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 that is why every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger? Because it is not a proven fact?
And yet, you and yours are completely unable to provide the claimed proof. How silly does that make you feel? If it is a proven fact then lets see the proof.
By the way, your claim of all scientific societies stating that AGW is real smacks of intellectual dishonesty. The political heads of the societies state that AGW is real. Survey the scientists who make up the scientific society and you get an entirely different story.
"Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Funny thing is, these GW threads always turn into mirror images of the loony troofer threads
The gullible GW loons are just as funny as the troofer loons. And like the troofer loons, they have a bunch o' shysters making big bucks off of the gullible.....Algore is no doubt laughing all the way to the bank.
Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.
Once the Himilayan(sic) Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.
It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.
Once those E-mails surfaced, there is no reason whatsoever to believe these GW loons claims.
Once the Himilayan(sic) Glacier lies were exposed, all credibility was completely lost.
It's a fuckin' scam, people!....Put out by the Algore's, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups who stand to make big bucks based on this fraud.
Like most braindead denier cultists, you continually repeat nonsense that has already been debunked many times.
Try going back and re-reading post #42 again before you make yourself look like such an idiot again.
Evidently.........despite having a HUGE propaganda advantge in the major media, most people think the global warming threat is pretty much BS. And think about it.........at least half of those who do are the hysterical types out there who buy anything the media says hook, line and stinker!!!
Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.
In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.
But really........seems me and the majority of folks ( what does Rocks refer to them as??)......who by the way just finished freezing their asses off for 6 months after being buried in snow for 9 weeks just said when this question was posed..................
You can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
BUT, regardless of who you fool, REALITY doesn't give a rat's ass.
Reality doen't care what people think about it.
The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)
The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket – real or greenhouse — doesn’t actually create the separation between hot and cold…it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in…e.g. thunderstorms…and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect ‘wants’ to make it.)
and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.
The reality is that anyone who believes a trace gas with no mechanism by which to absorb and retain energy can drive the earth's climate has been well and truely fooled.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket real or greenhouse doesnt actually create the separation between hot and cold it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in e.g. thunderstorms and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect wants to make it.)
and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
In Defense of the Greenhouse Effect
April 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
(excerpt)
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....To briefly review: because water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane in the atmosphere absorb and emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere stays warmer in the lower atmosphere and cooler in the upper atmosphere than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect.
Even though the physical process involved in this is radiative, the greenhouse blanket around the Earth is somewhat analogous to a real blanket, which we all know tends to hold heat in where it is being generated, and reduce its flow toward the colder surroundings. A blanket real or greenhouse doesnt actually create the separation between hot and cold it just reduces the rate at which energy is lost by the hot, and gained by the cold.
In the case of the Earth, most sunlight is absorbed at the surface, which then heats and moistens the air above it. This solar heating causes the lower atmosphere to warm, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor thus generated helps keep the lower atmosphere warm by reducing its rate of cooling. (Long before radiation can make the surface too warm, though, convective air currents kick in e.g. thunderstorms and transport much of the excess heat from the lower to the upper atmosphere. As a result, the lower atmosphere never gets as warm as the greenhouse effect wants to make it.)
and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.
No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.
The only thing "gone" is your brains, you silly retard. You just posted this nonsense and I reamed your ass over it in post #51, remember? I guess you can't remember but what can we expect from someone as retarded as you obviously are. So here it is again, just for the morons who didn't read it the first time. The articles you cite, walleyed, don't even support your idiocy and the science is totally against you. Why did you imagine that cutting and pasting this nonsense from some denier cult blog would be any more believable after it's been debunked than it was before? Perhaps you're not just retarded, perhaps you're actually somewhat insane.
BATTER UP!
Advancing Glacier Coming Close to Blocking Fiord Near Yakutat, Alaska
Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds - Telegraph
Glaciers Advancing or Retreating?, Alaska Science Forum
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Himal...espite-global-warming/H1-Article1-654581.aspx
Some Himalayan glaciers advancing: study › News in Science (ABC Science)
SwissEduc: Glaciers Online - Glaciers of the World
Going, going, going....GONE! It's outa da park!
Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report
From the article: (excerpt) - "• This report has been amended since it was first posted. The original headline and first paragraph may have left the mistaken impression that Himalayan glaciers in general are advancing rather than shrinking. We wish to confirm, as was made clear further on in the original article, that this finding related to only one of the areas studied, the Karakoram range, where it was found that rocks and mud on the surface of glaciers are helping to protect them from melting."
Once again - Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report
From the article: (excerpt) - Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing despite an overall retreat...The report says 58 per cent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing, perhaps because they were influenced by cool westerly winds than the monsoon from the Indian Ocean.
Swiss glaciers melting faster than ever before: study
So, walleyedretard, just when are you going to show us all these "more accurate stories that are actually current" and that supersede all the previous science. Go ahead, "try using those". LOLOLOLOLOL. As I said before, it is "your inevitable inability to back up your wild and very idiotic claims is one of the funniest things about you." And you still can't back anything up with evidence.Wow, four year old stories. There's way more accurate stories out there that are actually current. Try using those.
That's your delusion because you're the fool. Scientists know better. Even scientists who dispute AGW know better.
Dr. Roy Spencer who runs the satellite monitoring program at the University of Alabama Huntsville, is a skeptic of AGW, one of the very few actual climate scientists who's still skeptical, and here's what he has to say about CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is supported by laboratory measurements of the radiative absorption properties of different gases, which when put into a radiative transfer model that conserves energy, and combined with convective overturning of the atmosphere in response to solar heating, results in a vertical temperature profile that looks very much like the one we observe in nature.
***
thanks for citing a very informative article. everyone here should read it. my favourite portion is....
and that is the reason why climate sensitivities are exaggerated, because GCMs calculate the numbers for extra heat without acknowledging that that same heat affects the other heat shedding mechanisms as well.
No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.
Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!
Now Bender, were you to read what the scientists have really said, you would see that they proved the corelation between GHGs and atmospheric heat well over a century ago.
"Believe it cuz I said to and there's no time for RESEARCH! If you don't already know it, there's no point in telling you how it happens! It just happens! That's all you need to know!"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now Allie, there is plenty of articles that present the case for AGW. But you will not read them as they would collide with your alternative view of reality.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.
Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!
And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.
No, that's just your ignorance talking. You have no idea what factors are included in the climate models.
Here's a clue....NEITHER DO THE ALARMISTS!
And here's more of the walleyedretard's craziness. Scientists know exactly what factors are included in the climate models because they wrote them, you idiot.
