Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[Old Rocks]

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".

And yet.........no experiments.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Wrong.

 

[jc456]

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".

And yet.........no experiments.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Wrong.

Cough,cough dude how many times must I debunk that stupid link? Can you say herr Koch?

 

[Crick]

If you choose to adhere to the work of Herr Koch, I bet you'd find a lot to agree with in the geocentric Almagest of Ptolemy. Check it out. It will support a great number of the positions you've already chosen to adopt.

 

[jc456]

If you choose to adhere to the work of Herr Koch, I bet you'd find a lot to agree with in the geocentric Almagest of Ptolemy. Check it out. It will support a great number of the positions you've already chosen to adopt.

Funny how you still can't disprove Koch 's experiment. Funny

 

[Crick]

I don't have to because it's already been done, before you and I were born. You are a fool to try to use Koch to refute the greenhouse effect. Ian, are you observing this conversation?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

Ah. Perfect lolberal "logic."

The SUN was responsible THEN, but now, since Capitalism exists, the cause of such things has changed. It's now all OUR fucking fault.

Thought so.

 

[Crick]

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

Ah. Perfect lolberal "logic."

The SUN was responsible THEN, but now, since Capitalism exists, the cause of such things has changed. It's now all OUR fucking fault.

Thought so.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variations in CO2 levels were primarily caused by temperature changes. Most of those changes were due to Milankovic cycles (up and down), or volcanic aerosols (down). Since the CO2 was a strong positive feedback. in many of such instances, greenhouse warming came to dominate the processes taking place.

After the Industrial Revolution began, CO2 from human combustion of fossil fuel rose at rates that had not been seen in tens of millions of years. Very little of the present atmospheric CO2 originated in warming. It hasn't had sufficient time.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

Ah. Perfect lolberal "logic."

The SUN was responsible THEN, but now, since Capitalism exists, the cause of such things has changed. It's now all OUR fucking fault.

Thought so.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variations in CO2 levels were primarily caused by temperature changes. Most of those changes were due to Milankovic cycles (up and down), or volcanic aerosols (down). Since the CO2 was a strong positive feedback. in many of such instances, greenhouse warming came to dominate the processes taking place.

After the Industrial Revolution began, CO2 from human combustion of fossil fuel rose at rates that had not been seen in tens of millions of years. Very little of the present atmospheric CO2 originated in warming. It hasn't had sufficient time.

Thanks for sharing your preconceived notions. Actual verifiable science would be preferred.

 

[Crick]

Try IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[westwall]

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".

Sure thing admiral. So far you haven't presented a single shred of evidence that you know anything about....well anything. We do know that you are a lying sack of poo along with all of your othe

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

Ah. Perfect lolberal "logic."

The SUN was responsible THEN, but now, since Capitalism exists, the cause of such things has changed. It's now all OUR fucking fault.

Thought so.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variations in CO2 levels were primarily caused by temperature changes. Most of those changes were due to Milankovic cycles (up and down), or volcanic aerosols (down). Since the CO2 was a strong positive feedback. in many of such instances, greenhouse warming came to dominate the processes taking place.

After the Industrial Revolution began, CO2 from human combustion of fossil fuel rose at rates that had not been seen in tens of millions of years. Very little of the present atmospheric CO2 originated in warming. It hasn't had sufficient time.

CO2 is a WEAK feedback. If feedbacks even exist. So far they only exist in the computer science fiction derived imaginations of their authors. Nothing empirical has EVER been presented to support the notion.....I won't even give them the appellation of hypothesis.

 

[Crick]

Then there must be dozens of papers out there that demonstrate your claim. Could you find us some?

 

[westwall]

Then there must be dozens of papers out there that demonstrate your claim. Could you find us some?

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA! Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

 

[Crick]

These are empirical data, wheezebulb.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

You are such a stupid dipshit.

 

[jc456]

I don't have to because it's already been done, before you and I were born. You are a fool to try to use Koch to refute the greenhouse effect. Ian, are you observing this conversation?

Then you live a lie. Foolish!

 

[jc456]

These are empirical data, wheezebulb.

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

These are empirical data

You are such a stupid dipshit.

Ah, the falsified data rant again. Way to show your hand!

 

[Crick]

I'm sorry jc, but you're just not up to it.

 

[mamooth]

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA!

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.

 

[Dot Com]

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA!

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.

They're too busy tearing down others to do their own research in the field. Extraction industry shills they are.

 

[westwall]

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA!

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.

You mean like in the IR spectrum that no one seems to be measuring in the first place? Further, the very idea that long wave IR is what warms the planet has never, ever been shown to be correct. IN fact, Trenberths admission that there was no warming in the oceans pushed me to check things out and I found out that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the oceans (the ultimate heat sink for the planet after all) and that renders the whole "theory" false. IR can't warm the planet. Period.

"Terrestrial emission plays a critical role in the climate system(1), and over 99% of this radiation occurs in the wavelengthrange from 5 to 100μm (2,000 cm−1to 100 cm−1). However,there have been very few spectrally resolved measurements of terrestrial emission at wavelengths between 15.4μmand100μm(650 cm−1to 100 cm−1), often referred to as the far infrared, even though approximately half of the terrestrial radiation occurs over this subset of infrared wavelengths (2). Under moist conditions, the atmosphere is opaque to the surface in the far infrared, but the atmosphere becomes partially transparent to the surface under arid conditions. The terms that affect radiation in the far infrared, which are surface, water vapor, and cloud emission, are inferred from measurements in other spectral regions (typically midinfrared wavelengths from 5μmto15.4μm) (3), and it is possible to check for consistency with outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) measurements from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument, which covers between 5μmand 50μm(2,000cm−1to 200 cm−1) (4). It has been demonstrated, however, that this approach can be problematic for water vapor and cloud energetics due to compensating errors (5, 6). The paucity of measurements in the far infrared has frustrated efforts to characterize what may be affecting this spectral region, but the limited measurements that do exist (7−10) suggest the importance of the far infrared for radiometric accuracy in the radiative transfer codes used in climate models (11). For example, Turner et al. (12) found that changing the water vapor continuum absorption in the Community Earth System Model, which affects far-IR radiation, leads to changes in the vertical distribution of radiative cooling."

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16297.full.pdf

 

[westwall]

Present ONE paper that uses empirical data to support your claim. Computer models ARE NOT DATA!

The direct measurements of outgoing longwave radiation decreasing, backradiation increasing and stratospheric cooling are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. If no computer models existed, AGW theory would still be proven. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

Funny how you idiots who claim to know so much about science can't seem to wrap your tiny little heads around that FACT!

Funny how you deliberately ignore all the direct evidence, and then try to pass off a lie that models are the only evidence.

That's the #2 reason why the denier cult is held in such contempt by the world, its chronic dishonesty.

The #1 reason deniers are scorned, of course, is that the denier cult's science stinks so badly. As in they don't have any science. At this stage, all they have is conspiracy theories.

They're too busy tearing down others to do their own research in the field. Extraction industry shills they are.

Yeah, we're all about calling those who don't believe your tall tales "deniers". Your whole system of dealing with sceptics is to tear them down and ignore their arguments. You're pathetic dottie. You engage in the very activity you claim we do but with you it is systemic. So, in other words, you hypocritical asshat, you can go pound sand.