Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Need confirmation from the Warmers. Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?
It IS a lot, Frank, but you're LOW by half!!!
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Need confirmation from the Warmers. Does mankind really add 15 billions tons of CO2 annually to the atmosphere because that sounds like an awful lot?
It IS a lot, Frank, but you're LOW by half!!!
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know that half of the 30B tons is supposedly absorbed by the ocean? I intentionally asked the question the way I did for that reason.
Are you confirming that mankind add a net of 15B tons of CO2 to Earth atmosphere, because, again, that sounds like a really big number.
Are you sure?
It IS a lot, Frank, but you're LOW by half!!!
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know that half of the 30B tons is supposedly absorbed by the ocean? I intentionally asked the question the way I did for that reason.
Are you confirming that mankind add a net of 15B tons of CO2 to Earth atmosphere, because, again, that sounds like a really big number.
Are you sure?
The important question remains, "Is CO2 in the atmosphere rising?" The exact amount that doesn't get re-absorbed into the ocean or plants, while interesting, isn't the bottom line. That place belongs to the % change and the effect that has on climate. As long as it isn't all re-absorbed into the carbon cycle and atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, logic tells us that warming is inevitable, given its IR absorption properties.
Did you know that half of the 30B tons is supposedly absorbed by the ocean? I intentionally asked the question the way I did for that reason.
Are you confirming that mankind add a net of 15B tons of CO2 to Earth atmosphere, because, again, that sounds like a really big number.
Are you sure?
The important question remains, "Is CO2 in the atmosphere rising?" The exact amount that doesn't get re-absorbed into the ocean or plants, while interesting, isn't the bottom line. That place belongs to the % change and the effect that has on climate. As long as it isn't all re-absorbed into the carbon cycle and atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, logic tells us that warming is inevitable, given its IR absorption properties.
So you want double credit for CO2 both in the atmosphere and lowering the Ph of the ocean?
Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"
The important question remains, "Is CO2 in the atmosphere rising?" The exact amount that doesn't get re-absorbed into the ocean or plants, while interesting, isn't the bottom line. That place belongs to the % change and the effect that has on climate. As long as it isn't all re-absorbed into the carbon cycle and atmospheric concentrations continue to rise, logic tells us that warming is inevitable, given its IR absorption properties.
So you want double credit for CO2 both in the atmosphere and lowering the Ph of the ocean?
Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR. I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!
Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"
Because the skeptics/deniers don't have a hypothesis, their objection being political, rather than scientific. You can ask over and over again and they just won't come up with one. AGW on the other hand has the backing of most of the scientific community, theories, hypotheses, data out the wazoo and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics ALL backing it up.
Why do they always disappear rather than answer simple questions like "Can you state your hypothesis?"
Because the skeptics/deniers don't have a hypothesis, their objection being political, rather than scientific. You can ask over and over again and they just won't come up with one. AGW on the other hand has the backing of most of the scientific community, theories, hypotheses, data out the wazoo and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics ALL backing it up.
And yet you still cannot put forth the simple hypothesis that is the foundation for this "Settled science"
That says a lot
Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR. I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!
You're LYING again, Frank. Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous. If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about? I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
Of course, the half you say gets absorbed by the ocean would tend to lower pH and the half in the atmosphere would trap more IR. I think you're FINALLY getting it, Frank!!!
Still waiting for you to describe the mechanism by which CO2 can "trap" IR. It absorbs IR and immediately emits precisely the same amount in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule. All this is happening at the speed of light. Even though you can't describe a mechanism by which it is trapped, how long do you suppose this IR remains in the atmosphere considering that it is travelling at the speed of light?
You're LYING again, Frank. Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous. If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about? I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
Actually, anyone who has been reading this thread knows perfectly well that none of you have proposed the hypothesis that climate science claims. None of you have stated that downdwelling radiation is being absorbed by the earth and that the atmosphere is responsible for delivering nearly twice the Wm2 in energy to the earth's surface as the sun and as a result, the earth is emitting twice the Wm2 from its surface that it recieves from the sun. All you warmers seem to know instinctively that the actual hypothesis is little more than a steaming pile of excrement so you make up your own hypotheses that are not supported by climate science.
Even if it doesn't get absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it could get absorbed by the earth and statistically half would, thereby heating it. The fact that it's happening at the speed of light is neither here nor there.
The only "steaming pile of excrement" I see is the contention that AGW believers think there's some sort of increase of energy like you describe. Honestly, something so inherently false makes you look kooky. How about discussing the facts and theories as they are, instead of creating a "strawman"?
Because the skeptics/deniers don't have a hypothesis, their objection being political, rather than scientific. You can ask over and over again and they just won't come up with one. AGW on the other hand has the backing of most of the scientific community, theories, hypotheses, data out the wazoo and the Laws of Chemistry and Physics ALL backing it up.
And yet you still cannot put forth the simple hypothesis that is the foundation for this "Settled science"
That says a lot
You're LYING again, Frank. Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous. If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about? I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
And yet you still cannot put forth the simple hypothesis that is the foundation for this "Settled science"
That says a lot
You're LYING again, Frank. Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous. If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about? I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
I've stated what I think your hypothesis in several different ways.
Correct me where I'm wrong.
Hypothesis: Deminimus annual increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 can cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate
Even if it doesn't get absorbed by another CO2 molecule, it could get absorbed by the earth and statistically half would, thereby heating it. The fact that it's happening at the speed of light is neither here nor there.
Didn't you claim that the atmosphere is not backradiating to the surface of the earth? We all know that the cooler atmosphere can't warm the warmer surface of the earth. I have provided you an inexpensive experiment whereby you can prove to yourself beyond any doubt that backradiation is not warming the earth.
When you point a parabolic dish into the sky, away from the sun, during daylight hours, whatever is in the antenna cools. That is because, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics, heat is radiated from the surface to the cooler atmosphere. How could backradiation which you now claim is warming the surface of the earth also cause whatever is in your parabolic dish to cool by several degrees? Which law of science is the basis for your claim?
You're LYING again, Frank. Anyone who's been reading the board regularly knows the hypotheses and the fact that you keep repeating this mantra is ludicrous. If no hypothesis has been given, what have we been talking about? I could post one, but tomorrow you'd just LIE again and say it's never been done.
I've stated what I think your hypothesis in several different ways.
Correct me where I'm wrong.
Hypothesis: Deminimus annual increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 can cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate
How often to we have to go over this? 30-40% ISN'T deminimus.
Of course you don't care because the experiment proves your claim wrong. The energy of the earth only increases if the molecule is abosrbed and it isn't being absorbed because the EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than that being emitted by the atmosphere. There is no transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the earth. If you beleive there is, by all means lets see the math. RWatt did the math and proved that there was no transfer of energy from cool to warm and isn't able to accept his own results. Do you fall into that catergory as well?
Clearly the topic is over your head. How do you explain a surface absorbing 161 watts per square meter of energy from its only power source radiating 356 watts per square meter of energy?
Rather than shuck and jive, how about you answer the question. How do you explain it?
