Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court

[Billy_Bob]

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled.

The photon has cooled?

where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?

Magic photons are SSDD's specialty. My photons are the standard type.

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

What does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it. Water is cooler than other black bodies, therefore a warmer bodies emit a photon which is absorbed by the cooler object, in this case water, which will emit a photon at its temperature wavelength. The residency time of the photon and the temperature differential (pressure) will determine how much energy is used up during its time of residency.

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows. Use some cognitive thinking skills and do the damn math...

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it.

You might want to restate this, objects don't have wavelengths.

Water is cooler than other black bodies

Ummm....what?

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.

That graph didn't show water absorbing at one wavelength and emitting at another.

You didn't answer, what does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

And you ignored this....

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

View attachment 137703
Narrow banding is the hallmark of the inability to hold energy. Water vapor however, has a very large bandwidth and has an incredible ability to hold energy.

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

Hahahaha. There is nothing correct in that last comment. Usually you get something a little bit right, probably by accident, but this time everything was wrong and by a large margin.

Were you drinking or something?

You two kill me...

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules. The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object. You can bitch about why that happens "smart Photons" all you want, but the physical laws show that there is no observable, quantitative effect.

You make statements, as if they were fact, due to models that are untestable and have no observed evidence to support them. they are simply unproven hypothesis.

Water vapor reactions and energy residency times are just now becoming understood. One paper being done by the Colorado Atmospherics lab used narrow band width LWIR and injected it into a body of water vapor (cylindrical glass tube 100' long) taking note of the increase of LWIR and in what bands at various distances from the source. At just 40% humidity, LWIR sent at 16-18um showed a positive response at 22-26um. After 24 hours in a room at 80 deg F the tube had no warming. If CO2 had the powers you all like to tout then the tube should have warmed. The energy used was equivalent to 235w/m^2 striking the surface of the earth, contained in that bandwidth. Even when it was expanded to 14um-22um (the full spectrum of CO2's possible positive forcing) the spike in radiated energy was in the 22-49um regions.

SO why would water not immediately respond by radiating the same wave length that it absorbed? What causes this?
.

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.

Excellent! We agree, SSDD's smart photon "idea" is BS.

The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object.

Sounds interesting! Can you post this "law of thermal dynamics" that backs your claim?

How about you sow me the quantifiable observed evidence that it can... The physical laws state energy can not flow from a cooler object to a warmer one without work being performed.

 

[Dale Smith]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave.......

A wake up call?

I have news, in 1968 pollution was rampant & it was

And it was picked as the weapon of choice to make the masses afraid, compliant and subservient. How can you account for a global temperature benchmark when the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere is not figured into the equation especially since this has been going on for the last twenty years? Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Cause, affect, solution?????? Ever heard of the Club Of Rome? Agenda 21/2030 and "Sustainable Development? ICLEI????????

 

[peach174]

What school would admit you?

We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.

LOL

Says the ever lying kitten...

You still haven't answered the demon cats question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled.

The photon has cooled?

where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water?

Magic photons are SSDD's specialty. My photons are the standard type.

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

What does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it. Water is cooler than other black bodies, therefore a warmer bodies emit a photon which is absorbed by the cooler object, in this case water, which will emit a photon at its temperature wavelength. The residency time of the photon and the temperature differential (pressure) will determine how much energy is used up during its time of residency.

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows. Use some cognitive thinking skills and do the damn math...

The emitted photon is at the wavelength of the object which emitted it.

You might want to restate this, objects don't have wavelengths.

Water is cooler than other black bodies

Ummm....what?

In short, water absorbs energy and it emits it at a longer wavelength as the graph I showed you shows.

That graph didn't show water absorbing at one wavelength and emitting at another.

You didn't answer, what does "pressure differential of temperatures" mean?

And you ignored this....

CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously.

In all directions. Even toward the ground, right?

Thanks for the chart.
Do you have one that backs up your claim?

water vapor absorbs, warms and re-emits at a slight longer wave length

lol..

tell me, when a photons energy is used to create heat (work) it can not be re-emitted at the same wave length because it has cooled. where are you getting magical photons from that do not expend energy in water? CO2 simply re-emits the photon instantaneously. it therefore does little or no work.

