Winter Does Not Disprove Global Warming

[Abraham3]

right, you can believe that theory, its your right, but all it is a belief, an opinion, of a theory, nothing more.

C'mon. Put your smart kid hat on. ALL of science is theories. And what I told you is all valid basic science. Show it to a science teacher and ask him what he thinks.

CO2, a beneficial molecule, without CO2 we all die. The so called scientist that dreamt this theory up got stuck in the ice, that is how much they actually understand of the real world, outside the laboratory.

[/quote]

The Greenhouse Effect dates back to the mid 1800s or before. Let's look it up:

History

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

So, if nothing else, I think we can say it wasn't dreamed up by anyone on that stuck ship.

Rejecting the greenhouse effect is like rejecting the chemical reaction between baking soda and vinegar or between Mentos and Diet Coke.

 

[RollingThunder]

18 Degrees in Hawaii today s0n!!!!
All 50 States Saw Freezing Temperatures At Some Point Tuesday « CBS Atlanta
Wanna go ask the thousands of people who saved up $10,000.00 and landed in Honnalulu today what they think about global warming and all the "consensus" science shit?

It's wintertime and some places in the US are cold. So what? A lot of places around the world are hot right now. Globally, the Earth is still warming.

BTW, the following article, published today, is using degrees Centigrade. 50 degrees Centigrade = 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The "50s" means upwards of 122 degrees.

Temperatures climb towards 50s as heatwave grips Western Australia
The Guardian
Oliver Milman
8 January 2014
(excerpts)
Australia’s record temperature could be toppled on Wednesday and Thursday, with a fearsome heatwave striking large parts of Western Australia. The Bureau of Meteorology had predicted that the remote outpost of Emu Creek could reach 52C on Wednesday, but this was later scaled down to the high-40s. The temperature in Emu Creek, located in the Pilbara, will be matched on Wednesday by Onslow, which will reach 49C, while Marble Bar will get up to 46C. A relatively minor temperature increase in these locations will see them break the daily temperature record of 50.7C, set in the small South Australian town of Oodnadatta in 1960.

The bureau warned that hot and gusty winds would cause extreme fire danger to the Exmouth gulf coast and the Gascoyne and south interior regions. The temperature record has already been challenged in a sweltering start to 2014 for Australia’s interior. On 2 January, Moomba in South Australia reached 49.3C, with 12 other locations in the state baking in heat of 48C or more. The hot beginning to 2014 follows what was Australia’s warmest ever year since records began in 1910. 2013 was 1.2C warmer than the long-term average, with January setting new highs for the hottest day, week and month ever recorded.

That settles it!... It's Hot in Australia and the Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!... And 50 States having Freezing temps is like... Nothing man!...

Australia's Hot and until it's an ice cap I won't believe anything anyone says except that the Earth is Burning up because America is great and WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!....

Wow! That post is so stupid, it's hard to know where to start.

"It's Hot in Australia".....and in Siberia, Western Europe, Chile, Argentina and Hong Kong, among other places.

The ice in the Arctic is up 29% over last year? You fool! Arctic sea ice extent was about 4.25 million square miles in 1953 and it's been shrinking by 8 to 10 percent every decade since. There was a major decline in 2002 when the minimum extent dropped to only 2.3 million square miles. The ice recovered a bit in the years following until there was another big decline in 2005 when ice extent dropped to only 2.05 million square miles. Then, in 2007, ice declined again to a new record low of only 1.65 million square miles, which was 23% below the record low in 2005 and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. After that the ice again recovered a bit until 2012 when it dropped to a new record low of only 1.32 million square miles, which was 18% below the 2007 record low and 49% below the 1979-2000 average. In 2013, sea ice extent increased as scientists expected, but this time a little more than usual, to 1.97 million square miles, which was still the sixth lowest extent since 1979 when satellite records began. And all that is not even considering the concurrent drop in Arctic sea ice volume. Most of the ice there is now thin first year ice, instead of the thick multi-year ice that was prevalent a couple of decades ago. The Arctic is still rapidly warming and Arctic ice is still rapidly diminishing and the Arctic is still expected to become ice-free in the summers within a decade or so, possibly within 3 or 4 years. So yeah, dufus, "Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!" is exactly right.

