Finally! An Explanation Of The "global Warming" Scam!

[flacaltenn]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

 

[elektra]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

 

[Crick]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

Well, you're version certainly isn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

 

[elektra]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

 

[jc456]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

can you say asskisser? hahahahhahahaahahaha, these k00ks crack me up. they always resemble their statements.

 

[Crick]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

can you say asskisser? hahahahhahahaahahaha, these k00ks crack me up. they always resemble their statements.

The statement says that he tested the gases found in our atmosphere, not that he conducted tests in our atmosphere. And, please, if that's all you've got in the way of comment (and we all know that it is) don't bother.

 

[SSDD]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

This is the 21st century...and climate science is still stuck in the 19th century...little wonder that they can't seem to get anything right.

 

[SSDD]

The statement says that he tested the gases found in our atmosphere, not that he conducted tests in our atmosphere. And, please, if that's all you've got in the way of comment (and we all know that it is) don't bother.

Reading clearly isn't your best thing either...face it, lying is your best thing. Tyndal tested gasses that could be found in the atmosphere...not gasses in the atmosphere....and he found CO2 to be such a FEEBLE gas that it hardly warranted notation.

§ 7. Action of permanent Gases on Radiant Heat.—The deportment of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, atmospheric air, and olefiant gas has been already recorded. esides these I have examined carbonic oxide, carbonic acid, sulpheretted hydrogen, and nitrous oxide. The action of these gases is so much feebler than any of the vapours referred to in the last section, that, in examining the relationship between absorption and density, the measures used with the vapours were abandoned, and the quantities of gas admitted were measured by the depression of the mercurial gauge.

Not only is climate science stuck in the 19th century...they haven't even got what they are using right.

Since you clearly haven't actually read any of Tyndal, here, let me provide you with some of his notes on his methods...

our acquaintance with this department of Physics is exceedingly limited. So far as my knowledge extends, the literature of the subject may be stated in a few words.

From experiments with his admirable thermo-electric apparatus, Melloni inferred that for a distance of 18 or 20 feet the absorption of radiant heat by atmospheric air is perfectly insensible(2).

With a delicate apparatus of the same kind, Dr. Franz of Berlin found that the air contained in a tube 3 feet long absorbed 3.54 per cent. of the heat sent through it from an Argand lamp; that is to say, calling the number of rays which passed through the exhausted tube 100, the number which passed when the tube was filled with air was only 96.46(3).6(3).

 

[jc456]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

can you say asskisser? hahahahhahahaahahaha, these k00ks crack me up. they always resemble their statements.

The statement says that he tested the gases found in our atmosphere, not that he conducted tests in our atmosphere. And, please, if that's all you've got in the way of comment (and we all know that it is) don't bother.

And like always, the asskisser doesn't reply to the stated comment. So asskisser, is what was said correct or not, did Tyndall conduct tests and find it had zero effect in the atmosphere? Simple question don't you think? Yet you avoided responding to it instead making a remark to me rather than the poster who wrote it. So I'll take it you agree with the comment and therefore contradicting your own claim. Hmmmm....WiNNiNg...................

 

[mamooth]

jc, you're just screaming and babbling now in an incoherent fashion. You shouldn't have started drinking so early.

As far as the "it's the sun!" cranks go, we know they're totally wrong, because solar-induced warming would be identifiable by more warming in the day, in the tropics, and a warming stratosphere. Instead, we see the opposite. More warming at night, more warming at the poles, a cooling stratosphere, all signatures of greenhouse gas caused warming. The solar theory just fails hard, and only true believers cling to it.

 

[elektra]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

can you say asskisser? hahahahhahahaahahaha, these k00ks crack me up. they always resemble their statements.

The statement says that he tested the gases found in our atmosphere, not that he conducted tests in our atmosphere. And, please, if that's all you've got in the way of comment (and we all know that it is) don't bother.

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Actually Tyndall conducted CO2 experiments in the laboratory, not the atmosphere and concluded it had zero effect in the atmosphere. In the Laboratory Tyndall used an extreme concentration of CO2. Next time link Old Crock so I can show everyone how you misread, again.

Go read Old Crock, but hey, you got a thanks from some other idiot, so you are not alone.

Crick gave you a "thanks", what a moron that crick is.

can you say asskisser? hahahahhahahaahahaha, these k00ks crack me up. they always resemble their statements.

The statement says that he tested the gases found in our atmosphere, not that he conducted tests in our atmosphere. And, please, if that's all you've got in the way of comment (and we all know that it is) don't bother.

Tyndall tested an extreme concentration of CO2, anything less showed zero effects, the concentration of CO2 that Tyndall tested is not found in the Atmosphere.

Tyndall's conclusion is IR has Zero effect on CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not what you claim, crick(et)

 

[jc456]

jc, you're just screaming and babbling now in an incoherent fashion. You shouldn't have started drinking so early.

As far as the "it's the sun!" cranks go, we know they're totally wrong, because solar-induced warming would be identifiable by more warming in the day, in the tropics, and a warming stratosphere. Instead, we see the opposite. More warming at night, more warming at the poles, a cooling stratosphere, all signatures of greenhouse gas caused warming. The solar theory just fails hard, and only true believers cling to it.

