RightyTighty
VIP Member
- Mar 19, 2017
- 3,653
- 202
Indeed it is. Having a scientist, a real scientist who is able to decode the nonsense of the AGW supporters is essential. That's why I'm here.Good to know. And just look at you, here, doing what you do. The future is (much safer).So, all these scientists that agree with man-made climate change, the vast majority, are wrong but you are right?What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory? Until you do falsify it you really can accept it as the best knowledge we have.
Nope. The greenhouse theory is still viable. What has not been shown to be viable is the human attribution. Mankind adds a mere five percent of the entire global budget of CO2 to the mix. Five percent. Add to that the fact that greenhouses are CLOSED systems, and the Earth is not, and the theory works very well in a small, controlled environment. Expand the region to the planet however and the theory fails.
The very mechanism of AGW is the theory that CO2 backscatters long wave IR back to the ground which reheats it. I challenge you to go to the desert sometime.
There you will discover that the heat retained by the ground is lost incredibly quickly. On the other hand, if you are on the beach in that same desert you will find the temperature is very pleasant throughout the night. That is because the ocean acts as a giant heat sink.
Now we get to the problem. Long wave IR doesn't heat water. Not even a tiny little bit because it is incapable of penetrating the skin of the water. UV radiation is the only mechanism that can heat the oceans as it is capable of penetrating to a depth of several hundred meters. Thus the very mechanism that could be in operation fails its very first test.
That's how science works. You promote a hypothesis and then you test it. If it fails you try something else. AGW supporters have failed every test, so now they just falsify their results.
What, you mean all three hundred or so of them? Yes, I am correct, and they are wrong.
And do you think you have changed the mind of anyone, ever?
And what if you are wrong and they are right? And what if there was no money involved, would you still oppose say - solar energy, the burning of less fossil fuels?
Last edited: