#ourocean2014

[CrusaderFrank]

The science isn't political. Only you denier kooks keep trying to make it political. If you didn't fail so hard at every bit of the science, you wouldn't have to keep trying to deflect and divert. But since you do get every bit of science and logic wrong, the diversions are all you have.

er, I don't see the Experiment that controlled for a 120PPM CO2 difference in your post

 

[jc456]

You've already seen it a hundred times. Open your mind and look again. CO2 trap infrared that is NOT trapped by any other gas. Explain how that could NOT cause the Earth to warm.

I'd rather view it with my eyes rather than have to dream your dream. So, it's simple show that one experiment. 120 PPM radiates how much heat.

 

[jc456]

The science isn't political. Only you denier kooks keep trying to make it political. If you didn't fail so hard at every bit of the science, you wouldn't have to keep trying to deflect and divert. But since you do get every bit of science and logic wrong, the diversions are all you have.

Then why do you insist on making it so? It's simple, just show that one glorious experiment that proves your non political position? How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 radiate?

 

[mamooth]

jc, I know you're trying to get everyone's attention, but that doesn't mean the grownups will cater to you. Here's a juicebox and a kleenex. Wipe your nose and get back to the kiddie table.

 

[Old Rocks]

You people have been shown that experiment repeatedly, you simply keep repeating this stupid lying mantra. Really branding yourself as one really stupid bastard.

 

[Dot Com]

Show me an actual observed measurement of a greenhouse effect....show me an actual quantification of it...all you have is computer models...no actual evidence...and questionable appeals to authority when it is clear that you can't produce any evidence....if the authority were as authoritative as you seem to believe they are, with the hundreds of billions they have wasted, don't you think they could have provided you with some actual evidence to post?

your links didn't post through

 

[elektra]

CO2 does not radiate a thing. You get enough CO2 in one spot, you got dry ice, the more you bombard Dry Ice with radiation from heat, the more you destroy the CO2, it simply turns to gas and does not radiate a thing back, you never get more energy in than you get out.

If CO2 was or is great at warming things, why is CO2 not used in lets say, triple pane insulated glass?

Anyhow, its funny to see Old Crock admit he is, "one really stupid bastard". I will also note another moot point by mamoot, or is that mamooth, like in dinosaur, a dinosaur adds nothing.

Neanderthals, so easy to believe in AGW, so quick to look upon another simple minded man who calls himself a scientist, as a superior. It really is like a religion, with Saints/Scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damn, you are incredibly stupid. You have to cool CO2 to get dry ice. You do not get it by "getting enough CO2 in one spot".

Dry ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dry ice, sometimes referred to as "cardice" (chiefly British chemists), is the solid form of carbon dioxide. It is used primarily as a cooling agent. Its advantages include lower temperature than that of water ice and not leaving any residue (other than incidental frost from moisture in the atmosphere). It is useful for preserving frozen foods, ice cream, etc., where mechanical cooling is unavailable.

Dry ice sublimes at −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F) at Earth atmospheric pressures. This extreme cold makes the solid dangerous to handle without protection due to burns caused by freezing (frostbite). While generally not very toxic, the outgassing from it can cause hypercapnia due to buildup in confined locations

 

[Dot Com]

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F)

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012

 

[jc456]

jc, I know you're trying to get everyone's attention, but that doesn't mean the grownups will cater to you. Here's a juicebox and a kleenex. Wipe your nose and get back to the kiddie table.

I have your attention, you're welcome. when you and your peer friends can ever, duh, provide that experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does, then we can move past this candy land game you play. So why don't you put the board game away and actually do what you preach and play with the adults. Just provide that experiment, and stop candy landing.............. LoSiNg

 

[jc456]

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia. ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Dot Com]

ummm..... are there sources on wiki? Why YES!, there are you troll.

If you don't have critical thinking skills, please refrain from posting in this thread kiddo.

 

[jc456]

ummm..... are there sources on wiki? Why YES!, there are you troll.

If you don't have critical thinking skills, please refrain from posting in this thread kiddo.

Wikipedia.......ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (squared)

BTW, just where is that experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does. Why don't you check Wiki for me? See they don't have anything that I can find. So you are the champion Wiki dude, so maybe you can champion that task!!!!! hahahaahahahahahahaahhaha

 

[SSDD]

Wikipedia.......ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (squared)

BTW, just where is that experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does. Why don't you check Wiki for me? See they don't have anything that I can find. So you are the champion Wiki dude, so maybe you can champion that task!!!!! hahahaahahahahahahaahhaha

The guy has the nerve to claim that someone else has no critical thinking skills and yet he believes completely in a greenhouse effect that has never been observed, measured, or quantified even though literally hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on climate pseudoscience. Talk about a complete absence of critical thinking.

The very definition of critical thinking is making judgements based on evidence and yet, when we ask for evidence...actual evidence...all they can produce is model output. Anything observed is nothing but correlation and they don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that correlation does not equal causation. They grasp at straws...fabricate data...manipulate data...and all manner of dishonesty but thinking critically...not in their cult song book.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've already seen it a hundred times. Open your mind and look again. CO2 trap infrared that is NOT trapped by any other gas. Explain how that could NOT cause the Earth to warm.

Do we have to click our heels together three times and say "Let see the AGW Experiment"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The science isn't political. Only you denier kooks keep trying to make it political. If you didn't fail so hard at every bit of the science, you wouldn't have to keep trying to deflect and divert. But since you do get every bit of science and logic wrong, the diversions are all you have.

Checking....

Still no AGW Experiment

 

[SSDD]

Do we have to click our heels together three times and say "Let see the AGW Experiment"?

You have to be wearing ruby....or maybe green emerald slippers for it to work....and you have to believe...really hard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AGWCult has been hitting nitrous

 

[Crick]

CO2 does not radiate a thing.

CO2, like any other matter in the universe, radiates according to Stefan-Boltzman.

You get enough CO2 in one spot, you got dry ice

Nonsense, but, more importantly, this make no relevant point.

the more you bombard Dry Ice with radiation from heat, the more you destroy the CO2, it simply turns to gas and does not radiate a thing back, you never get more energy in than you get out.

I assume your talking about phase transition energy. However - even undergoing phase transition - all matter radiates per Stefan-Boltzman all the time. No one ever suggested that you could get more energy out of CO2 than you put in.

If CO2 was or is great at warming things, why is CO2 not used in lets say, triple pane insulated glass?

The purpose of triple pane glass is to minimize the transmission of heat. CO2 would not accomplish that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You people have been shown that experiment repeatedly, you simply keep repeating this stupid lying mantra. Really branding yourself as one really stupid bastard.

Go ahead. Repost it for the benefit of us without the FAITH in AGW.

Apparently only the FAITHFUL have seen the experiment