Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Cosmos]

Oh I know...cosmos wants to discuss the topic and at this point, he can't even state the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect, much less start to understand why it is a load of crap. I figured if I could at least get him past the opinion he was given, and into a real discussion about what the science actually says rather than what the media, activists, and politicians say, maybe he can make some progress....not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Of course the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist, but till he can at least understand what they are claiming, he can't even begin to understand why it simply isn't possible.

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

 

[SSDD]

The hypothesis requires a hot spot of mass, that is warmer than the surface, be present in the atmosphere in order for the surface to be warmed.

No such animal exists.. And no such animal can exist in our atmosphere, in its current water controlled cycles.

Dr David Evans has done the empirical work disproving this.

View attachment 269344

Satellites even show that energy leaving is parallel with input from the sun. This means that there is no slowing of energy loss by CO2. Our temperature on earth is dependent on other factors.

Oh I know...cosmos wants to discuss the topic and at this point, he can't even state the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect, much less start to understand why it is a load of crap. I figured if I could at least get him past the opinion he was given, and into a real discussion about what the science actually says rather than what the media, activists, and politicians say, maybe he can make some progress....not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Of course the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist, but till he can at least understand what they are claiming, he can't even begin to understand why it simply isn't possible.

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

 

[Cosmos]

Oh bummer.................After citing ERBE as a source for you're stupidity you're going to have to turn around and slander them and call them all liars. That sucks.

Dumbasses.

 

[SSDD]

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

Your description doesn't say anything about outgoing long wave radiation....any idea why?

 

[Cosmos]

Oh I know...cosmos wants to discuss the topic and at this point, he can't even state the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect, much less start to understand why it is a load of crap. I figured if I could at least get him past the opinion he was given, and into a real discussion about what the science actually says rather than what the media, activists, and politicians say, maybe he can make some progress....not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Of course the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist, but till he can at least understand what they are claiming, he can't even begin to understand why it simply isn't possible.

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 11 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

 

[Cosmos]

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

Your description doesn't say anything about outgoing long wave radiation....any idea why?

That's what "IR" is, stupid. I referred to it as IR. To you morons that don't know any better that stands for Infra-Red, which is longwave radiation.

Get a clue you ignorant hillbilly.

 

[Cosmos]

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

 

[Billy_Bob]

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

 

[Cosmos]

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

 

[SSDD]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand. But you have absolutely no sense.

So you can't even demonstrate a knowledge of even the most basic, fundamental mechanism by which climate science says that the greenhouse effect works.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. You guys never actually want to talk about the science...guess you are afraid of 1) putting your ignorance on display and 2) afraid that if you actually look at the science, you might find out something that you don't want to know..

 

[SSDD]

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

Your description doesn't say anything about outgoing long wave radiation....any idea why?

That's what "IR" is, stupid. I referred to it as IR. To you morons that don't know any better that stands for Infra-Red, which is longwave radiation.

Get a clue you ignorant hillbilly.

Sorry...I should have written it in crayon...what I meant is that your clip says nothing about the balance, or imbalance of energy coming in vs going out...it jumps straight into an assumption that AGW is real but doesn't provide any data to support the assumption...

Sorry, this is all over your head...you really need to demonstrate that you understand the difference between your version of the greenhouse effect and what climate science says.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

LOL

Still clueless...

ERBE shows the parallel input and output of energy. No magical storage....

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

He already did...as I keep saying...discussion at this level is way over your head...He made a statement about the amount of energy leaving the planet and the amount of energy coming in...It is a stark demonstration of how far off the climate models are...they in no way represent anything like reality. He has provided you with the evidence and it has gone right over your head...

Lets get back to the basics so that maybe you can get a handle on at least some of this.

 

[Cosmos]

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.

Ok. That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

 

[SSDD]

No it doesn't. That's horseshit. If that were true we would not exist.

Here's what ERBE says about greenhouse effect.

The instruments aboard the ERBE satellites measure the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, the energy emitted by the Earth into space, and the amount of solar radiation which is reflected into space. The energy received from the sun is at short wavelengths while the energy emitted by the surface of the Earth and clouds is long wavelength radiation. Some of the shortwave radiation from the sun is reflected back into space by water vapor, ozone, clouds and small particles in the atmosphere called aerosols. Gases which absorb the longwave radiation emitted by the Earth are known as "greenhouse" gases. Increases in the amount of greenhouse gases can lead to a warming of the atmosphere, which can, in turn, cause changes in the Earth's daily and long-term weather ("climate").

NASA - ERBE: Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Experiment (ERBE):

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.

The talking points that whoever gave him his opinion provided for him simply didn't prepare him to actually discuss the science...You give him the evidence he asked for and he is unable to recognize it as precisely what he asked for...incredible...

The sad thing is that in his mind, he probably believes that he has this stuff down pat...

 

[Billy_Bob]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

 

[SSDD]

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.

Ok. That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

The whole greenhouse effect is based on some basic misunderstandings of physics...we will get to that as soon as you demonstrate that you have a grasp of the fundamental mechanism by which the greenhouse effect is supposed to work according to climate science...

 

[SSDD]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

The hot spot is way past his understanding...at this point, he hasn't even said what he thinks that CO2 molecules do with the energy they absorb....till he at least gets that far, the whole hot spot is beyond him...

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL...

Too Funny;

View attachment 269363

Note the slope of the data plotted (highlighted). This shows the flux of input/output. Now note the other 13 models which predict AGW... They have no resemblance of reality as their plots indicate the creation of a hot spot not present in our atmosphere.

Your AGW hypothesis failed miserably by empirical review.

Sure, moron. In your own words explain those graphs.

I did and your an idiot....

No, you didn't. You didn't provide the source of that information. How am I supposed to evaluate some unidentified graph posted by some internet moron?

Here is Dr Evans peer reviewed work... The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

This will also help you in learning the basic premise of the AGW hypothesis.

The talking points that whoever gave him his opinion provided for him simply didn't prepare him to actually discuss the science...You give him the evidence he asked for and he is unable to recognize it as precisely what he asked for...incredible...

The sad thing is that in his mind, he probably believes that he has this stuff down pat...

I know.. And now that he is in a corner he seems to think he can simply change the hypothesis that has never changed.