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

[Cosmos]

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.

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

 

[SSDD]

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.

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

 

[Cosmos]

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

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work. It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere. The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.

 

[SSDD]

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work. It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere. The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.

So you have no idea....let me know when you believe you can explain the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.....when you get that much, then we will have something to talk about...at this point, the conversation is so far over your head that it is pointless to continue on this track...lets see what you actually know rather than just have me point out your errors and ignorance ad nauseam.

I am working on a playlist with a band that I haven't played with before so I will be practicing for a couple of hours...when I get finished, I will be back.

 

[Cosmos]

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work. It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere. The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.

So you have no idea....let me know when you believe you can explain the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.....when you get that much, then we will have something to talk about...at this point, the conversation is so far over your head that it is pointless to continue on this track...lets see what you actually know rather than just have me point out your errors and ignorance ad nauseam.

I just related to you your exact understanding of the greenhouse effect and now you're going to argue with me?

 

[SSDD]

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work. It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere. The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.

So you have no idea....let me know when you believe you can explain the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.....when you get that much, then we will have something to talk about...at this point, the conversation is so far over your head that it is pointless to continue on this track...lets see what you actually know rather than just have me point out your errors and ignorance ad nauseam.

I just related to you your exact understanding of the greenhouse effect and now you're going to argue with me?

So you still have nothing.. You have spent the past however many hours demonstrating that you really have never looked at the sceince...have had published paper after published paper pushed in your face refuting the crap you made up and now logical fallacy and pretense of having a clue are all you can manage?

About what I expected. I will drop by tomorrow...either you can describe the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect as you understand it or you can't. If you can, we will talk...if you can't, the drubbing you have taken today on this thread speaks for itself.

 

[Cosmos]

You're going to have to do better, dipshit. You can start by explaining how 60 years of Mauna Loa CO2 data is invalid just because some internet bigmouth who wasn't even aware of where it came from a couple hours ago says so.

I don't say so...the satellite data say so...and of what possible importance could it be? The fact that CO2 is not a well mixed gas is the smallest of the problems that the greenhouse effect hypothesis has...typical of warmers...ignore the forest while trying to draw the focus to a pine needle on the ground...

Tell me how you think the greenhouse effect works...

When talking to an idiot it's easier to explain how it doesn't work. It's like a giant condom around the planet made of CO2 of exactly the same concentration everywhere. The slightest variation or gap and all the heat can leak out and we go into a global cooling period.

So you have no idea....let me know when you believe you can explain the mechanism by which the greenhouse effect works.....when you get that much, then we will have something to talk about...at this point, the conversation is so far over your head that it is pointless to continue on this track...lets see what you actually know rather than just have me point out your errors and ignorance ad nauseam.

I just related to you your exact understanding of the greenhouse effect and now you're going to argue with me?

So you still have nothing.. You have spent the past however many hours demonstrating that you really have never looked at the sceince...have had published paper after published paper pushed in your face refuting the crap you made up and now logical fallacy and pretense of having a clue are all you can manage?

About what I expected. I will drop by tomorrow...either you can describe the mechanism of the radiative greenhouse effect as you understand it or you can't. If you can, we will talk...if you can't, the drubbing you have taken today on this thread speaks for itself.

It's very simple, you imbecile. You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it. Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

 

[SSDD]

It's very simple, you imbecile. You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it. Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

You are right...it is simple....the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect...and still you get it wrong....still clueless after all these years.

Clearly you need at least some links because you obviously haven't spent much time at all trying to learn anything. You seem to be under the impression that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing this infrared radiation from the surface of the earth and storing somehow. Here...let me help you out a bit..I will provide you with an explanation of the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect from the IPCC itself. Take a while to try to understand what they claim is happening, and the mechanism by which it might happen and I will be back around later.

And for Pete's sake...get yourself some different sources...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion at this point is doing a piss poor job at it. Hell, they aren't even equipping you with the basics...

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ul- traviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

 

[Cosmos]

It's very simple, you imbecile. You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it. Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

You are right...it is simple....the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect...and still you get it wrong....still clueless after all these years.

Clearly you need at least some links because you obviously haven't spent much time at all trying to learn anything. You seem to be under the impression that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing this infrared radiation from the surface of the earth and storing somehow. Here...let me help you out a bit..I will provide you with an explanation of the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect from the IPCC itself. Take a while to try to understand what they claim is happening, and the mechanism by which it might happen and I will be back around later.

And for Pete's sake...get yourself some different sources...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion at this point is doing a piss poor job at it. Hell, they aren't even equipping you with the basics...

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ul- traviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

You fucking blowhard. That does not differ from what I said in the least. You're an idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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.

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.

 

[SSDD]

It's very simple, you imbecile. You don't need 50 links to idiotic blogs to prove it. Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

You are right...it is simple....the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect...and still you get it wrong....still clueless after all these years.

Clearly you need at least some links because you obviously haven't spent much time at all trying to learn anything. You seem to be under the impression that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing this infrared radiation from the surface of the earth and storing somehow. Here...let me help you out a bit..I will provide you with an explanation of the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect from the IPCC itself. Take a while to try to understand what they claim is happening, and the mechanism by which it might happen and I will be back around later.

And for Pete's sake...get yourself some different sources...whoever it is that is giving you your opinion at this point is doing a piss poor job at it. Hell, they aren't even equipping you with the basics...

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ul- traviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected di- rectly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

You fucking blowhard. That does not differ from what I said in the least. You're an idiot.

Of course it does...if you aren't even able to spot the glaring difference between what you said, and what the IPCC said, you are just too far behind the curve to discuss the topic...look again, and let me know when you can find the crucial part of the hypothetical mechanism of the greenhouse effect you left off.

 

[SSDD]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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.

 

[Cosmos]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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..

 

[SSDD]

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

It isn't me who can't even get the basic mechanism of the hypothesized greenhouse effect right...I know what climate science says...you on the other hand apparently only know what the media, activists, and politicians say. If you can't get even the basics right, there is really no where to go from there

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.

What a putz...you can't even state the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, and you want to quiz me about something you most certainly don't understand? Typical of you hand wavers...

As to your question....there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is even larger than the greenhouse effect...its mechanism involves gravity, auto compression, enthalpy, convection and conduction...but that is all way past you if you can't even state accurately the basic mechanism by which the hypothesized greenhouse effect works according to climate science...

Once again...let me know when you spot your error...then we can move on to discussing the most basic aspect of the physics involved.

 

[Cosmos]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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..

LMAO! Just shut the fuck up. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[SSDD]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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"...

 

[Cosmos]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

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..

LMAO! Just shut the fuck up. You're embarrassing yourself.

You really are fucking clueless... Take your own advice and shut the fuck up.. Your embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of how the system works..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

LOL

Still clueless...

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