The US is unusually cold this winter but the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface and quite a few places are hotter than usual, so, again, "like nothing".

 

[skookerasbil]

It's wintertime and some places in the US are cold. So what? A lot of places around the world are hot right now. Globally, the Earth is still warming.

BTW, the following article, published today, is using degrees Centigrade. 50 degrees Centigrade = 122 degrees Fahrenheit. The "50s" means upwards of 122 degrees.

Temperatures climb towards 50s as heatwave grips Western Australia
The Guardian
Oliver Milman
8 January 2014
(excerpts)
Australia’s record temperature could be toppled on Wednesday and Thursday, with a fearsome heatwave striking large parts of Western Australia. The Bureau of Meteorology had predicted that the remote outpost of Emu Creek could reach 52C on Wednesday, but this was later scaled down to the high-40s. The temperature in Emu Creek, located in the Pilbara, will be matched on Wednesday by Onslow, which will reach 49C, while Marble Bar will get up to 46C. A relatively minor temperature increase in these locations will see them break the daily temperature record of 50.7C, set in the small South Australian town of Oodnadatta in 1960.

The bureau warned that hot and gusty winds would cause extreme fire danger to the Exmouth gulf coast and the Gascoyne and south interior regions. The temperature record has already been challenged in a sweltering start to 2014 for Australia’s interior. On 2 January, Moomba in South Australia reached 49.3C, with 12 other locations in the state baking in heat of 48C or more. The hot beginning to 2014 follows what was Australia’s warmest ever year since records began in 1910. 2013 was 1.2C warmer than the long-term average, with January setting new highs for the hottest day, week and month ever recorded.

That settles it!... It's Hot in Australia and the Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!... And 50 States having Freezing temps is like... Nothing man!...

Australia's Hot and until it's an ice cap I won't believe anything anyone says except that the Earth is Burning up because America is great and WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!....

Wow! That post is so stupid, it's hard to know where to start.

"It's Hot in Australia".....and in Siberia, Western Europe, Chile, Argentina and Hong Kong, among other places.

The ice in the Arctic is up 29% over last year? You fool! Arctic sea ice extent was about 4.25 million square miles in 1953 and it's been shrinking by 8 to 10 percent every decade since. There was a major decline in 2002 when the minimum extent dropped to only 2.3 million square miles. The ice recovered a bit in the years following until there was another big decline in 2005 when ice extent dropped to only 2.05 million square miles. Then, in 2007, ice declined again to a new record low of only 1.65 million square miles, which was 23% below the record low in 2005 and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. After that the ice again recovered a bit until 2012 when it dropped to a new record low of only 1.32 million square miles, which was 18% below the 2007 record low and 49% below the 1979-2000 average. In 2013, sea ice extent increased as scientists expected, but this time a little more than usual, to 1.97 million square miles, which was still the sixth lowest extent since 1979 when satellite records began. And all that is not even considering the concurrent drop in Arctic sea ice volume. Most of the ice there is now thin first year ice, instead of the thick multi-year ice that was prevalent a couple of decades ago. The Arctic is still rapidly warming and Arctic ice is still rapidly diminishing and the Arctic is still expected to become ice-free in the summers within a decade or so, possibly within 3 or 4 years. So yeah, dufus, "Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!" is exactly right.

The US is unusually cold this winter but the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface and quite a few places are hotter than usual, so, again, "like nothing".

What a dumb fuck........s0n.........knock yourself out!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

That settles it!... It's Hot in Australia and the Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!... And 50 States having Freezing temps is like... Nothing man!...

Australia's Hot and until it's an ice cap I won't believe anything anyone says except that the Earth is Burning up because America is great and WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!....

Wow! That post is so stupid, it's hard to know where to start.

"It's Hot in Australia".....and in Siberia, Western Europe, Chile, Argentina and Hong Kong, among other places.

