So the Oceans are rising are they?

[Old Rocks]

Some now say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas!!! That's ALSO a deliberate lie, but you choose to call mere differences in interpretation, lies.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide some proof, or explain the mechanism by which you believe a gas (other than water vapor) can absorb and trap energy. Neither you, nor any of your buds has yet provided anything even approaching proof. If the claim were true, don't you believe there woudl be some actual hard, observable evidence that it is true? If it is so, then prove it.

It just tells me that there's a whole lot of intellectual dishonesty on the skeptic/denier side that vastly overwhelms any mistakes by the other.

The dishonesty is all yours. If it isn't then provide the hard, observed evidence to support the greenhouse gas hypothesis.
Here are some links to pronouncements by your side that the sun is not causing climate change or at best, a very small bit of the change that your climate models predict.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | 'No Sun link' to climate change

'Sun not responsible for climate change' - Telegraph

Climate Change: It Is Not the Sun « Lean Left

It’s likely not the <em>primary</em> cause | Grist

Nobel-winning climate change scientist speaks at Expo Center tonight | OregonLive.com

It's still not the sun, stupid : A Few Things Ill Considered

Not at all difficult, Bender ol' buddy.

A23A

 

[wirebender]

Done repeatedly. The explanation has been posted. Do a search and quit lying.

So post a link to your alledged proof and prove that you are not a liar.

 

[wirebender]

Not at all difficult, Bender ol' buddy.

A23A

Your link goes to nothing. Got any actual evidence or is fantasy the best you can do?

 

[Old Rocks]

Got an old out of date computer there, Bender?

A23A

2009 AGU Fall Meeting: Featured Lectures

The links are to the 2009 American Geophysical Union convention. They present a series of lectures and make them available to the public. No one else seems to have a problem with either link.

 

[Old Rocks]

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Show us a single laboratory experiment demonstrating how an increase in the deminimus trace element CO2 raises temperature.

Just one experiment.

Not that CO2 is a GHG, but how a 60-200 PPM increase raises temperature.

One Experiment

 

[Old Rocks]

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.

And you've eliminated all variables except for a 100PPM increase in CO2?

Show me how that works

 

[westwall]

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.

What about all the glaciers that are advancing? What about the thousands of feet of ice that has been discovered accreting to the bottom of the Antarctic ice? If what you are saying were true, none of that would be happening. None of it.

Fail...

 

[RollingThunder]

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.

What about all the glaciers that are advancing? What about the thousands of feet of ice that has been discovered accreting to the bottom of the Antarctic ice? If what you are saying were true, none of that would be happening. None of it.

Fail...

No walleyed, you fail, as usual. You fail to check out the facts about the misinformation that fills your head before mouthing off.

What about the glaciers that are advancing, walleyed? How many are there relative to the number that are shrinking? Do you have any idea? Why are some glaciers advancing when others are shrinking? Any clue, walleyed? LOL. Of course not. You are such an idiotic, closed-minded little dupe.

Between 90 and 95 percent of the world's glaciers are shrinking and losing ice mass. Climate scientists understand why some glaciers are (or were) bucking the trend and growing and it has to do the with increased moisture content of the atmosphere due to global warming. Some glaciers, like some of the ones in Sweden and Norway, were growing for a while and then started shrinking around 1999 as the melting on the lower end of the glacier finally got faster than the increased snowfall on the upper end. Currently many of the ones that are still growing/advancing and aren't yet shrinking are in New Zealand and they are all located on the western side of the Southern Alps facing the prevalent wind where increased atmospheric moisture from the rapidly warming Tasman sea (warming at 3 times world average rate) is causing higher snowfall on the upper parts of the glaciers. Other isolated glaciers around the world that are similarly positioned to catch the prevailing winds off the ocean are still growing and some glaciers in the Himalayas were recently found to be still resisting the general melting trend because they are covered in more than two inches of rocky debris that is insulating the ice somewhat and they are mostly in deep mountain shadows. But globally most glaciers are still shrinking and shrinking at increasing rates as the Earth warms up, so scientists think most of the ones that are now growing will soon be shrinking too as the melting overwhelms the gains from increased snowfall at higher elevations.

