To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[SSDD]

BYW, outside the front door isn't part of the AR5 report. You know that right?

No...I don't think he knows that at all. I think that he believes that just because he says a thing that it must be true....he apparently believes his own lies....pathological liar, I believe, is the term.

 

[Crick]

Problem's here are all SSDD's
1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented
2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.
3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence
4) He's stupid and he lies

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859. Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.

 

[Crick]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Problem's here are all SSDD's
1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented
2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.
3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence
4) He's stupid and he lies

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859. Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.

The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?

Too Funny; Your projecting your own failures and shortcomings on someone else, You have provided no empirical evidence of any kind, and you conflate models (which are guesses and not empirical evidence - which have all failed empirical review) while mislabeling them as empirical evidence.

Not only are you confused about what is real and what is fiction, your confused about what is reliable evidence from your models that in-fill and homogenize data sets making them worthless. The mixing of real data with made up data giving you your "hottest ev'a" lie is evidence that you dont have a dam clue and you are incapable of determining what is real and what is fiction.

The only one panicing here is you! The only one lying here is You! Continue to run in circles and scream the sky is falling... Its amusing to watch..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

So atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature on Venus?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen. Much of the hydrogen in the atmosphere evaporated early in the formation of Venus, leaving a thick atmosphere across the planet. At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean."

How Hot is Venus?

Hope that helps clear up your fundamental misunderstanding

 

[jc456]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen. Much of the hydrogen in the atmosphere evaporated early in the formation of Venus, leaving a thick atmosphere across the planet. At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean."

How Hot is Venus?

Hope that helps clear up your fundamental misunderstanding

If there are no humans on Venus, where does the co2 come from?

 

[Crick]

The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?

Proxies ? ! ? ! ? In 1859 ? ? ? HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa

God are you STUPID

John Tyndall (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893) John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Crick]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

So atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature on Venus?

Frank, don't even bother.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

So atmospheric pressure has no effect on temperature on Venus?

Frank, don't even bother.

Crick, you're not totally hopeless. Read about atmospheric pressure. Here, I'll post it again, Cricky

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen. Much of the hydrogen in the atmosphere evaporated early in the formation of Venus, leaving a thick atmosphere across the planet. At the surface, the atmosphere presses down as hard as water 3,000 feet beneath Earth's ocean.The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C)."

How Hot is Venus?

That's not too hard, even you should be able to understand the relationship between pressure and temperature

 

[Billy_Bob]

The same Tyndall that uses his proxies upside down?

Proxies ? ! ? ! ? In 1859 ? ? ? HAHAHAHAHAAAAaaaaa

God are you STUPID

John Tyndall (2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893) John Tyndall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proxy reconstructions were done long before you were born. But hey, ignorance is bliss..

 

[Crick]

Show us a link of THIS John Tyndall using proxies for paleo climate reconstruction and getting them upside down you STUPID ASS.

Then, one of you ignorant FOOLS can address the PILES of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is real.

Billy Boy, have you told your advisor yet that you reject the greenhouse effect? That should advance your fucking career by leaps and bounds.


PS, the much crowed about upside down proxies were Michael Mann's 2008 use of Tiljander's 2003 varve x-ray density data. I strongly suggest you read Tiljander

Tiljander 2003... Tyndall 1859... yeah, I can see how YOU could get those mixed up. And then, of course, only YOU would double down on your stupidity. You REALLY need to learn how to admit your mistakes. I think if you did, you'd make less of them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us a link of THIS John Tyndall using proxies for paleo climate reconstruction and getting them upside down you STUPID ASS.

Then, one of you ignorant FOOLS can address the PILES of EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that the greenhouse effect is real.

Billy Boy, have you told your advisor yet that you reject the greenhouse effect? That should advance your fucking career by leaps and bounds.


PS, the much crowed about upside down proxies were Michael Mann's 2008 use of Tiljander's 2003 varve x-ray density data. I strongly suggest you read Tiljander

Tiljander 2003... Tyndall 1859... yeah, I can see how YOU could get those mixed up. And then, of course, only YOU would double down on your stupidity. You REALLY need to learn how to admit your mistakes. I think if you did, you'd make less of them.

Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature

 

[SSDD]

Problem's here are all SSDD's
1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented

To date, you have not presented the first bit of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in temperatures.

2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.

empirical - derived from or guided by experience or experiment. Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence

Evidence derived from models which are not built upon empirical evidence is trash....it assumes the models are correct but as we all know, they are not.

4) He's stupid and he lies

Says the biggest lying sack on the board....

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859. Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.

Would that be the same Tyndall who characterized CO2 as a "feeble" emitter? And he did not demonstrate the greenhouse effect...he demonstrated that certain gases absorb and emit radiation...that is not a demonstration of the greenhouse effect.

If evidence that gasses absorb and emit radiation passes as empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperaruatres, then it is clear that you have no idea what constitutes evidence.

So you admit that there is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperatures. That is what I said all along. Why did it take you so long to admit it?

