Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.
Again you cant read a graph.
I can read this graph just fine while you cannot read it or the attached text.
this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit.
No, that is NOT what this shows. This is a direct MEASUREMENT of the power spectrum of the backradiation produced by greenhouse gases.
it does not say how much they emit or what the effects are.
Are you blind? What is the Y-axis on this graph numbnuts?
Funny how you misrepresent what Dr David Evans (someone you have told me is unreliable and a quack multiple times) work for your agenda.
Now that IS funny. I quote from Evans' abstract: This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
and I have never posted one WORD prior to this about David Evans. Prior to finding this article, I had never heard of the man. If you believe different, find the multiple posts in which you claim I've called him an unreliable quack. If not, withdraw your misrepresentation.
Get back to me when you have done the math. Please show me your work!
Why don't you get back to us when you have learned to read English and when you've decided to confess to the LIE that you have a degree in atmospheric physics. And, to be honest, I don't even believe you've got the mail order meteorology certificate you also claim. You just make too many errors to have gotten through any sort of college level science curriculum.
LOL. The whole world established in Paris this month that they think you are just an ignorant redneck. I think that they overestimate you.My word, but whatever name you post under, you are still one dumb fuck.And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.
Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
As is so consistently the case with you, you make grandiose assertions but are lacking in depth or support.
You are a denialist of reality.
The ridicule is directed at ass-wipes like algore, your fucking dishonest and ignorant cult leader.
The ridicule is directed at the fact that your petty little group of Faith-based believers finds it necessary to distort and falsify data.
As I noted earlier, climate may well be changing. YOUR data cannot reasonably be used as valid evidence of that proposition. BUT, even if the climate is changing (i.e, try specificity. Maybe you can stick to the thesis that it is getting warmer, not just "changing") YOUR silly theory has little to no explanatory power. We can agree that climate changes over time. (It always has and always will). But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
I have posted the latest science from the scientists themselves on threads in this board. All you have posted is nonsensical flapyap.
^ dumbfuck says dumb shit.
You have posted links to some science and you have proved repeatedly that you fail to grasp much of what you have shared.
You have yet to establish diddly fucking squat to prove-up the alleged connection between co2 released by the human race into the atmosphere and any changes we see in the climate.
You post fly shit.
Now this establishes the true depth of Silly Billy's ignorance and stupidity.
As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.
Again you cant read a graph.
I can read this graph just fine while you cannot read it or the attached text.
this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit.
No, that is NOT what this shows. This is a direct MEASUREMENT of the power spectrum of the backradiation produced by greenhouse gases.
it does not say how much they emit or what the effects are.
Are you blind? What is the Y-axis on this graph numbnuts?
Funny how you misrepresent what Dr David Evans (someone you have told me is unreliable and a quack multiple times) work for your agenda.
Now that IS funny. I quote from Evans' abstract: This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
and I have never posted one WORD prior to this about David Evans. Prior to finding this article, I had never heard of the man. If you believe different, find the multiple posts in which you claim I've called him an unreliable quack. If not, withdraw your misrepresentation.
Get back to me when you have done the math. Please show me your work!
Why don't you get back to us when you have learned to read English and when you've decided to confess to the LIE that you have a degree in atmospheric physics. And, to be honest, I don't even believe you've got the mail order meteorology certificate you also claim. You just make too many errors to have gotten through any sort of college level science curriculum.
Your a total fool!
Even the title of your graph tells us what it is.. "SPECTRUM OF" IT does not tell us what it does or how it affects our atmosphere.
Your a total fool!
Even the title of your graph tells us what it is.. "SPECTRUM OF" IT does not tell us what it does or how it affects our atmosphere.
Billy_Bob said:this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit.
it shows a 3.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 1982
it shows a 6.7C rise from 1890-1981 in 2002
it shows a 8.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 2014
an extra 5C added to the trend in a third of a century. that works out to 15C per century if the adjustments continue at the same rate. sorta gives a whole new meaning to 'man-made global warming'.
edit- thanks to Crick for pointing out that I skipped a decimal. it's only 1.5C per century. how much warming is expected, again?
Can you explain to us how you could have typed "15C" and not had reality check alarms going off in your head?
That graph, like all the graphs in that set, were intended to show that mainstream GCMs have worked far, far better than many of the fools here would like us to believe. That Hansen's projections from 1982 are still holding close to actual measurements is an astounding testament to the validity of well-made GCMs.
When you have a confession from someone at NOAA, NASA, GISS, Hadley, NCDC or any of the other data holders, that they have manipulated data to falsify the magnitude of global warming, or even a few actual climate scientists making that same charge, let us know. Until then, the claim that any adjustment of the data in the direction you don't like is, in and entirely of itself, evidence of deceptive manipulation is become tiresome. It should embarrass you to make it Ian.
