I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

[jc456]

Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.

dude, then present the experiment and show them there facts you boast about. Come on man 12 flippin months on here and you sir have yet to present that one little fact.

 

[jc456]

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.

republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam.

Really? The ONLY ones, huh? That's a load of bullshit!

Someone doesn't have to be a RW to know and understand that AGW is a scam, dumbass.

those lefty liberals hate....HATE conservatives, they wish we would all die. Ask them! they hate having to deal with us. Reasons why? We represent an opposing view to which they feel no one is allowed. Ask them.

 

[jc456]

Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.

The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.

He's merely asking you for the experiment that you stated months and months ago that exists. If you are a grown up, then you should be able to comply!

 

[jc456]

OK, in a nutshell. IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth. The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world. It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet. The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans. That's it. I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature. It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling. The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away. That is the ultimate failure of AGW science. All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that. They are not credible.

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.

So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.

seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own. Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning. You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here. hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research. Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here. If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. bye

 

[jc456]

Well, let us present how the physicists address it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

..................................................................................................................................
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of F 50o, 5.50, and 7°C km-, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3). Data now being collected by spacecraft at Venus and Mars (12) will permit more precise analyses of radiative and dynamical
mechanisms that affect greenhouse warming.

Dr. James Hansen is probably the most respected atmospheric physicist on earth at present.

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

James Edward Hansen

Born March 29, 1941 (age 73)
Denison, Iowa, U.S.
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Columbia University
Alma mater University of Iowa
Thesis The atmosphere of Venus : a dust insulation model (1967)
Known for Radiative transfer, Planetary atmospheres,
Climate models
Influences James Van Allen
Notable awards Klopsteg Memorial Award (2011)
United States National Academy of Sciences
Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal

And you are STILL not addressing the facts I presented. Pull your head out of your ass and present something. This is the same tired old bullshit that doesn't address the facts of this theory and how it has failed.

GET WITH IT SILLY PERSON!

They NEVER address facts!

Climategate should have ended the Cult, but they carry on as if it was never revealed that they alter data to fit their theory.

They've never once addressed any facts and never can and never will

There's too much money to be had and too much power to be collected in the hands of the politicians for them to give up. They will lose in the end thanks to the internet because now every time they say something it can be reviewed and summarily destroyed. I love the comments sections of the magazines and papers (those that still allow them that is) the responses are overwhelmingly against the AGW fraudsters. Prior to Climategate it was 60 40 against them, now it is over 90 percent against them.

It is a joy to behold!

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Sure it is! It couldn't possibly be because it is a complete and total fraud with no empirical data to support a single assertion they have made. Oh nooooo it couldn't be anything like that. What a moron....

but he doesn't know because he isn't looking for answers. he is unwilling to do any personal work to learn the issue. Instead hops on a message board and thumps his chest like he does. It doesn't get any better than reading his useless drivel and see him admit his lazy arse isn't going to expend the energy to research. he is probably 30% of the population on the left that do just what he does. I watched it on a video back early last year. Hilarious video. Some dipshit blonde gal arguing about AGW and when asked what research she'd done, she hadn't done zip. yet here she is protesting. I don't know but this dude on here is a second version of that stupid blonde gal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.

The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.

He's merely asking you for the experiment that you stated months and months ago that exists. If you are a grown up, then you should be able to comply!

And that's the last we'll hear from Admiral mamooth in this thread

 

[jc456]

Nope... Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

 

[jc456]

Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.

The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.

He's merely asking you for the experiment that you stated months and months ago that exists. If you are a grown up, then you should be able to comply!

And that's the last we'll hear from Admiral mamooth in this thread

thanks Frank!!!!

 

[mamooth]

jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.

Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.

Can you not read?

I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.

I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.

You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.

The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!

Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.

It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.

And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.

Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.

So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.

seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own. Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning. You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here. hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research. Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here. If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. bye

Of course I have an opinion. How many people do you know that doesn't? The constant claim is that all the supporters of global warming are being paid off. With such a claim, there should be some evidence. I haven't seen that yet. I don't know any more about the technicalities of climate science than the people parroting fox charts. and it's obvious they don't have the education to know what those few charts mean in light of all the other information available.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you are STILL not addressing the facts I presented. Pull your head out of your ass and present something. This is the same tired old bullshit that doesn't address the facts of this theory and how it has failed.

GET WITH IT SILLY PERSON!

They NEVER address facts!

Climategate should have ended the Cult, but they carry on as if it was never revealed that they alter data to fit their theory.

They've never once addressed any facts and never can and never will

There's too much money to be had and too much power to be collected in the hands of the politicians for them to give up. They will lose in the end thanks to the internet because now every time they say something it can be reviewed and summarily destroyed. I love the comments sections of the magazines and papers (those that still allow them that is) the responses are overwhelmingly against the AGW fraudsters. Prior to Climategate it was 60 40 against them, now it is over 90 percent against them.

It is a joy to behold!

The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags. They all have that one magical chart that disproves all the work that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.

Sure it is! It couldn't possibly be because it is a complete and total fraud with no empirical data to support a single assertion they have made. Oh nooooo it couldn't be anything like that. What a moron....

but he doesn't know because he isn't looking for answers. he is unwilling to do any personal work to learn the issue. Instead hops on a message board and thumps his chest like he does. It doesn't get any better than reading his useless drivel and see him admit his lazy arse isn't going to expend the energy to research. he is probably 30% of the population on the left that do just what he does. I watched it on a video back early last year. Hilarious video. Some dipshit blonde gal arguing about AGW and when asked what research she'd done, she hadn't done zip. yet here she is protesting. I don't know but this dude on here is a second version of that stupid blonde gal.

Please list the research you have done......your personal measurements, equipment used, locations, educational level to show you actually know how to do the research......you know, the things required to claim that you have actually done climate research.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.

Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.

Can you not read?

I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.

I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.

You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.

The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!

Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.

It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.

And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.

Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.

Blah blah blahblah

and still no lab work

 

[BULLDOG]

And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology? About the time fox started to whine about it?

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

 

[jc456]

It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists. That's the point! It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years. You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.

Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?

First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.

So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.

seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own. Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning. You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here. hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research. Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here. If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. bye

Of course I have an opinion. How many people do you know that doesn't? The constant claim is that all the supporters of global warming are being paid off. With such a claim, there should be some evidence. I haven't seen that yet. I don't know any more about the technicalities of climate science than the people parroting fox charts. and it's obvious they don't have the education to know what those few charts mean in light of all the other information available.

I don't recall asking or stating anything about your opinion. I stated that you were a lazy parroting left liberal who is unwilling to do research. Not sure how that gets me to stating you aren't allowed to have an opinion. So, since you are nothing but a useless parrot on a message board you can leave us to our discussions with those willing to do research.

 

[jc456]

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

yep!! You got it? oh wait, no, cause you're TOO ....... L A Z Y

 

[jc456]

Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.

ha, you're asking for this lazy tort to really do that? Nope, he's lazy and just wishes to waste our time with Polly want a GW?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now

 

[jc456]

jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.

Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.

Can you not read?

I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.

I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.

You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.

The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!

Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.

It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.

And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.

Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.

hey loser, I don't need to do any science. I expect it to be completed. See you and yours constantly telling me and my peers about all of this consensus crap, so all I ask for is the experiment that actually verifies your claim. Now personally, I don't see why you can't just provide that experiment or simply state you ain't got it. Nothing more. So, more stupid, you got it?

 

[jc456]

That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.

No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.

Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.

well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.

Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot

LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now