gw is a LIE!

[konradv]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

There are a number of factors that influence climate. While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another. Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising? If you can't explain what happens, considering the LAW of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others. Which is it?!?!

Because the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing.
You are the one who doesn't understand how it works. I suggest you go to a university and ask a physicist to explain it to you.

You're getting really boring with your pseudo-scientific rantings. Warning to others: Westwall has a very skewed knowledge of science. Lending any weight to what he says will make you look foolish.

NO, it DOES NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I think you need to go back and review the subject and then get back to us with your apology. It's one thing to dispute a theory but now you're disputing Conservation of Energy, a basic LAW of physics. To think we should pay ANY attention to you is ludicrous!!!

 

[westwall]

There are a number of factors that influence climate. While the sun is one, GHGs are definitely another. Tell me what would happen to the extra trapped energy, if GHGs keep rising? If you can't explain what happens, considering the LAW of Conservation of Energy, then either you don't really know anything about the subject, are lying yourself or are falling for a lie spread by others. Which is it?!?!

Because the second law of thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing.
You are the one who doesn't understand how it works. I suggest you go to a university and ask a physicist to explain it to you.

You're getting really boring with your pseudo-scientific rantings. Warning to others: Westwall has a very skewed knowledge of science. Lending any weight to what he says will make you look foolish.

NO, it DOES NOT violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I think you need to go back and review the subject and then get back to us with your apology. It's one thing to dispute a theory but now you're disputing Conservation of Energy, a basic LAW of physics. To think we should pay ANY attention to you is ludicrous!!!

Sure konrad, sure. Go to a uni and learn something. Go ahead I dare you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, that obviously would not work for you, Walleyes, since you already know everything.

 

[westwall]

Well, that obviously would not work for you, Walleyes, since you already know everything.

Far from it olfraud, the difference is I readily admit if I don't know something, you create sock puppets to help you with your arguments...big difference.

 

[warriorautotech]

My intention with this thread was not to start an endless debate about who has the best links to scientific proof,that has been done many times already. rather the point I was trying to make was that there is absolutely too much debate about the science behind gw among mainstream scientists for us to accept it as truth and too much questionable behavior surrounding the organizations that promote global warming as fact, such as the IPCC, for us to believe what they tell us.
Its common sense.
If you want proof of what I say, look it up for yourself, Its out there. Trakar, if you want to pick this apart go ahead, but I speak the truth.
I am not saying that global warming doesnt exist, I am saying that their is not enough proof that we are causing it or that it will have the effect that the climatologists are predicting.

 

[jeffrockit]

The empiric evidence that "scientist" cling to based on computer models has been debunked many time over.

I don't think I've mentioned computer models once on any of the threads in which I've commented. If you would like to discuss them we can, but climate models such as the GCMs and aren't empiric evidences, they are merely the tools used to check the theories and evidenciary integrations.


Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.

 

[Trakar]

What was that olfraud?

Your fixated obsession with Old Rocks is noted, if rather bizarre.
I guess since I've already been given to tutoring you on various subjects, I shouldn't neglect psychology.

"Projection"
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/04KawaOettGollBargh_ExpImp.pdf

 

[Trakar]

...It's one thing to dispute a theory but now you're disputing Conservation of Energy, a basic LAW of physics. To think we should pay ANY attention to you is ludicrous!!!

While I generally don't like to interrupt other's imbroglios, I really don't like the implication in your statement that an accepted scientific theory is somehow less complete or reliable than a scientific law. In general, the only difference between the two is that a law refers to and is applicable to a very limited and specific set of conditions and circumstances, whereas theories tend to be a bit broader and more general in their application and scope.

( Law - A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present - Oxford English Dictionary)

(Theory - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. - Oxford English Dictionary)

 

[Trakar]

My intention with this thread was not to start an endless debate about who has the best links to scientific proof,that has been done many times already. rather the point I was trying to make was that there is absolutely too much debate about the science behind gw among mainstream scientists for us to accept it as truth and too much questionable behavior surrounding the organizations that promote global warming as fact, such as the IPCC, for us to believe what they tell us.