The ice in the Arctic is up 29% over last year? You fool! Arctic sea ice extent was about 4.25 million square miles in 1953 and it's been shrinking by 8 to 10 percent every decade since. There was a major decline in 2002 when the minimum extent dropped to only 2.3 million square miles. The ice recovered a bit in the years following until there was another big decline in 2005 when ice extent dropped to only 2.05 million square miles. Then, in 2007, ice declined again to a new record low of only 1.65 million square miles, which was 23% below the record low in 2005 and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. After that the ice again recovered a bit until 2012 when it dropped to a new record low of only 1.32 million square miles, which was 18% below the 2007 record low and 49% below the 1979-2000 average. In 2013, sea ice extent increased as scientists expected, but this time a little more than usual, to 1.97 million square miles, which was still the sixth lowest extent since 1979 when satellite records began. And all that is not even considering the concurrent drop in Arctic sea ice volume. Most of the ice there is now thin first year ice, instead of the thick multi-year ice that was prevalent a couple of decades ago. The Arctic is still rapidly warming and Arctic ice is still rapidly diminishing and the Arctic is still expected to become ice-free in the summers within a decade or so, possibly within 3 or 4 years. So yeah, dufus, "Arctic Ice growing 29% from Summer 2012 to Summer 2013 is just like... Nothing man!" is exactly right.

The US is unusually cold this winter but the US is only about 2% of the Earth's surface and quite a few places are hotter than usual, so, again, "like nothing".

What a dumb fuck........

You sure are, kookles. One of the dumbest I've ever encountered.

LOLOLOLOL......

Minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2013 was about the same as it was in 2009.
September minimum extent in 2013 - 1.97 million square miles
September minimum extent in 2009 - 1.98 million square miles
1979-2000 average minimum extent - 2.59 million square miles

Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2012: Sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through December 2012, data are derived from passive microwave (SMMR / SSM/I). Image by Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

And then there is the decline in volume.

Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M]Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes on Map of New York 1979-2012 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

Photos > Cherry picked #'s!!!

 

[Flopper]

Climate change deniers cite snowstorm: Debunking Donald Trump et al.

An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, has blanketed the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the United States, and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, temperatures on Dec. 31, 2013 were as cold as temperatures on ... Mars.....

....

1. Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.

2. Global warming is actually expected to increase “heavy precipitation in winter storms,” and for the Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft U.S. National Climate Assessment.

3. Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change! (For more, read here.)

Finally, just one last thing: When it’s winter on Earth, it’s also summer on Earth ... somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It’s blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures in some regions set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days.

its a shame we've let this become yet another partisan football because, in the end, if allow the continued dumbing down of America, we all lose.

As the US freezes over, Sweden has experienced mild winter temperatures. Temperatures in Alaska have been warmer than the deep south. Global climate change is a long term trend that effects the whole planet.

 

[thanatos144]

Climate change deniers cite snowstorm: Debunking Donald Trump et al.

An intense blizzard, appropriately named Hercules, has blanketed the Northeast. Antarctic ice locked in a Russian ship containing a team of scientists—en route, no less, to do climate research. Record low temperatures have been seen in parts of the United States, and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, temperatures on Dec. 31, 2013 were as cold as temperatures on ... Mars.....

....

1. Statements about climate trends must be based on, er, trends. Not individual events or occurrences. Weather is not climate, and anecdotes are not statistics.

2. Global warming is actually expected to increase “heavy precipitation in winter storms,” and for the Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence that these storms are already more frequent and intense, according to the draft U.S. National Climate Assessment.

3. Antarctica is a very cold place. But global warming is affecting it as predicted: Antarctica is losing ice overall, according to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, sea ice is a different matter than land-based or glacial ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and moreover, the reason for this may be climate change! (For more, read here.)

Finally, just one last thing: When it’s winter on Earth, it’s also summer on Earth ... somewhere else. Thus, allow us to counter anecdotal evidence about cold weather with more anecdotal evidence: It’s blazing hot in Australia, with temperatures in some regions set to possibly soar above 120 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming days.

its a shame we've let this become yet another partisan football because, in the end, if allow the continued dumbing down of America, we all lose.

As the US freezes over, Sweden has experienced mild winter temperatures. Temperatures in Alaska have been warmer than the deep south. Global climate change is a long term trend that effects the whole planet.

Hey when has climate not changed?

tapatalk post

 

[RollingThunder]

Climate change deniers cite snowstorm: Debunking Donald Trump et al.

its a shame we've let this become yet another partisan football because, in the end, if allow the continued dumbing down of America, we all lose.

As the US freezes over, Sweden has experienced mild winter temperatures. Temperatures in Alaska have been warmer than the deep south. Global climate change is a long term trend that effects the whole planet.