For instance.. LWIR is absorbed by the water molecule. Because it resides inside for a long period of time before it is re-emitted, it causes vibrations of the molecule and collisions with other molecules. This is work and expends some of the energy of the photon. The longer it resides the more energy is expended. The photon emitted will be of the lower temperature and thus a longer wave length.

A photon emitted at 12um, absorbed by water vapor for 1 second will be re-emitted at about 15um, at 3 seconds it will be re-emitted at about 24um. This process is totally dependent on ambient air temp and the pressure differential of temperatures.

You keep screaming about "smart photons" but it is not so much smart as it is the inter-dynamics of different molecules defined by the natural laws.

Hahahaha. There is nothing correct in that last comment. Usually you get something a little bit right, probably by accident, but this time everything was wrong and by a large margin.

Were you drinking or something?

You two kill me...

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules. The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object. You can bitch about why that happens "smart Photons" all you want, but the physical laws show that there is no observable, quantitative effect.

You make statements, as if they were fact, due to models that are untestable and have no observed evidence to support them. they are simply unproven hypothesis.

Water vapor reactions and energy residency times are just now becoming understood. One paper being done by the Colorado Atmospherics lab used narrow band width LWIR and injected it into a body of water vapor (cylindrical glass tube 100' long) taking note of the increase of LWIR and in what bands at various distances from the source. At just 40% humidity, LWIR sent at 16-18um showed a positive response at 22-26um. After 24 hours in a room at 80 deg F the tube had no warming. If CO2 had the powers you all like to tout then the tube should have warmed. The energy used was equivalent to 235w/m^2 striking the surface of the earth, contained in that bandwidth. Even when it was expanded to 14um-22um (the full spectrum of CO2's possible positive forcing) the spike in radiated energy was in the 22-49um regions.

SO why would water not immediately respond by radiating the same wave length that it absorbed? What causes this?
.

Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.

Excellent! We agree, SSDD's smart photon "idea" is BS.

The laws of thermal dynamics (Natural Laws) indicate that a colder object has no effect on a warmer object.

Sounds interesting! Can you post this "law of thermal dynamics" that backs your claim?

How about you sow me the quantifiable observed evidence that it can... The physical laws state energy can not flow from a cooler object to a warmer one without work being performed.

How about you sow me the quantifiable observed evidence that it can

You just said....Photons are emitted in all directions from all molecules.

Are you still saying that a photon from 300K matter magically avoids matter at 301K?

The physical laws state energy can not flow from a cooler object to a warmer one without work being performed

Because the warmer matter has a force field? LOL!

Just for fun, post the law that says energy cannot flow. If it says radiation cannot flow, that'd be even better.

Thanks!

 

[Dale Smith]

What school would admit you?

We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.

LOL

Says the ever lying kitten...

You still haven't answered the demon cats question.

You don't NEED a "Doctorate" in any science field to answer the obvious about how we have been "gamed". This scheme goes back almost 50 years in the making. Do you know that the world's economy is based on petroleum even though the technology to get us off of it has been around for 80 years? We can create an integrated circuit chip that can run a laptop that can fit inside the dimple of a golf ball but the technology to get away from the combustion engine that wastes 80 percent of the fuel that is put in it doesn't allegedly exist? If you believe that, you believe that the moon is made of blue cheese. This is a massive, royal scam.....nothing more or less.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Hey, Dave....from the Iron Mountain Report that was released by a whistle blower in 1968........

"When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power"


Here is your wake -up call, Dave.......

A wake up call?

I have news, in 1968 pollution was rampant & it was

And it was picked as the weapon of choice to make the masses afraid, compliant and subservient. How can you account for a global temperature benchmark when the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere is not figured into the equation especially since this has been going on for the last twenty years? Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Cause, affect, solution?????? Ever heard of the Club Of Rome? Agenda 21/2030 and "Sustainable Development? ICLEI????????

when the spraying of heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere

You never explained, is the metal added to the fuel, or sprayed from separate tanks?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What school would admit you?

We've asked that question of Billy many times. He refuses to answer.

He also won't explain how someone with no science education (his background is criminal law) got accepted into a science doctoral program.

That is, Billy just makes everything up. If it comes from Billy, it's always openly fraudulent.

LOL

Says the ever lying kitten...

You still haven't answered the demon cats question.

