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.
Yeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validationHahahaha answer mine since it was first deflector.I want observed empirical evidence. Do you even know what observed is?Because it will be part of my answer.
Do you agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you need to see its absorption spectrum?
Do you know what an absorption spectrum is?
I want observed empirical evidence.
Great. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to start.
Again, thanks for showing there isn't any.
But there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.
Sure...when adults avoid answering direct questions, I win!..ssdd and billy, here it is, zippola with excusesYeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validationHahahaha answer mine since it was first deflector.I want observed empirical evidence. Do you even know what observed is?
I want observed empirical evidence.
Great. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to start.
Again, thanks for showing there isn't any.
But there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.
When children ask a science question, I have to estimate the base of knowledge they possess, before I answer.
If I overestimate their base, I end up talking over their head, and they remain as ignorant of the topic as before.
I'm always happen to validate your ignorance.
No, you silly ass. Here are the American Geophysical Union's and Geological Society of America's statements. They represent a lot more than just ten thousand scientists.Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77. However, many scientists that are not Climatologists are providing evidence for the rapid warming. Geologists, glacialogists, biologists, and those involved in agriculture science, just to name a few. They are not included in that survey, and the vast majority of them absolutely state that AGW is real.Climate change: How do we know?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Sea level rise
Global temperature rise
Warming oceans
Shrinking ice sheets
Declining Arctic sea ice
Glacial retreat
Extreme events
Ocean acidification
Decreased snow cover
References
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
- In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
- National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
- Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
- Global Climate Change Indicators | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
- T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
- I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
- Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
- L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Sea Ice | National Snow and Ice Data Center
- C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
- National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
State of the Cryosphere | SOTC: Northern Hemisphere Snow | National Snow and Ice Data Center
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.
It is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77.
Is that the number publishing? Link?
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
There you go.
Sooooo, what you're telling us is that 74 out of 10,257 scientists agree with the "theory" of AGW. That about cover it?
And yet no observed empirical evidenceNo, you silly ass. Here are the American Geophysical Union's and Geological Society of America's statements. They represent a lot more than just ten thousand scientists.Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77. However, many scientists that are not Climatologists are providing evidence for the rapid warming. Geologists, glacialogists, biologists, and those involved in agriculture science, just to name a few. They are not included in that survey, and the vast majority of them absolutely state that AGW is real.Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities
Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.
It is when that is the number of publishing Climatologists in the US is 77.
Is that the number publishing? Link?
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
There you go.
Sooooo, what you're telling us is that 74 out of 10,257 scientists agree with the "theory" of AGW. That about cover it?
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change
Now that represents the views of a vast majority of each Societies membership. You claim to be a Phd Geologist. Yet you seem to state that all these geologists are engaged in fraud.
Damn, what a lying fuck you are, Westwall. Every physics and chemistry text written states that without the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. The empirical data was examined in 1896 by Arrhenius, and no one has refuted his work in over one hundred years. Even at 180 ppm, at the depths of the ice age, CO2 provided enough effect to keep that from happening. At 280 ppm, we have the warm interglacials such as the present one. At 400 + ppm, well, we are going to find out what we have in the coming decades. And, if the amount continues to increase, our grandchildren are going to see some major negative effects.If you believe they have zero effect, you believe they are not greenhouse gases. Matthew has not misrepresented what you've said.
As always you resort to misrepresenting what was said, whiiiiiich makes you look like a dummy. I stated that in the incredibly small amounts with which they exist in OUR atmosphere, they are not capable of increasing temperature in a measurable way. And, empirical data supports my statement. Not yours.
Sure...when adults avoid answering direct questions, I win!..ssdd and billy, here it is, zippola with excusesYeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validationHahahaha answer mine since it was first deflector.I want observed empirical evidence.
Great. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to start.
Again, thanks for showing there isn't any.
But there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.
When children ask a science question, I have to estimate the base of knowledge they possess, before I answer.
If I overestimate their base, I end up talking over their head, and they remain as ignorant of the topic as before.
I'm always happen to validate your ignorance.
Damn, what a lying fuck you are, Westwall. Every physics and chemistry text written states that without the CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen to the equator. The empirical data was examined in 1896 by Arrhenius, and no one has refuted his work in over one hundred years. Even at 180 ppm, at the depths of the ice age, CO2 provided enough effect to keep that from happening. At 280 ppm, we have the warm interglacials such as the present one. At 400 + ppm, well, we are going to find out what we have in the coming decades. And, if the amount continues to increase, our grandchildren are going to see some major negative effects.If you believe they have zero effect, you believe they are not greenhouse gases. Matthew has not misrepresented what you've said.
As always you resort to misrepresenting what was said, whiiiiiich makes you look like a dummy. I stated that in the incredibly small amounts with which they exist in OUR atmosphere, they are not capable of increasing temperature in a measurable way. And, empirical data supports my statement. Not yours.
In a nutshell:
What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say
How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills so that "Climate Change" stops happening?
How will we know when we can stop?
Will hurricanes cease? No floods? No droughts?
try listening for a change, instead of flapping your lips like an imbecilic know-it-allIn a nutshell:
What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say
How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills so that "Climate Change" stops happening?
How will we know when we can stop?
Will hurricanes cease? No floods? No droughts?
And there it is the charts. Hahahaha I rest my caseSure...when adults avoid answering direct questions, I win!..ssdd and billy, here it is, zippola with excusesYeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validationHahahaha answer mine since it was first deflector.
Again, thanks for showing there isn't any.
But there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.