 

[SSDD]

PS, regarding your comments on Venus, you make one enormous mistake. A planet with a radiatively active atmosphere (one containing GHGs) will absorb radiation, warm and then reradiate it in all directions. The Earth's atmosphere is transparent to visible and UV but that is not a requirement for the greenhouse effect to take place. It does not matter where the radiation comes from. Your claim that it HAS to hit the surface first is simply incorrect.

You ignorant twit....which gas in the atmosphere of venus absorbs enough short wave (which is what incoming solar radiation mostly is)to power a greenhouse effect? CO2 is transparent to short wave . Nitrogen is transparent to shortwave. Sulfuric acid increases the planet's albedo by reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space.

So which gas do you claim is absorbing incoming short wave radiation to power a greenhouse effect? According to climate science, LW is required for a greenhouse effect and since virtually no sunlight reaches the surface, where do you suppose this LW is coming from?

 

[Crick]

Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature

I think you meant to throw that at SSDD. Though, did you really want to embarrass your own team member?

 

[Crick]

Problem's here are all SSDD's
1) He doesn't want evidence, there fore he's not going to accept anything that's presented

To date, you have not presented the first bit of empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in temperatures.

Exactly as I predicted. In fact, I have identified mountains of evidence, but you simply reject it out of hand and claim it does not exist.

2) He doesn't seem to understand what the word "empirical" means.

empirical - derived from or guided by experience or experiment. Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Let me take a WILD-ASSED-GUESS: you copied that from a dictionary, hyperlink included. That's not exactly a demonstration that YOU know what the word means, dipwad.

3) He's seems oblivious to what does and does not constitute evidence

Evidence derived from models which are not built upon empirical evidence is trash....it assumes the models are correct but as we all know, they are not.

Evidence derived from models is evidence you fucking idiot. You don't realize how many MODELS are implicit and explicit in the data you think is purely empirical. How is the relationship between the proxy you use to measure air temperature (expanding mercury, expanding alcohol, expanding air, bimetallic strips, electrical resistance, etc, etc, etc) and the actual air temperature determined? BY A FUCKING MODEL YOU NUMBSKULL

4) He's stupid and he lies

Says the biggest lying sack on the board....

I have been caught here making mistakes and I admit them. I do not tell lies and thus have not been caught telling any. Neither of these are claims YOU could make.

The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated by empirical evidence since Tyndall in 1859. Rejecting it, as SSDD is attempting to do, take a special brand of ignorance.

Would that be the same Tyndall who characterized CO2 as a "feeble" emitter? And he did not demonstrate the greenhouse effect...he demonstrated that certain gases absorb and emit radiation...that is not a demonstration of the greenhouse effect.

Here's that "special brand of ignorance" of which I spoke

If evidence that gasses absorb and emit radiation passes as empirical evidence proving that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperaruatres, then it is clear that you have no idea what constitutes evidence.

And even more

So you admit that there is no empirical evidence that supports the claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere results in increased temperatures. That is what I said all along. Why did it take you so long to admit it?

And here's the lying to which this fellow's so prone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaking of admitting mistakes, tell us about the relationship between pressure and temperature

I think you meant to throw that at SSDD. Though, did you really want to embarrass your own team member?

You're the one who posted there no relationship between pressure and temperature and moreover CO2 makes the atmosphere transparent

 

[Crick]

Okay, Frank, if you insist, I am going to treat you like a four year old with a learning disability

1) I have never posted that there is no relationship between temperature and pressure. I am quite familiar with the gas laws. I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat - that even though a system is radiating heat to its surroundings, its pressure will maintain some elevated temperature. That claim is complete idiocy and I can't even say that I see SSDD making it anymore. I guess he left you off the email.
2) The list of "suggestions" from which you've drawn the conclusion that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects its transparency (and I never mentioned CO2) was a list of irrational ideas which might be "suggested" by increasing global temperatures. The list was composed to make fun of the suggestion that the Earth's temperature increase "suggests" we are coming out of an ice age regardless of the mountains of evidence suggesting that human activities are the primary cause.

Frank, get an education and use it. I'm not sure there's anyone on this board that needs it more (and might benefit from it). SSDD and Westwall are lost causes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Okay, Frank, if you insist, I am going to treat you like a four year old with a learning disability

1) I have never posted that there is no relationship between temperature and pressure. I am quite familiar with the gas laws. I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat - that even though a system is radiating heat to its surroundings, its pressure will maintain some elevated temperature. That claim is complete idiocy and I can't even say that I see SSDD making it anymore. I guess he left you off the email.
2) The list of "suggestions" from which you've drawn the conclusion that I believe adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects its transparency was a list of irrational ideas which might be "suggested" by increasing global temperatures. The list was composed to make fun of the suggestion that the Earth's temperature increase "suggests" we are coming out of an ice age regardless of the mountains of evidence suggesting that human activities are the primary cause.

Frank, get an education and use it. I'm not sure there's anyone on this board that needs it more (and might benefit from it). SSDD and Westwall are lost causes.

" I certainly have objected to SSDD's utterly nonsensical claim that pressure generates heat" --So you're doubling down on your claim that pressure does not generate heat? Is that what you're saying?