that we live on a certified JUNKER of a planet that will proceed to destroy itself and all life thereupon --- if ANY TEMPERATURE forcing of a couple degrees happens. SOME of the warmers believe we live on a giant Fuel-Air bomb and that using fossil fuel is gonna literally ignite the fuse.


It's like a biblical admonition right out of Genesis.. "You may avail yourself of anything in the Garden -- but yee shall NEVER partake of any Carbonized substance under the earth"... So sayeth the Church of Global Weirdness..

Personally for me, it's quite simple.. The contribution by man has been PURPOSELY EXAGGERATED, and the contribution from natural forcings has been PURPOSELY hidden, minimized and distorted. All by an IMMATURE science with too much time and attention being heaped upon it..

TERMITES as species are 2nd to man as Global Warmers. Go tax and annoy the termites. Stop prostelitizing me and perverting my science to your religion..

 

[asterism]

There is science and there is politics. Science proves the relationship between atmospheric GHG concentration and AGW. It's a given.

Your politics do not trump science. Truth. Facts.

You have nothing but what you want to impose on the rest of the world. It is unaffordable. You don't understand that both because you don't want to and are unable to. Come again when you have some science to support your politics.

Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ]The Greenhouse Gas Demo - YouTube[/ame]

As for mathematical proof, if you've ever worked through the math for blackbody radiation, you'd have to be a glutton for punishment to want to subject yourself to that if you're not in that field.

It's not repeatable:

Falsification Of CO2 Greenhouse Effect

Not so CLEAN Greenhouse Gas in a Bottle Demonstration. Faulty hands-on science

 

[asterism]

Try this one on for size then. It's a college science class for non-science majors. It involves some fairly basic math - no calculus - and shows the mechanisms that make CO2 a greenhouse gas in the atmoshphere.

No one who has participated in this debate has ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Well, Asterism made it sound like he was unaware of lab experiments that showed its effects and/or any mathematical models associated with modelling them.

I was curious about what would be posted as "proof."

Here's the problem, there is currently no direct correlation. Global average temperatures appear to be trending up (a separate claim that I question based on data adjustments needed to show this) but not in a direct way relative to carbon dioxide concentrations.

The planet is not a plastic bottle, CO2 concentrations have never and will never reach the level of concentration in the alka seltzer bottle, and the two bottles have unequal pressure inside them. There are too many variables to claim that CO2 is the reason one bottle is heating up - and this doesn't work in sunlight.

 

[bripat9643]

Bripat bro....do those two photos above crack your ass up or what??!!

Saw them this past weekend and still find myself laughing my balls off!!!

Yep. I think I'm the one who originally posted them. What cracks me up even more is watching those two pathetic drones PMZ and Abraham trying to explain them away.

What's to explain?

Oh, I see the problem. You can't read a simple graph.

The two pictures you've shown represent the Arctic at the next to the last data point and the last data point. It's a nice one season rise; in the same ballpark as the rise in the 95-96 season. But the Arctic is still down almost 3 million km^2 from 1979, the trend is still decidedly negative and this latest datum doesn't even particularly stand out amongst the history of seasonal variation.

Why don't you put your 2013 image up against the 1980 image and see if you don't actually relocate your testicles.

Your graph covers a very short period of time in terms of climate. Why should anyone assume that it represents a long term trend as you do?

 

[bripat9643]

There is science and there is politics. Science proves the relationship between atmospheric GHG concentration and AGW. It's a given.

Your politics do not trump science. Truth. Facts.

You have nothing but what you want to impose on the rest of the world. It is unaffordable. You don't understand that both because you don't want to and are unable to. Come again when you have some science to support your politics.

Science proves this?

Show me the repeatable experiment and the mathematical proof.

Here's a simple experiment that shows the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.

FAIL!

That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.