When children ask a science question, I have to estimate the base of knowledge they possess, before I answer.
If I overestimate their base, I end up talking over their head, and they remain as ignorant of the topic as before.
I'm always happen to validate your ignorance.
View attachment 88200
Really? Show us one please. Water vapor is totally irrelevant eh? Do tell. Please, show us one of these textbooks please.
And "Enviornmental Chemistry Textbook of Environmental Chemistry
Really? Show us one please. Water vapor is totally irrelevant eh? Do tell. Please, show us one of these textbooks please.
But there are other, related fallacies which even some physicists and climate scientists get wrong, such as the “surface budget fallacy”. BTW, the best textbook I know which explains all this is Ray Pierrehumbert’s Principles of Planetary Climate, great for his mathematical and detailed explanations, his perspective of how this works on other solid bodies besides Earth, and his excellent set of Python code which can be used both to do his problem sets and do climate experiments yourself. I’ll quote from him (pages 413-414) on this, but I’d recommend getting the context, too. I have also inserted some words in square brackets to provide a bit more explanation.
A common fallacy in thinking about the effect of doubled CO2 on climate is to assume that the additional greenhouse gas warms the surface by leaving the atmospheric temperature unchanged, but increasing the downward radiation into the surface by making the atmosphere a better infrared emitter. A corollary of this fallacy would be that increasing CO2 would not increase temperature of the lower atmosphere if the lower atmosphere is already essentially opaque in the infrared, as is nearly the case in the tropics today, owning to the high water vapor content of the boundary layer. This reasoning is faulty because increasing the CO2 concentration while holding the atmospheric temperature fixed reduces the OLR [“Outgoing Longwave Radiation”]. This throws the top-of-atmosphere budget out of balance, and the atmosphere must warm-up in order to restore [radiative] balance [due to the Blackbody Law]. The increased temperature of the whole troposphere increases all the energy fluxes into the surface, not just the radiative fluxes. Further, if one is in a regime where the surface fluxes tightly couple the surface temperatures to the overlying air temperature, there is no need to explicitly consider the surface balance in determining how much the surface warms. Surface and overlying atmosphere simply warm in concert, and the trop-of-atmosphere balance rules the roost.
Doubling CO2 and basic physics
And there it is the charts. Hahahaha I rest my caseSure...when adults avoid answering direct questions, I win!..ssdd and billy, here it is, zippola with excusesYeah, right, the word is observed and you ain't got it. Thanks for the validationBut there is. I can't help you if you're too stupid to understand it.
When children ask a science question, I have to estimate the base of knowledge they possess, before I answer.
If I overestimate their base, I end up talking over their head, and they remain as ignorant of the topic as before.
I'm always happen to validate your ignorance.
View attachment 88200
In a nutshell:
What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say
How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills so that "Climate Change" stops happening?
How will we know when we can stop?
Will hurricanes cease? No floods? No droughts?try listening for a change, instead of flapping your lips like an imbecilic know-it-allIn a nutshell:
What the science says versus what a bunch of imbeciles and lunatics on the world wide web say
How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills so that "Climate Change" stops happening?
How will we know when we can stop?
Will hurricanes cease? No floods? No droughts?
Saving Science
The Future Of Scientific Discovery
Nope. Little liar, I fully acknowledge the greenhouse effect.
What I do not acknowledge is that in the vanishingly small amounts that those gasses exist in OUR atmosphere do they have an effect.
It doesn't warm because the long wave IR can't penetrate beyond the skin of the oceans, which are the heat engines of this planet.
CO2 does all of the things claimed. In a perfect lab experiment it can be shown to do all of the claimed things. However, when you introduce CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere its effect is simply swamped by the effect caused by water vapor. Were there no water vapor the CO2 would have a small effect on temp. But with the water vapor whatever signal it has is completely overwhelmed.
It doesn't warm because the long wave IR can't penetrate beyond the skin of the oceans, which are the heat engines of this planet.
Using that train of logic, it would be impossible for sunlight to warm a rock, because sunlight can't penetrate beyond the skin of the rock.
CO2 does all of the things claimed. In a perfect lab experiment it can be shown to do all of the claimed things. However, when you introduce CO2 in the vanishingly small amounts that it exists in our atmosphere its effect is simply swamped by the effect caused by water vapor. Were there no water vapor the CO2 would have a small effect on temp. But with the water vapor whatever signal it has is completely overwhelmed.
CO2 plugs different spectral windows than water vapor does. Try to get familiar with the basics.
Nope. Little liar, I fully acknowledge the greenhouse effect.
You "acknowledge" it, and then immediately spin around and deny it.
What I do not acknowledge is that in the vanishingly small amounts that those gasses exist in OUR atmosphere do they have an effect.
Having an effect _is_ the greenhouse effect. You just said you don't acknowledge it. Hence, you are a greenhouse effect denier.
Now, let's get back to what you're avoiding.
What is this "empirical data" which you claim to have that says greenhouse gases don't warm the atmosphere?
If the greenhouse effect was wrong, backradiation should have its strongest spectral components at the emission lines for N2, O2 and Ar2, as those are the most common gases in the atmosphere. But that's not the case. Backradiation has its strongest spectral components at the emission lines for H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3, the primary greenhouse gases. even though they're only a trace of the atmosphere. Greenhouse effect, proven.
Let's make it simpler. If the greenhouse effect is wrong, why does the lack of a trace of water vapor make deserts very cold at night? if those trace gases have no effect, the lack of water vapor should have no effect, right?