Hey when has climate not changed?

Quite often you ignorant moron. There have been many long periods of fairly stable global climate patterns. Your idiotic denier cult myth about the 'climate always changing' is based entirely on your own ignorance of what paleoclimatology actually tells us about the Earth's climate history. In reality, there have been many long periods of fairly stable climate. The Holocene has had a fairly stable climate for about eight thousand years, until recently, which allowed humans to develop agriculture and civilization.

Our agricultural systems, that allow us to feed seven billion people, are entirely dependent on stable climate patterns which provide regular, predictable rainfall in predictable amounts, and a yearly cycle of predictable temperature ranges. AGW is destabilizing global climate patterns and will eventually lead to agricultural failures on a massive scale resulting in mass starvation and hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

As the US freezes over, Sweden has experienced mild winter temperatures. Temperatures in Alaska have been warmer than the deep south. Global climate change is a long term trend that effects the whole planet.

Hey when has climate not changed?

Quite often you ignorant moron. There have been many long periods of fairly stable global climate patterns. Your idiotic denier cult myth about the 'climate always changing' is based entirely on your own ignorance of what paleoclimatology actually tells us about the Earth's climate history. In reality, there have been many long periods of fairly stable climate. The Holocene has had a fairly stable climate for about eight thousand years, until recently, which allowed humans to develop agriculture and civilization.

Our agricultural systems, that allow us to feed seven billion people, are entirely dependent on stable climate patterns which provide regular, predictable rainfall in predictable amounts, and a yearly cycle of predictable temperature ranges. AGW is destabilizing global climate patterns and will eventually lead to agricultural failures on a massive scale resulting in mass starvation and hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

 

[elektra]

right, you can believe that theory, its your right, but all it is a belief, an opinion, of a theory, nothing more.

C'mon. Put your smart kid hat on. ALL of science is theories. And what I told you is all valid basic science. Show it to a science teacher and ask him what he thinks.

CO2, a beneficial molecule, without CO2 we all die. The so called scientist that dreamt this theory up got stuck in the ice, that is how much they actually understand of the real world, outside the laboratory.

The Greenhouse Effect dates back to the mid 1800s or before. Let's look it up:

History

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

So, if nothing else, I think we can say it wasn't dreamed up by anyone on that stuck ship.

Rejecting the greenhouse effect is like rejecting the chemical reaction between baking soda and vinegar or between Mentos and Diet Coke.[/QUOTE]

I will put on the "smart kid hat", if you at least pull your, "dunce hat", up over your eyes.

All of Science is theories, so all those pesky little elements, we really do not know if they exist or have properties, its just a theory? And Materials like Uranium does not have a half life, that is not a fact, its just a theory. And the idea that radiation can actually destroy a cell is a theory, not a fact?

The fact is when cosmic rays enter the earths atmosphere the more stuff they hit, the weaker they get. The Equator never gets as close to the sun as the North pole yet its always warmer at the Equator, that is because there is less atmosphere at the equator, less atmosphere means the radiation from the sun loses less energy, causing greater heat. CO2 has zero effect in the atmosphere, at least none that can be measured in any way.

All of Science is a theory? You make a lot of new rules and qualifications to make your argument defending your opinion.

 

[Abraham3]

I will put on the "smart kid hat", if you at least pull your, "dunce hat", up over your eyes.

I'm listening.

All of Science is theories, so all those pesky little elements, we really do not know if they exist or have properties, its just a theory? And Materials like Uranium does not have a half life, that is not a fact, its just a theory. And the idea that radiation can actually destroy a cell is a theory, not a fact?

Science discovers and makes use of facts. When I said "All of science is theories", it was hyperbole. But I hope you understand that to criticize a accepted scientific theories just because or to equate theories with guesses - as you did - is wrong.

The fact is when cosmic rays enter the earths atmosphere the more stuff they hit, the weaker they get.

Yes, energetic particles having collisions with other, less energetic particles would have some of their energy transferred away from them. Though things like neutrinos and dark matter are extremely likely to pass through the entire Earth without reaction.

The Equator never gets as close to the sun as the North pole yet its always warmer at the Equator

? ? ? Unless the Earth were to tip over more than 45 degrees, the Equator is always closer to the sun than the North Pole.

that is because there is less atmosphere at the equator, less atmosphere means the radiation from the sun loses less energy, causing greater heat.