Recent Global Glacier Retreat Overview
Mar 11, 2011
(excerpt)
Since 1980, glacier retreat has become increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that it has threatened the existence of many of the glaciers of the world [1].

Glaciers melting faster than originally thought: study
April 4, 2011
(excerpt)
Research shows that the rate of melting from the beginning of the 20th century was slower than previously thought; their research, however, also shows that since 1980, the rate of glacial loss has increased by over 100 times that of the previous 320 year long-term average.

A global glacier index update
Dr. Mauri Pelto (Professor of Environmental Science, Director of the North Cascades Glacier Climate Project, studied the glaciers in the North Cascades since 1984.)
Jan 31, 2009
(excerpt)
Those results indicate that 95% of the glaciers are retreating... In 2005, for the first time ever, no observed Swiss glaciers advanced.

 

[wirebender]

Got an old out of date computer there, Bender?

Not at all. The lecture played later yesterday evening. I watched the video (what a load of crap and a wasted hour that I will never get back) but I digress. I asked for some actual proof that CO2 molecules can trap and retain heat. Exactly which part of that painfully long and distored view of paleohistory do you believe constitutes observed, experimental proof that CO2 has the ability to absorb and retain heat? Just reply with the time marker on your video and I will gladly return to your reference.

I predict no answer from you. As I have stated earlier, neither you, nor any of yours has a link to even a small shred of experimental evidence that CO2 has the capacity to absorb and retain heat.

 

[wirebender]

​

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion. For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.

 

[wirebender]

We are doing that experiment right now. And the glaciers are melting, as are the ice caps, also. Weather is getting dicey and affecting the food supply. But, no need to look, nothing at all to see.

The glaciers and ice caps started melting 14,000 years ago and have melted back nearly 2000 miles so far. Atmospheric CO2 was considerably lower when the melting started and during all but the past half a century or so of the past 14,000 years of melting. Then there is the fact of several periods in which the earth was considerably warmer than present and warmed faster than the present without the benefit of increased CO2. Those two facts alone disaualify any claim that CO2 is driving the melting.

Your confusion regarding cause and effect do not qualify as experimental evidnece of anyting other than your lack of a grip on the science.

Now again, can you point to any experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can trap and retain heat?

 

[Kelly3Joe]

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level around the world. At the end of this century or in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20 feet according to scientists .

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level around the world. At the end of this century or in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20 feet according to scientists .

Sure it will, sure it will.

Click your heels together three times are repeat "...and its all because of the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster"

 

[Old Rocks]

​

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion. For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.

Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

​

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion. For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.

Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.

You were asked to provide experimental evidence showing how increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 raises temperature, all you did was provide an article from The American Institute of Physics that mentions CO2.

 

[wirebender]

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level around the world. At the end of this century or in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20 feet according to scientists .

Will rise up to 13 to 20 feet according to kooks you mean. Can you show me any credible peer reviewed material from the past few years that suggests such a thing?

 

[wirebender]

Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

As I predicted, you can point to no single part of that blog as anything even approaching proof. At best, it is an appeal to authority, but when the authority bases its assertions on assumptions rather than hard, observed, experimental, REPEATABLE evidence, then one must wonder if any crediblity rests with the "scientific body" being appealed to.

Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.

As to which of us is stupid, I routinely reference my claims and assertions with published, peer reviewed material. You, on the other hand seem to rely entirely on blogs. Not very bright if you ask me.

 

[wirebender]

[
You were asked to provide experimental evidence showing how increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 raises temperature, all you did was provide an article from The American Institute of Physics that mentions CO2.

Did you read polar bear's catch last week regarding the american institute of physics? It is a place where high school kids go to be tutored when they are failing in physics and the site exposes itself as little more than an indoctrination center. What is funny, and pathetic is that rocks views them as some sort of authority who need not provide proof of anything.