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.
what part of all the Scientific evidence supports my position is it that you do not understand ...all Scientific Organizations supports my posit5ion and you have no links no information to offer ...dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand? I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there. Post some up of what it is you think is? Show us dude.
Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started..my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......
In Support of the A in AGW
You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.
apparently this SSDD believes he is an authority over Science...Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started..my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......
In Support of the A in AGW
You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.
there is only your empty opinions ...Science as I have shown supports my position...I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"
These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...
all you do is repeat nonsense ...I have shown links I have shown what scientific organizations on Climate believe...where are your links ...where do your opinions come from LOLyou haven't shown a damn thing gene, you just post up links with nothing of relevance to any discussion and no excerpts that qualify as observed evidence of anything. Thanks for playing though.there is only your empty opinions ...Science as I have shown supports my position...I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"
The 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...Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started..my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......
In Support of the A in AGW
You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.
you are claiming there is no evidence ..NONSENSE LOLI am not claiming anything. here this is a post that you can't post one piece of evidence to support CO2 causes temps to go up. That is fact. prove me wrong.Post something anything that supports your position ...you have nothing ..I have posted literally dozens of links to the science LOLgood for you. That doesn't automatically qualify as evidence just cause you believe them. I don't, and there isn't any evidence there. So what do we do? Hmm, I'm going to keep asking you to present the evidence and you'll keep avoiding it. So, it appears there is no evidence.what part of all the Scientific evidence supports my position is it that you do not understand ...all Scientific Organizations supports my posit5ion and you have no links no information to offer ...dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand? I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there. Post some up of what it is you think is? Show us dude.
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)
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
“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
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.
You bring links here that support your outlandish claim that NOAA NASA all the Met organization of the world have no data to back their beliefs...its just a crazy unhinged claim LOL“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
OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.
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?
There sure is or the Science would not agree ...there is evidence...what there is no evidence of is your claim that one day all these Scientific organization decided out of the blue to start saying AGW is real without having any data LOLNonsense ..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.
Scientific organizations support your position...science is all about observing, measuring, and quantifying...and there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the opinion that science is holding.
The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positionsHe is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...
The whole problem on this environment board is trying to discuss science with kids who don't understand science. They even deny proven scientific principles involving radiation physics, and the second law of thermodynamics.The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions
Then why is science saying what they are saying ...what is your theory about why the dominant belief is that AGW is real...how do you explain that LOLYou 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?
And yet, it can't be measured at ambient temperature even though you claim that twice as much is radiating back to earth as comes in from the sun..