Ummm... there is not less atmosphere at the Equator. As you move towards the poles (actually, points up to 23 degrees from the poles), the angle of the sun above the horizon gets smaller and smaller. The closer the sun is to your horizon, the more air its photons have to pass through to get to you. Energy from those photons is absorbed and reflected by clouds and dust.

CO2 has zero effect in the atmosphere, at least none that can be measured in any way.

No. Its effect is quite easily measurable.

The yellow area is the spectrum of light from the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. The red area is the spectrum of that same light at the ground, after it has passed through the atmosphere. The difference is what was absorbed. MANY experiments have measured the frequencies of light absorbed by different greenhouse gases. The gaps in the red spectrum are frequencies of light energy that were absorbed by different gases and you will see the responsible gas of each gap identified.

All of Science is a theory? You make a lot of new rules and qualifications to make your argument defending your opinion.

I was only trying to add some emphasis. Scientific theories, particularly those as widely accepted as is AGW, are NOT guesses.

 

[Kosh]

As the US freezes over, Sweden has experienced mild winter temperatures. Temperatures in Alaska have been warmer than the deep south. Global climate change is a long term trend that effects the whole planet.

Hey when has climate not changed?

Quite often you ignorant moron. There have been many long periods of fairly stable global climate patterns. Your idiotic denier cult myth about the 'climate always changing' is based entirely on your own ignorance of what paleoclimatology actually tells us about the Earth's climate history. In reality, there have been many long periods of fairly stable climate. The Holocene has had a fairly stable climate for about eight thousand years, until recently, which allowed humans to develop agriculture and civilization.

Our agricultural systems, that allow us to feed seven billion people, are entirely dependent on stable climate patterns which provide regular, predictable rainfall in predictable amounts, and a yearly cycle of predictable temperature ranges. AGW is destabilizing global climate patterns and will eventually lead to agricultural failures on a massive scale resulting in mass starvation and hundreds of millions of climate refugees.

AGW propaganda!

 

[Kosh]

I will put on the "smart kid hat", if you at least pull your, "dunce hat", up over your eyes.

I'm listening.

All of Science is theories, so all those pesky little elements, we really do not know if they exist or have properties, its just a theory? And Materials like Uranium does not have a half life, that is not a fact, its just a theory. And the idea that radiation can actually destroy a cell is a theory, not a fact?

Science discovers and makes use of facts. When I said "All of science is theories", it was hyperbole. But I hope you understand that to criticize a accepted scientific theories just because or to equate theories with guesses - as you did - is wrong.



Yes, energetic particles having collisions with other, less energetic particles would have some of their energy transferred away from them. Though things like neutrinos and dark matter are extremely likely to pass through the entire Earth without reaction.



? ? ? Unless the Earth were to tip over more than 45 degrees, the Equator is always closer to the sun than the North Pole.



Ummm... there is not less atmosphere at the Equator. As you move towards the poles (actually, points up to 23 degrees from the poles), the angle of the sun above the horizon gets smaller and smaller. The closer the sun is to your horizon, the more air its photons have to pass through to get to you. Energy from those photons is absorbed and reflected by clouds and dust.

CO2 has zero effect in the atmosphere, at least none that can be measured in any way.

No. Its effect is quite easily measurable.

The yellow area is the spectrum of light from the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. The red area is the spectrum of that same light at the ground, after it has passed through the atmosphere. The difference is what was absorbed. MANY experiments have measured the frequencies of light absorbed by different greenhouse gases. The gaps in the red spectrum are frequencies of light energy that were absorbed by different gases and you will see the responsible gas of each gap identified.

All of Science is a theory? You make a lot of new rules and qualifications to make your argument defending your opinion.

I was only trying to add some emphasis. Scientific theories, particularly those as widely accepted as is AGW, are NOT guesses.

ANd you show that you have no clue about AGW other than propaganda.

AGW predictions are entirely based on Computer Models (which have been shown to be wrong).

 

[Abraham3]

The yellow area is the spectrum of light from the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. The red area is the spectrum of that same light at the ground, after it has passed through the atmosphere. The difference is what was absorbed. MANY experiments have measured the frequencies of light absorbed by different greenhouse gases. The gaps in the red spectrum are frequencies of light energy that were absorbed by different gases and you will see the responsible gas of each gap identified.