If you don't base your understandings and beliefs on verifiable expert researches and studies, and verifiable facts (empiric evidences) you aren't holding reasoned, rational understandings. Nothing wrong with this when it comes to favorite colors or whether or not you like cats better than dogs. But when you seek to evaluate science, you need to understand that it isn't simply a matter of opinion and preference. The science supporting GW is not under any serious debate among mainstream climate scientists nor even significantly among the scientific community in general. There is no compelling evidence that the IPCC has undertaken any substantial, significant or intentional misconduct or questionable behavior.

Its common sense.

common sense is neither common nor sensical, for the most part it is simply what a given individual believes to be true. Typically it consists of whatever folklore, myths and popular misunderstandings are current and prevelant in any individual or group of individuals.

If you want proof of what I say, look it up for yourself, Its out there.
Trakar, if you want to pick this apart go ahead, but I speak the truth.

Truth is the realm of religion and philosophy.

I am not saying that global warming doesnt exist, I am saying that their is not enough proof that we are causing it or that it will have the effect that the climatologists are predicting.

Let's approach this from the opposite direction, what evidence would it take for you, personally, to accept that the current episode of climate change is largely due to human factors?

 

[Trakar]

Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.

We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify

 

[IanC]

Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.

We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify

skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.

that we can agree upon.

without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2C
without computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.

 

[Muhammed]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?

There you go again with the appeal to authority fallacy.

You global warming crazies are like little boys getting fucked up the ass by a priest just because some authority told you to bend over..

Grow up you stupid pathetic watermelon.

 

[konradv]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?

There you go again with the appeal to authority fallacy.

You global warming crazies are like little boys getting fucked up the ass by a priest just because some authority told you to bend over..

Grow up you stupid pathetic watermelon.

Since authority doesn't impress you how about logic?

The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation, is scientifically well-documented.

The concentration of those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

If the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

Chew on that for a while. You'll be in good company, since none of the other deniers have managed to satisfactorily answer the question!

 

[westwall]

What was that olfraud?

Your fixated obsession with Old Rocks is noted, if rather bizarre.
I guess since I've already been given to tutoring you on various subjects, I shouldn't neglect psychology.

"Projection"
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/04KawaOettGollBargh_ExpImp.pdf

My wife is a PhD psychologist who will quite happily school you on any personality disorder you may have.

 

[westwall]

Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.

We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify

And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 - 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

 

[konradv]

Matters not if you mentioned it as it is part of the "evidence" being used to prop up this argument for GW or Climate Change or whatever the latest catch phrase is that polls well. Also, the fudged numbers that were uncovered last year adds to the pattern of false or misleading info being used as solid evidence.

We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify

And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.

Please try and stay on topic. We've had this "history lesson" before. We all remember what you've posted before and it's irrelevant. Why is it so hard to understand that warming or cooling in the past may have a different cause than in the present? The question is, if GHGs trap energy, how can we expect anything but a warming, if the trend continues? Whatever may have happened in the past has nothing to do with this, a basic question of Physical Chemistry.

 

[westwall]

We could completely eliminate computer models from the body of evidence, and it would not change the facts that the climate is growing warmer, that CO2 acts to retain heat delivered to the Earth by the Sun, that we are adding increasing accumulations of CO2 to our atmosphere, and that the more we continue to do so the more the climate will warm.

These are each independently established keystones of AGW and they do not require computer models to demonstrate or verify

And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.

Please try and stay on topic. We've had this "history lesson" before. We all remember what you've posted before and it's irrelevant. Why is it so hard to understand that warming or cooling in the past may have a different cause than in the present? The question is, if GHGs trap energy, how can we expect anything but a warming, if the trend continues? Whatever may have happened in the past has nothing to do with this, a basic question of Physical Chemistry.

Why are you so anti science konrad? If the GHG's trap heat, why do the Vostock cores show no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels? Hmmmm? It's a simple question so answer it. Remember the CO2 levels were HIGHER than now, so the level we are at now is irrelevent.

 

[k2skier]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

Ian gets it, GW is happening but he's skeptical of AGW, you don't understand the difference between GW and AGW.

The whole "they changed the name from GW to CC" is utter BS, if anyone has a clue about climate and weather one will be able to understand the relationship between temperature variances and it's effect on the climate.