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.
well where I'd like to respond I can't because I would merely be repeating myself. So without you posting some evidence, I have my evidence that it doesn't exist. There, wow, I'm exhausted from all the nothing being posted.you are nonsense you are in denial of your own denial LOLWINNING!!!! I love being factually correct. Now that I'll say, since you can't disprove it.you are being cute LOL you are in denial of AGW and your are in denial of your denial of science as an authorityagain, a statement of error. Never claimed I was correct about anything. Post a clip of me claiming such. I maintain, that you can't post evidence of anything out of any of those scientific societies that can qualify as proof that CO2 causes temperatures to increase. So, back at ya.These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...
your position is that there is no evidence of Global warming...support that position
when you can come up with something that supports "there is no evidence that CO 2 cause GW ..let me know ..post a link like I just didhow stupid is that? you can't show me so I have to create something that doesn't exist to show that it doesn't exist? how does one do that? It isn't warming up outside. Manipulation is done to show otherwise, CO2 went up and temps didn't and the AR5 report agreed. What else can I post that can show you differently, I can't cause it doesn't exist. I can't show you something that never happened. That would indeed be a trick and fking magic.my opinion. What is it that I have opined? I have not offered any opinion, I have requested evidence, and I have remained consistent with that effort. So post up some comment of mine that is an opinion piece.[/QUOTEThe science is clear and the SSDD nonsense dude thinks all he has to do is express his opinion and it overrules science ...like youhe does? When has he ever stated such a thing? I think that is bull, and you can't prove it. Can you?apparently this SSDD believes he is an authority over Science...
all you have is i opinion ...show me any scientific organization that agrees there is no evidence of AGW ...one Scientific organization that claims there is no evidence of Global warming ...support the statement that there is no evidence of global warming
you are asserting there is no evidence of Global warming..where are your links .to proof of thatwell where I'd like to respond I can't because I would merely be repeating myself. So without you posting some evidence, I have my evidence that it doesn't exist. There, wow, I'm exhausted from all the nothing being posted.you are nonsense you are in denial of your own denial LOLWINNING!!!! I love being factually correct. Now that I'll say, since you can't disprove it.you are being cute LOL you are in denial of AGW and your are in denial of your denial of science as an authorityagain, a statement of error. Never claimed I was correct about anything. Post a clip of me claiming such. I maintain, that you can't post evidence of anything out of any of those scientific societies that can qualify as proof that CO2 causes temperatures to increase. So, back at ya.These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...
your position is that there is no evidence of Global warming...support that position
I have it like I said, the fact you can't post any.when you can come up with something that supports "there is no evidence that CO 2 cause GW ..let me know ..post a link like I just didhow stupid is that? you can't show me so I have to create something that doesn't exist to show that it doesn't exist? how does one do that? It isn't warming up outside. Manipulation is done to show otherwise, CO2 went up and temps didn't and the AR5 report agreed. What else can I post that can show you differently, I can't cause it doesn't exist. I can't show you something that never happened. That would indeed be a trick and fking magic.my opinion. What is it that I have opined? I have not offered any opinion, I have requested evidence, and I have remained consistent with that effort. So post up some comment of mine that is an opinion piece.[/QUOTEThe science is clear and the SSDD nonsense dude thinks all he has to do is express his opinion and it overrules science ...like youhe does? When has he ever stated such a thing? I think that is bull, and you can't prove it. Can you?
all you have is i opinion ...show me any scientific organization that agrees there is no evidence of AGW ...one Scientific organization that claims there is no evidence of Global warming ...support the statement that there is no evidence of global warming
Nonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.
I never said that CO2 doesn't absorb. never!!! All of that is very pretty but it doesn't support that adding CO2 adds heat. It just doesn't. What it is is someone who takes the fact that we drive cars and that CO2 is added to the atmosphere and say, it got hot today so CO2 caused it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The way it works is that you show that CO2 radiates after it has absorbs back to the surface of the planet, and to date no scientific society has shown that. That isn't included in all of that, so you still haven't supported the claim. You also know that CO2 is logarithmic right? Do you know what that means? hmmmmm, I bet you do, but you're afraid it helps prove my position.Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.
If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)
i didNonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.
that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”
It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.
But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.
Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming
try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.
Post anything that supports your nonsense ...i didNonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.
Post anything that supports your nonsense ...i didNonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.
Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.
If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation. It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase. You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, itisn'
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)
BTW, you know you have to have back radiation for your hypothesis to be good right? Not that CO2 absorbs, that's science and we all know this. So now post up that link with the back radiation that can prove CO2 is a sun.try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.
In other words more spamming of your opinion ..no links to support your positions ...not surprised at allPost anything that supports your nonsense ...i didNonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.
If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation. It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase. You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, itisn'
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)
here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation. It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase. You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, it isn't there friend. There is my link for you
Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024
Nonsense ..science supports my position that is why you cannot post anything but your opinion ..over and overBTW, you know you have to have back radiation for your hypothesis to be good right? Not that CO2 absorbs, that's science and we all know this. So now post up that link with the back radiation that can prove CO2 is a sun.try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?In other words more spamming of your opinion ..no links to support your positions ...not surprised at allPost anything that supports your nonsense ...i didNonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...the fact you can't post any.Climate Myth...
There's no empirical evidence
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.
If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?
One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation. It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase. You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, itisn'
The Smoking Gun
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:
Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.
Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)
here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation. It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase. You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, it isn't there friend. There is my link for you
Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024
I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't. I just said that.Nonsense ..science supports my position that is why you cannot post anything but your opinion ..over and overBTW, you know you have to have back radiation for your hypothesis to be good right? Not that CO2 absorbs, that's science and we all know this. So now post up that link with the back radiation that can prove CO2 is a sun.try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.
I am done posting to you..all I get is your opinion repeated over and over..I will check if I see something new from you I will respond...as long as you are just repeating the same old opinion what is the point...I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't. I just said that.
You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?
