Evidence that global warming IS happening

[SSDD]

Bullshit. The oil and coal industries stand to lose billions and they are fighting AGW measures tooth and nail. There's a reason they've been the largest contributors to denialist blogs and bogus research for years now.

Not only have you been duped on the climate hoax, but you obviously don't understand the first thing about business. First, off, oil companies don't set the price for oil...it is sold on the open market and the highest bidder sets the price...oil companies are making record profits due to high gas prices which are the result, in large part, to green regulation....again, who do you think is hurt worse by such regs? Hint...those who can afford it the least.


As to the rest....the models have failed.. Either you are to dishonest or too stupid to grasp that fact.

Now, when are you going to explain, using the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science why the bottom of the troposphere on Uranus, one of the coldest spots in the solar system, is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth...and why the temperature doesn't drop on the night side of venus even though the night is 2000 hours long....

Surely the greenhouse hypothesis can explain such things since the laws of physics operate the same there as they do here....unless of course, the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't have the physics right....which is clearly the case because there is no explanation for the two problems I gave you using that steaming pile of shit hypothesis.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.

I have explained Uranus' troposphere to you twice. Try to keep up. I won't be doing it again. I also pointed out the idiocy of trying to refute the Greenhouse Effect with Venus' ability to stay hot.

As for Spencer's deception: I don't think there's an acceptable excuse to present.

 

[SSDD]

Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.

Are you claiming petroleum products are going to become illegal? Again, not the first idea of how business runs. Maybe that is why you hate free enterprise.

have explained Uranus' troposphere to you twice. Try to keep up. I won't be doing it again. I also pointed out the idiocy of trying to refute the Greenhouse Effect with Venus' ability to stay hot.

And you got it wrong both times.. Again, from wiki which you seem to trust..the temperature profile of the atmosphere of Uranus. The bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth...30x further away from the sun with almost no daylight reaching the surface....explain that using the greenhouse hypothesis....oh, that's right...you can't because the greenhouse hypothesis is an ad hoc construct that only works on earth.

And the temperature on venus has nothing to do with the greenhouse hypothesis as it does not cool off during a 2000 hour night.....learn something. If the greenhouse effect were the reason for the temperature on venus, it would cool down during the long night.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us how well the liquor industries did during Prohibition.

Are you claiming petroleum products are going to become illegal? Again, not the first idea of how business runs. Maybe that is why you hate free enterprise.

have explained Uranus' troposphere to you twice. Try to keep up. I won't be doing it again. I also pointed out the idiocy of trying to refute the Greenhouse Effect with Venus' ability to stay hot.

And you got it wrong both times.. Again, from wiki which you seem to trust..the temperature profile of the atmosphere of Uranus. The bottom of the troposphere on Uranus is warmer than the bottom of the troposphere on earth...30x further away from the sun with almost no daylight reaching the surface....explain that using the greenhouse hypothesis....oh, that's right...you can't because the greenhouse hypothesis is an ad hoc construct that only works on earth.

And the temperature on venus has nothing to do with the greenhouse hypothesis as it does not cool off during a 2000 hour night.....learn something. If the greenhouse effect were the reason for the temperature on venus, it would cool down during the long night.

Do you not see the hydrocarbon and methane components of the Uranusian troposphere? Were you unaware that her rocky core is at 5000K and is surrounded by a turbulent liquid layer? There was nothing wrong with Wikipedia's description of Uranus. It gave a value for the temperature at the bottom of its troposphere that was warmer than ours. Unlike you, however, no one else seems to think it all that surprising.

The atmosphere of Venus loves to absorb IR. That prevents heat energy from leaving, whether or not the sun is shining on it. Venus' thick, turbulent atmosphere is perfectly capable of a significant amount of convective heat transfer from the dayside to the nightside.

This crap about the Greenhouse Effect not working on other planets is just that: crap.

 

[SSDD]

Do you not see the hydrocarbon and methane components of the Uranusian troposphere? Were you unaware that her rocky core is at 5000K and is surrounded by a turbulent liquid layer? There was nothing wrong with Wikipedia's description of Uranus. It gave a value for the temperature at the bottom of its troposphere that was warmer than ours. Unlike you, however, no one else seems to think it all that surprising.