Right, way to project. Nice to see the pot calling out the kettle eh? You are a loser spouting lies and clearly afraid of those who have opposite views. LoSiNg.......

 

[Crick]

Why don't you explain to us how direct, solar warming would produce the climatic behavior Mamooth notes? And if you think he's lying, you're more than slightly obliged to PROVE it.

 

[jc456]

Why don't you explain to us how direct, solar warming would produce the climatic behavior Mamooth notes? And if you think he's lying, you're more than slightly obliged to PROVE it.

I don't have to prove anything. The mere fact you or him/ her/ it can't produce an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to the climate, well, that in itself proves the lie. So the lack of evidence by you and it are my proof. Want a milkbone fido?

 

[Mustang]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

Hmm. 0.5 degrees Celsius over a period of about (let's say) 33 1/3 years (for the simplicity of math) would be what over a period of about 200 years? In Fahrenheit?

0.5 degees times 3 (for 100 years) would be 1.5 degrees. That would be 3 degrees for a period of 200 years.

Each degree of Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 3 times 1.8 equals 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Over just one thousand years (which is far short of being an example of geologic time), would be 27 degrees. Still think there's no problem? Keep in mind that the warming will likely accelerate after the ice melts in much the same way that the temperature in a glass of ice water sitting in the sun will spike after the ice cubes have melted.

 

[jc456]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

Hmm. 0.5 degrees Celsius over a period of about (let's say) 33 1/3 years (for the simplicity of math) would be what over a period of about 200 years? In Fahrenheit?

0.5 degees times 3 (for 100 years) would be 1.5 degrees. That would be 3 degrees for a period of 200 years.

Each degree of Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 3 times 1.8 equals 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Over just one thousand years (which is far short of being an example of geologic time), would be 27 degrees. Still think there's no problem? Keep in mind that the warming will likely accelerate after the ice melts in much the same way that the temperature in a glass of ice water sitting in the sun will spike after the ice cubes have melted.

so!!!

 

[Mustang]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

Hmm. 0.5 degrees Celsius over a period of about (let's say) 33 1/3 years (for the simplicity of math) would be what over a period of about 200 years? In Fahrenheit?

0.5 degees times 3 (for 100 years) would be 1.5 degrees. That would be 3 degrees for a period of 200 years.

Each degree of Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 3 times 1.8 equals 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Over just one thousand years (which is far short of being an example of geologic time), would be 27 degrees. Still think there's no problem? Keep in mind that the warming will likely accelerate after the ice melts in much the same way that the temperature in a glass of ice water sitting in the sun will spike after the ice cubes have melted.

so!!!

How hot do you think it has to get before food like grains won't grow and farm animals die from the heat?

That's kind of important considering that people won't be living very long if there's no food to eat. But who knows, maybe people will move into caves and live on mushrooms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's the sun stupid, makes earth hot.........

You are a bit behind the times, there, old boy. It was in the 1820's that Joseph Fourier first noted that by the amount of energy recieved from the sun, and that re-radiated, that the oceans should be frozen down to the equator. One of the hypotheses's that he thought possilble to explain why not, was that something in the atmosphere was absorbing some of the outgoing energy. In 1858, Tyndall measured the absorption of IR of CO2, CH4, and other gases in our atmosphere. In 1896, Arrhenious quantified that, and came up with a surprisingly accurate estimation of the amount of heat that a doubling of CO2 would create in the atmosphere.

Phrenology was the leading science back then too

Arrhenious has been totally discredited and rendered irrelevant

you going to show us any modern CO2 experiments?

 

[jc456]

Global Average Surface temp has gone up about 0.5degC in your lifetime. That's pretty much it. The Surface temp record is pretty secure since about 1979 when the satellites went up.. They (NOAA, GISS, etc) are still monkeying around today with ground temp records from the early 20th century. Yep -- they change the daily temps from 1938 almost monthly..

LARGELY to make new "record highs" that make the news.
TONS of evidence that temperature increases like this have popped up GLOBALLY in the past 3000 years.

It's all out there man.. And it's not rocket science..

Hmm. 0.5 degrees Celsius over a period of about (let's say) 33 1/3 years (for the simplicity of math) would be what over a period of about 200 years? In Fahrenheit?

0.5 degees times 3 (for 100 years) would be 1.5 degrees. That would be 3 degrees for a period of 200 years.

Each degree of Celsius is equivalent to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. So, 3 times 1.8 equals 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Over just one thousand years (which is far short of being an example of geologic time), would be 27 degrees. Still think there's no problem? Keep in mind that the warming will likely accelerate after the ice melts in much the same way that the temperature in a glass of ice water sitting in the sun will spike after the ice cubes have melted.

so!!!

How hot do you think it has to get before food like grains won't grow and farm animals die from the heat?

That's kind of important considering that people won't be living very long if there's no food to eat. But who knows, maybe people will move into caves and live on mushrooms.

do you know?