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.
So you're afraid to make your point? Got it.
You're playing make-believe all by your pathetic little lonesome, dipshit.
You are a complete waste of time
There's more knowledge in a perfect vacuum.
Rapidly declining sea ice in the Arctic is not observed data? The observed rapid warming in the Arctic region is not data? The melting of the Greenland ice cap is not observed data? The rapid melt of the alpine glaciers is not observed data?We claim that everything we see is natural variation.
"Natural variation" does not explain the stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation, or the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands.
As your theory does not explain the observed data, it is wrong.
Global warming theory is the only theory that _does_ explain _all_ of the observed data, hence it is the accepted theory.
Thus we don't need to support ANYTHING.
Actually, you need a theory that isn't contradicted by the directly observed data. You don't have one. We do. Therefore, our theory is accepted. That's how science works. If you don't want to be laughed at, you need to come up with a theory that isn't contradicted by the observed data.
You have no observed data silly girl. That's the whole point. You take actual observations and "adjust" them to match your models. That's called scientific fraud.
Note that SSDD is not giving links to the sites that those graphs came from. Because those sites use those graphs to explain the reality of AGW in a very simplified fashion. They are the notes for a 200 level course at the U of W. And that course and the article both state that AGW is real. SSDD is committing basic fraud claiming that the notes show the opposite. LOLIf one assumes equilibrium conditions. What's your point?
I am trying to ask a question....and can't even get that far because apparently you are going to equivocate over what is or isn't the greenhouse hypothesis....The University of Washington atmospheric sciences department says that the graph above describes the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect....is that true or are they pushing falsehood?
The rest of these seem to be describing the same thing as the graph above....true or false?
this one from Penn State
This one just from the internet...slightly different numbers but seems to be describing the same mechanism
this one from Harvard...again...seems to be describing the same mechanism.
Do these describe the greenhouse effect as described by climate science or not?
Once again, SSDD, post the link and then the people here can see that the notes state those graphics show how AGW works. But you will not post the link that shows your dishonesty.There's more knowledge in a perfect vacuum.
And still the fear to even verify that the graphics taken from the atmospheric sciences departments of supposedly respected schools is accurate...do you have any inkling of how big a looser that makes you?...what an ignoramus it shows you to be? You are scared of getting bitch slapped so you strut around displaying your fake...nervous bluster rather than being an adult and actually engaging the topic...
Note that SSDD is not giving links to the sites that those graphs came from. Because those sites use those graphs to explain the reality of AGW in a very simplified fashion. They are the notes for a 200 level course at the U of W. And that course and the article both state that AGW is real. SSDD is committing basic fraud claiming that the notes show the opposite. LOL
Give you links on each post, or be regarded as someone afraid of the truth. For on that thread, I posted most of the text of those notes, which stated how untruthful your statements about them were.
The only people duped by the fake graph in the Mail article were you gullible deniers.