Care to hazard a guess as to why that rocky core so far from the sun is 5000K?

atmosphere of Venus loves to absorb IR. That prevents heat energy from leaving, whether or not the sun is shining on it. Venus' thick, turbulent atmosphere is perfectly capable of a significant amount of convective heat transfer from the dayside to the nightside.

You actually believe that?

crap about the Greenhouse Effect not working on other planets is just that: crap.

The greenhouse hypothesis is crap... Explain why in the venusian atmosphere, if you travel up to the level where the atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, the temperature is very close to that of earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. The greenhouse hypothesis is crap and damned near every planet in the solar system proves it.

 

[Abraham3]

If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels. Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.

 

[Meister]

If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels. Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.

99% of the world's scientists? Really? And, you're calling someone else an ignorant fool?
Son, YOU have really been brainwashed. There is nothing else that can be said.....

 

[Abraham3]

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?

 

[SSDD]

If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels. Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.

And back we go to the same old fallacy...appeal to authority. No explanation for the questions I ask, which are reality and can not be explained by the greenhouse hypothesis. I ask them precisely because they can not be explained by the hypothesis.

Funny thing about hypotheses....they can be supported by a thousand coincidences but one example where the hypothesis doesn't work and it is rendered invalid. Personally, I am fine with being in the very small minority who have a firm enough grasp on the topic to spot a hoax when we see it.

Even when confronted with multiple realities that can't be explained by the greenhouse hypothesis...you continue to believe because a dishonest, greedy, power grubbing cadre of criminals tells you to. You are a sad one abraham...very sad.

 

[SSDD]

If you want to convince me that 99% of the scientists in the world are completely wrong about a very basic mechanism of atmospheric physics... you're going to have to float down out of my sky with a host of angels. Personally, I think you're so fixated on being a contrarian you've simply turned yourself into an excellent simulacrum of an ignorant fool.

99% of the world's scientists? Really? And, you're calling someone else an ignorant fool?
Son, YOU have really been brainwashed. There is nothing else that can be said.....

Got to hand it to him...when he gets duped, he is all in. Not a skeptical cell in his body....which in and of itself calls his claimed scientific knowledge into question...science is by nature skeptical...religion on the other hand can't and doesn't tolerate skepticism.

 

[SSDD]

We're talking about the Greenhouse Effect. Do you think there exists any debate among scientists about the Greenhouse Effect?

We are talking about a hypothetical greenhouse effect...and effect which, by the way, has never been quantified or measured by anyone. There are a few who have not left the scientific method behind who question the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...those few who still recognize the conflict between the greenhouse hypothesis and the laws of physics.

But that is the way it always is abraham...there were very few who thought that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress...there were very few who thought that the continents moved around...there were very few who believed quasi crystals were real....there were only a few who saw through the pseudoscience of eugenics...and phrenology....and on and on. At some point, it will become undeniable that the greenhouse hypothesis is terribly flawed and at that point, the movement will be back towards science and away from cultish faith enforced by the majority. Ten years after that, you won't be able to find a single scientist who believed in the greenhouse hypothesis as described by present climate science.

 

[Abraham3]

There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).

A very large percentage of scientists who specialize in this precise topic say you're wrong. Whether that's from ignorance or political bias is your call.

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

The fossil fuel industry is the largest vested interest at this party. To ignore that or to reject it is prima facie evidence that you don't hold honest high in your list of priorities.

It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.

Warming has been taking place for the last 150 years at a rate very likely unprecedented in the last 65 MILLION years. That warming is due primarily to anthropogenic CO2 and deforestation. We can say definitively that CO2 has not been at the CURRENT level for AT LEAST 800,000 years and it's still increasing at an accelerating rate. A hiatus, significantly stronger than the present phenomenon, took place between 1941 and 1978 - 37 years - but did NOT mark the end of AGW. So the current hiatus is well within natuural variation. And given the significant rise in deep ocean temperature and the behavior of ENSO at the same time surface warming slowed, it is not clear that total warming of the Earth has changed at all. And, finally, given that satellites have seen NO reduction in the radiative imbalance at the ToA, it's simply not possible that total warming has changed. Our direct measurements show net energy flux is still increasing the Earth's total heat content.

