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.
Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years agoWhat physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.
Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...
In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.
This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.
You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years agoWhat physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.
Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
You are a typical numbnut. In your mind pollution is climate change, well it's not. Pollution is pollution nothing more, and point in fact pollution was not responsible for either the glaciation of the earth or for that glaciation melting. Nothing will change the past or the truthYou have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years agoWhat physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?
If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.
Actually, 1970 is relevant. That's about the time Nixon opened up dialogue with China (Feb 1972). And subsequently, China became the world's largest and most egregious air polluter.
The greenhouse effect is a religious belief nothing more.Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
None at all.
Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother
Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?
As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap
Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...
You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...
Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
The fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.
This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.
Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
None at all.
Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother
Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?
As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap
Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...
You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...
Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerYeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
The fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.
This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.
Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
None at all.
Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother
Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?
As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap
Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...
You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...
Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this
Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerYeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
Again glaciers began melting 20000 years ago. My claim backed by scienceThe fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.
This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.
Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
None at all.
Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother
Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?
As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap
Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...
You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...
Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this
Do you read anything? Are you out of your f'ing mind...I am one of the biggest skeptics f AGW on this forum...and when the hell did I ever claim that the glaciers didn't start melting 20,000 years ago...if you were bright enough to actually read the graph I just provided to you, you would see that it shows that the glaciers started melting about 20,000 years ago...
If you aren't bright enough, or interested enough to actually look at the data and make sense of it, you are no better than wackos like cosmos who bases his opinion not on science but his politics...a skeptic who doesn't grasp the sceince is just another believer....you just believe something different.
I am skeptical because the science demands that I be...my position isn't based on any sort of belief...get a clue...
1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerYeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerYeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work aving been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
I see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
I see he has the boilerplatePlease provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.
You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.
You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...
Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.
You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.
Try again, stupid.
Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerI see. So if climate models don't agree with your idiotic misunderstanding of the greenhouse effect, then greenhouse effect is impossible and doesn't exist.
Still waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summerStill waiting for you to square the radiative greenhouse effect with the lack of an upper tropospheric hot spot as predicted, the increase in outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere the opposite of what was predicted, and the second law of thermodynamics...after that, we can go into the finer points....regarding the amount of radiation that actually happens in the troposphere...
Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
Lol u r funnypoo
Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Yo simple. Its snowing in Colorado during the summer
Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
Lol u r funnypoo
Still ignoring that there was 2000 feet thick ice in New Jersey 20000 years ago.Again why not run your graph back to when the glaciers melted. Are you dumb enough to believe that it was not warming when the ice age began to end as it is still ending now.1970 is irrelevant why even go there?Can you not read what I wrote and grasp that I am calling him on his belief in AGW?
And as to the snow in Colorado...it is just weather...it has snowed in the summer in colorado before...when snow in the summer in colorado becomes the norm, then we will be talking about climate...you seem to be as nutty as AGW wackos..you apparently don't understand anything you read and just choose to believe something different than AGW nutters...neither position is defensible if you ignore the science.
Lol u r funnypoo
PS the earth ends in 11 years anyway so why do you care
Doesn't bother me at all...in fact the graph I provided for you is some of the science that proves that the ice started melting about 20,000 years ago and you might have recognized that fact if you weren't such an idiot...Again glaciers began melting 20000 years ago. My claim backed by scienceThe fact is that the world covered itself in glaciation that began melting 20000 years ago. With no help from humans.Looking at data that does not show that half the USA and all of Canada was covered in 1000 to 2000 feet of ice 20000 years ago when the current warming trend began is just simply moronic, like you.
Of course it does...all you have to do is look at the sea level reconstructions...and archeological data regarding metropolitan areas and villages that existed within the past 10, 000 years which are now beneath a lot of water. That water came from melting ice....and a lot of it. Of course, it wasn't just from canada and the US...the ice also melted back from most of northern europe and china as well.
This is the reconstruction data I referenced...all one need do is look at the onset of sea level rise starting about 20K years ago and continuing through about 8000 years ago to see that a great deal of ice melted. What other data might you be referencing that would tell you how thick the ice was? We can certainly see where glaciers were, and we know that the ground that was covered by ice is still rebounding from the weight...but it is the sea level increase that actually tells us how much ice actually melted...Over 100 feet of sea level increase..that takes a great deal of ice...and more than was simply covering canada and the northern US.
Name 1 prediction that Al Gore made that has turned out to be correct?
None at all.
Actually since snow is still quite real don't bother
Not sure what your point is...are you thinking that I am a warmer wacko who believes in climate pseudoscience?
As for asking for evidence beginning in 1970 you either are a AGW fool or have fallen into their trap
Sorry, my whole point flew right over your head...unfortunate...but it is clear that you are making something out of a point that you didn't understand that makes no sense. You clearly haven't read any of my posts if you think I subscribe to AGW...you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance regarding my position...never a good idea....you end up looking stupid....as you do now suggesting that I in any way subscribe to either the radiative greenhouse hypothesis or the AGW hypothesis...
You might do just the tiniest bit of research in the future before you go about making baseless accusations...
Nothing you can babble or copy and paste will change this
Do you read anything? Are you out of your f'ing mind...I am one of the biggest skeptics f AGW on this forum...and when the hell did I ever claim that the glaciers didn't start melting 20,000 years ago...if you were bright enough to actually read the graph I just provided to you, you would see that it shows that the glaciers started melting about 20,000 years ago...
If you aren't bright enough, or interested enough to actually look at the data and make sense of it, you are no better than wackos like cosmos who bases his opinion not on science but his politics...a skeptic who doesn't grasp the sceince is just another believer....you just believe something different.
I am skeptical because the science demands that I be...my position isn't based on any sort of belief...get a clue...
Seems to bother u