You don't NEED a "Doctorate" in any science field to answer the obvious about how we have been "gamed". This scheme goes back almost 50 years in the making. Do you know that the world's economy is based on petroleum even though the technology to get us off of it has been around for 80 years? We can create an integrated circuit chip that can run a laptop that can fit inside the dimple of a golf ball but the technology to get away from the combustion engine that wastes 80 percent of the fuel that is put in it doesn't allegedly exist? If you believe that, you believe that the moon is made of blue cheese. This is a massive, royal scam.....nothing more or less.

Do you know that the world's economy is based on petroleum even though the technology to get us off of it has been around for 80 years?

Is the technology......windmills?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

As the sun go's so do the planets which receive its energy. Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades. Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one, We are repeating cycles 3,4,5,6 and possibly 7, solar cycles which caused the Little Ice Age and a drop of 2 deg C globally. We are currently at the beginning of cycle 3 in the series with our current cycle 25.

As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.

 

[peach174]

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

As the sun go's so do the planets which receive its energy. Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades. Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one, We are repeating cycles 3,4,5,6 and possibly 7, solar cycles which caused the Little Ice Age and a drop of 2 deg C globally. We are currently at the beginning of cycle 3 in the series with our current cycle 25.

As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.

Yes it will. Which means it isn't fossil fuels.
What about Jupiter's red spot?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

Wow, that was a really stupid post.

Our climate is based on many factors. Our planet has been around long before man & went through any climate changes.

None of this means that man can't also be a factor.

lol

??? Backstroking are we???

Is man the total cause or is he just a minute influence?

 

[SSDD]

Where is your evidence that man can spew as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible and it have no effect on our climate? Can't wait for this.

The fact that there isn't the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting that claim after all the billions upon billions wasted on the scam is pretty damning evidence that it isn't happening.

And besides, we aren't making the claim of coming catastrophe, and aren't asking for trillions of dollars to avoid the catastrophe, nor are we looking to ruin industries and economies...when you make the claim of doom, the burden of evidence lies squarely on your shoulders....and alas, there isn't any...not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim...not one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

You still haven't produced any Observed, Quantifiable, repeatable science to prove anything... come on.. someone so sure as you can do it... Or maybe not.. Old Fraud, Crick, Ian and others still haven't... lets see if you can..

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

I am a doctoral student in atmospheric physics You are what? A 12 year old retard?

Good then maybe you can answer my question of why our sun and planets atmospheres are changing without fossil fuels.
Don’t panic but our sun has gone blank

Mars is Melting | Science Mission Directorate

Jupiter's Great Red Spot is Shrinking | Science Mission Directorate

As the sun go's so do the planets which receive its energy. Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades. Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one, We are repeating cycles 3,4,5,6 and possibly 7, solar cycles which caused the Little Ice Age and a drop of 2 deg C globally. We are currently at the beginning of cycle 3 in the series with our current cycle 25.

As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.

Yes it will. Which means it isn't fossil fuels.
What about Jupiter's red spot?

Energy loss from the sun means that planets weather will be affected. I would guess that a loss in temperature differential would cause the storm energy to decrease just like it does on earth..

 

[SSDD]

Wow. you really are this stupid.

The trick to growing great tomatoes early is to plant them against the sunny side of your house.

A "trick" can be a clever way of doing things.

This has been debunked. The idea you still believe it proves your ignorance.

What "trick"? Pointing out that you don't have the first piece of real evidence in support of your claim is a trick? The trick is claiming that CO2 is altering the global climate and having people believe it without the first piece of actual evidence that it is happening...or can happen.

 

[SSDD]

Science is science.

Yes it is...and when you are dealing with an observable, measurable quantity such as the movement of energy through the atmosphere, real science demands observed, measured, quantified data to support claims regarding said entity...So lets see it. Lets see a single piece of actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....just one.

And the vast majority of climate scientists agree that MMGW is real.

Based on what? There is no actual evidence to support the hypothesis...what are they basing their agreement on?....if not actual data, then it must be money.

There is plenty of evidence.

First you deniers ran in circles & crying about how they won't share data & now you claim is there is no data. Make up your minds because you are making yourselves look lime dumbasses

Where's the beef (data)?

Go back in this thread as your ignorant cohorts had a fit about Michael Mann supposedly hiding data.