It's called a typo, dipshit. Can you explain why NASA and NOAA adjusted previous data?
It's a typo he repeated four times.
NASA and NOAA adjusted their data to make it more accurate. I've told you that repeatedly. Can you explain why, if they were falsifying the data, no climate scientists have ever noticed or complained? Are we back to the grand universal conspiracy theory again?
How the fuck did they "make it more accurate"? The data was recorded over 100 years ago! Did they have a time machine?
more accurate? how is that possible? Can you explain, how it is they can go back and check the calibration of the device used?It's called a typo, dipshit. Can you explain why NASA and NOAA adjusted previous data?
It's a typo he repeated four times.
NASA and NOAA adjusted their data to make it more accurate. I've told you that repeatedly. Can you explain why, if they were falsifying the data, no climate scientists have ever noticed or complained? Are we back to the grand universal conspiracy theory again?
you already admitted the data is manipulated. You agree with us.This should be entertaining. Have you ever tried to figure out Judicial Watch's batting average? They've filed hundreds of lawsuits against various branches of the government. They've won, maybe, 4. I take it they're looking for manipulated temperature data. Hahahaaaa. Excellent.
and didn't find any information that validates any of their claims. funny, they all met to agree to agree. the peer group good ole boy's club telling everyone, kumbaya and all that, and then nothing. flat out nothing. So get your facts straight before posting please. Oh and if you claim I am incorrect with this statement, please post up what they agreed on that matters.LOL. The whole world established in Paris this month that they think you are just an ignorant redneck. I think that they overestimate you.My word, but whatever name you post under, you are still one dumb fuck.And that is what you denialists are, fodder for justified ridicule. All your predicitions have totally failed. We have seen them on these boards for years now, and the years and decades have become increasingly warmer. Now we have had two record years back to back, and a third one in the making. How does that fit your nonsense?Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.
Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.
Except as fodder for justified ridicule.
As is so consistently the case with you, you make grandiose assertions but are lacking in depth or support.
You are a denialist of reality.
The ridicule is directed at ass-wipes like algore, your fucking dishonest and ignorant cult leader.
The ridicule is directed at the fact that your petty little group of Faith-based believers finds it necessary to distort and falsify data.
As I noted earlier, climate may well be changing. YOUR data cannot reasonably be used as valid evidence of that proposition. BUT, even if the climate is changing (i.e, try specificity. Maybe you can stick to the thesis that it is getting warmer, not just "changing") YOUR silly theory has little to no explanatory power. We can agree that climate changes over time. (It always has and always will). But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."
You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.
I have posted the latest science from the scientists themselves on threads in this board. All you have posted is nonsensical flapyap.
^ dumbfuck says dumb shit.
You have posted links to some science and you have proved repeatedly that you fail to grasp much of what you have shared.
You have yet to establish diddly fucking squat to prove-up the alleged connection between co2 released by the human race into the atmosphere and any changes we see in the climate.
You post fly shit.
This should be entertaining. Have you ever tried to figure out Judicial Watch's batting average? They've filed hundreds of lawsuits against various branches of the government. They've won, maybe, 4. I take it they're looking for manipulated temperature data. Hahahaaaa. Excellent.
you already admitted the data is manipulated. You agree with us.
well I've asked and never received why adjustments are necessary?This should be entertaining. Have you ever tried to figure out Judicial Watch's batting average? They've filed hundreds of lawsuits against various branches of the government. They've won, maybe, 4. I take it they're looking for manipulated temperature data. Hahahaaaa. Excellent.
you already admitted the data is manipulated. You agree with us.
I agree that adjustments have been made. That's hardly a secret. As to the reason for the adjustment, their we are not in the slightest of agreement.
Will the enhanced crop growth pay for moving 500 million people, their homes and businesses away from the coast?
The science changes it's mind all the time, has been caught manipulating data many times, so they can get the funding..........
Before this century is out, the oceans will flood the homes and workplaces of hundreds of millions of people due to thermal expansion and meltwater. The ignorant fools like you who'd have us do nothing - THEY'RE the ones doing the hosing. the schlonging, if you like.
Your a total fool!
Oh, I think you're about to wallop me in that category
Even the title of your graph tells us what it is.. "SPECTRUM OF" IT does not tell us what it does or how it affects our atmosphere.
You failed to understand my comment. You claimed:
Billy_Bob said:this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit.
I was not rejecting that it was a spectrum. I was rejecting that it was simply spectra at which "certian (sic) gases emit". It is a FUCKING DIRECT MEASUREMENT of the spectrum of greenhouse backradiation, just as I originally said and as was clearly explained in Evans' abstract that you failed to read (or perhaps to understand).
God are you stupid and god are you NOT the holder of a degree in atmospheric physics.