What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".

You've been listening to the wrong sources. Here is what the models and the observations have actually done:

An explanation and other data: HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

 

[Abraham3]

There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).

A very large percentage of scientists who specialize in this precise topic say you're wrong. Whether that's from ignorance or political bias is your call.

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

The fossil fuel industry is the largest vested interest at this party. To ignore that or to reject it is prima facie evidence that you don't hold honesty high in your list of priorities.

It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.

Warming has been taking place for the last 150 years at a rate very likely unprecedented in the last 65 MILLION years. That warming is due primarily to anthropogenic CO2 and deforestation. We can say definitively that CO2 has not been at the CURRENT level for AT LEAST 800,000 years and it's still increasing at an accelerating rate. A hiatus, significantly stronger than the present phenomenon, took place between 1941 and 1978 - 37 years - but did NOT mark the end of AGW. So the current hiatus is well within natural variation. And given the significant rise in deep ocean temperature and the behavior of ENSO at the same time surface warming slowed, it is not clear that total warming of the Earth has changed at all. And, finally, given that satellites have seen NO reduction in the radiative imbalance at the ToA, it's simply not possible that total warming has changed. Our direct measurements show net energy flux is still increasing the Earth's total heat content.

What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".

You've been listening to the wrong sources. Here is what the models and the observations have actually done:

An explanation and other data: HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

 

[SSDD]

There is NO compelling scientific evidence that Man is causing global warming (of which, none has actually happened for close on a decade).

A very large percentage of scientists who specialize in this precise topic say you're wrong. Whether that's from ignorance or political bias is your call.

We have opinions, from vested interests, based on over inflated probabilities - all of which probability based predictions have so far been wrong.

The fossil fuel industry is the largest vested interest at this party. To ignore that or to reject it is prima facie evidence that you don't hold honest high in your list of priorities.

It makes no sense, in any way, to continue to waste money offsetting an effect that a) hasn't existed for a decade, and b) when it did exist was in keeping with earlier similar periods of warming when man's activity is not being blamed.

Warming has been taking place for the last 150 years at a rate very likely unprecedented in the last 65 MILLION years. That warming is due primarily to anthropogenic CO2 and deforestation. We can say definitively that CO2 has not been at the CURRENT level for AT LEAST 800,000 years and it's still increasing at an accelerating rate. A hiatus, significantly stronger than the present phenomenon, took place between 1941 and 1978 - 37 years - but did NOT mark the end of AGW. So the current hiatus is well within natuural variation. And given the significant rise in deep ocean temperature and the behavior of ENSO at the same time surface warming slowed, it is not clear that total warming of the Earth has changed at all. And, finally, given that satellites have seen NO reduction in the radiative imbalance at the ToA, it's simply not possible that total warming has changed. Our direct measurements show net energy flux is still increasing the Earth's total heat content.

What the AGW "consensus" theory comes down to is "We've made these predictions, so far all past predictions have been wrong, but we are still confident in our methodology so you better believe our current predictions".

You've been listening to the wrong sources. Here is what the models and the observations have actually done:

An explanation and other data: HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception

The fact that no compelling evidence of AGW can be produced says that climate science is wrong

 

[Abraham3]

The fact that no compelling evidence of AGW can be produced says that climate science is wrong

That is not a fact. It has simply been YOUR choice to reject all of the enormous amount of evidence supporting AGW. 97% of the world's experts on this topic DO accept it and I have to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of them know the topic one HELL of a lot better than do you.

 

[driveby]

70 year record low in Philly tomorrow ......

 

[Abraham3]

70 year record high in Anchorage

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[Abraham3]

Have you ever attempted to provide evidence to your claims? Without it, all you have are unsubstantiated assertions. Like "I had lunch with a unicorn today" and "Carmen Electra is waiting in my bed this instant" and "Bill Gates just gave me a billion in cash for being so cool".

Get the idea?

 

[driveby]

70 year record high in Anchorage

34 degrees is a 70 year high?

No wonder faggots like you can't be taken seriously.....