ANd you show that you have no clue about AGW other than propaganda.

Do you think that graph is propaganda?

Do you think my comments about sunlight at the Equator and the North Pole are propaganda?

AGW predictions are entirely based on Computer Models (which have been shown to be wrong).

PREDICTIONS, you stupid rat bastard, will ALWAYS be based on models. Their's no other way to do them. Models like these 23 from AR4:

 

[Kosh]

The yellow area is the spectrum of light from the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. The red area is the spectrum of that same light at the ground, after it has passed through the atmosphere. The difference is what was absorbed. MANY experiments have measured the frequencies of light absorbed by different greenhouse gases. The gaps in the red spectrum are frequencies of light energy that were absorbed by different gases and you will see the responsible gas of each gap identified.

ANd you show that you have no clue about AGW other than propaganda.

Do you think that graph is propaganda?

Do you think my comments about sunlight at the Equator and the North Pole are propaganda?

AGW predictions are entirely based on Computer Models (which have been shown to be wrong).

PREDICTIONS, you stupid rat bastard, will ALWAYS be based on models. Their's no other way to do them. Models like these 23 from AR4:

And all you can do is post the AGW church propaganda.

You don't even understand what you are posting. If you did you would know it is AGW propaganda.

Anything dealing with IPCC is AGW propaganda and you need to deal with it.

 

[skookerasbil]

The yellow area is the spectrum of light from the sun before it passes through the atmosphere. The red area is the spectrum of that same light at the ground, after it has passed through the atmosphere. The difference is what was absorbed. MANY experiments have measured the frequencies of light absorbed by different greenhouse gases. The gaps in the red spectrum are frequencies of light energy that were absorbed by different gases and you will see the responsible gas of each gap identified.

Do you think that graph is propaganda?

Do you think my comments about sunlight at the Equator and the North Pole are propaganda?

AGW predictions are entirely based on Computer Models (which have been shown to be wrong).

PREDICTIONS, you stupid rat bastard, will ALWAYS be based on models. Their's no other way to do them. Models like these 23 from AR4:

And all you can do is post the AGW church propaganda.

You don't even understand what you are posting. If you did you would know it is AGW propaganda.

Anything dealing with IPCC is AGW propaganda and you need to deal with it.

Nah......c'mon........special interests are a right wing thing only!!! After all, the IPCC's intentions are entirely noble........concerned only about the environment!!

 

[longknife]

Okay, so the new leftist mantra is climate change!

In any case, they continue to blame Mankind for it.

Will say one thing - cold as hades here in the north while the southern hemisphere is suffering through record heat.

Maybe the Man upstairs is trying to tell us something?

 

[PredFan]

Translated from 'retard-speak', he's saying: "I'm too ignorant and stupid to understand what the smart people who study this stuff professionally are saying about the complexities of the climate processes so they must be wrong".

smart people who study this stuff professionally aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them. That's because they are smart.

Your deranged conspiracy theories about the climate scientists are still utterly retarded, you poor insane little anti-science moron.

You, I don't give a rats ass about, but in case someone of intelligence reads this I'll respond.

Follow the money people. There is no money in research that disproves global warming. For scientists, that road only leads to a dead career.

 

[PredFan]

GW is a religion to the left. They have the argument surrounded so no matter how cold it gets they claim it's global warming. You gotta have faith to claim global warming when a Russian ship gets stuck in the ice during summertime in the southern hemisphere. Where is the cold weather coming from if the ice floes are melting, Mars? If it's warm in the Arctic how can it be seven degrees in Tennessee from an Arctic blast? You gotta have faith I guess.

Translated from 'retard-speak', he's saying: "I'm too ignorant and stupid to understand what the smart people who study this stuff professionally are saying about the complexities of the climate processes so they must be wrong".

I rest my case when defenders of the true religion of G.W. call themselves :smart people" without even having to defend their position.

Rollingthunder doesn't even know what his position really is. All he does is post other people's work with only a minimum of understanding of the meaning. If forced to explain something in his own words, he chooses the standard AGW believer's tactic of calling someone ignorant anti-science.

Just point and laugh.