What he is hiding is his lack of data...if he had strong data supporting his claim, he would have it posted on billboards, television ads, tv and radio and in practically every magazine out there...

 

[SSDD]

It is not my job to educate you fools. The data is out there. The science is out there.

No it isn't...and if you were half as smart as you think you are, you would realize that it is you who is being educated...your eyes, if you were half as smart as you think you are would be opening to the fact that you have been duped and there isn't in fact, the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Turn off Limbaugh, Beck, infowars & Fox news & become better informed. Read what the ipcc has put out alot of reports.

I turned off those guys 15 years ago...and I have scoured the IPCC looking for that elusive piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability...as well as every other "peer reviewed" paper that I could get my hands on....nothing. Not the first piece of real data supporting the claim.

Pull your head out of your fat ass & read them.

Have...now pull your head out of your ass and realize that there is nothing there...the emperor is naked...or step up to the plate and show me a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability....

 

[mamooth]

Dr Hathaway at the solar observatory has been tracking solar cycles for decades.

Dr. David Hathaway works at NASA, not "the solar observatory".

Wait, I thought NASA was faking all the data. Thatmust be why you left NASA out of it. You look silly for claiming NASA fakes data, then embracing NASA data.

Even his latest predictions and the observed background solar observed evidence suggests that our next cycle will be just 50% of our current one,

As is the case with all of your claims, that's fiction.

If you disagree, I'm sure you can show us those predictions.

As with cycle 3 there was a spike in solar output for a few years before it went cold. The planets will respond as their atmospheric compositions allow the heat to be released over time. Mars has already begun to cool rapidly and we will soon follow.

You and all the deniers have been making such predictions for many years now. And the cooling never arrives. Instead, it just keeps warming strongly.

 

[SSDD]

IPCC reports? Scientific literature?

Question mark? Is that a question mark at the end of your sentence? Maybe you are learning after all. The answer to your question is no...there is not a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data supporting AGW over natural variability in all of science...not the first piece.

Have you seen the temperature charts for the warmest years?

Sure...and they are laughable. Warmest years my ass. They pick a very short frame of time and say look...look how hot it is getting. When you look at the longer view, the idea that we are living in the hottest anything is laughable.

Here, have a look at the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years...

The fact is that it has been cooler for most of the past 10,000 years than it is right now...and if look, you will see that past temperature increases are far greater and more rapid than anything we have seen without the aid of the internal combustion engine. And just so you don't play the whiner northern hemisphere card like the rest of your buds, here is a gold standard reconstruction for the southern hemisphere showing the same temperature fingerprint demonstrating that the warmer temperatures for most of the past 10,000 years were global.

As a side note...did you notice what just happened? I made a claim, and then provided observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the claim. Even climate science doesn't doubt the accuracy of ice core reconstructions taken from above the arctic circle and below the antarctic circle...they don't show them much because the picture they paint makes their own claims laughable but that is beside the point.

Have you done anything other than doom your children & grandchildren to a more difficult life -because you are just a blow hard asshole?

Alas, realdave, you are the blowhard. I am still waiting on a single piece...just one single scrap of observed, measured, quantified data that supports your claims over natural variability. Just one. I am looking for evidence that proves me wrong and all of the actual evidence, that is real data as opposed to computer models seems to prove you wrong.

 

[SSDD]

I'm 20 foot tall with 15 PhD degrees in Climatology

That being the case, it should be quite easy for you to provide me with a single shred of observed, measured quantified data that supports your claims over natural variability....what's the problem? Not to worry, all the phd's on earth combined couldn't provide me with that single piece of data I have been asking for for more than two decades.

 

[mamooth]

What he is hiding is his lack of data...

It's publicly available on the internet. I linked to it. The premise of this thread was a lie, and given the evidence provided, no honest person can deny that.

You're lying to everyone's face, as usual, and you don't care who knows it. The cult has commanded you to tell a set of particularly stupid lies, so you're telling them.

But then, your goal is not to convince anyone, being that even you know everyone outside the cult laughs at your stupid lies. You goal is to show your loyalty to your cult by demonstrating how you're willing to tell the stupidest lies imaginable, and then accept the humiliation that follows. It's what you do here every day. By being so diligent at that task, you've amassed a lot of brownie points with the leaders of your fraud cult.