Published, Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence of AGW

[Crick]

I can't help it if you are a dupe skidmark. This has all been explained to you before. Not going through it all again just so you can ignore it once more. Stay ignorant and stupid. It's what you deserve.

As we have seen from you on many, many occasions: when you are clearly and indisputably corrected, you make one of these weasel comments. The truth is, as it has always been, that you lose. You don't get to make up your own physics. When you try, you end up looking like the absolute fool that you are.

 

[Crick]

Why did you choose to contend something that you knew would be shown stupidly wrong? Did your ego convince you you could get away with it?

Read "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at www.ipcc.ch

 

[SSDD]

I can't help it if you are a dupe skidmark. This has all been explained to you before. Not going through it all again just so you can ignore it once more. Stay ignorant and stupid. It's what you deserve.

As we have seen from you on many, many occasions: when you are clearly and indisputably corrected, you make one of these weasel comments. The truth is, as it has always been, that you lose. You don't get to make up your own physics. When you try, you end up looking like the absolute fool that you are.

Sorry skid mark...all that has been indisputably shown is how easily you and yours are fooled...both by shoddy physics with no observed, measured evidence to support them, and by instruments of all sorts.

I don't make up my own physics...I accept the physical laws as they are written and the overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence which resulted in them becoming physical laws...it is you guys who subscribe to post modern science who are guilty of simply making it up....unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models over reality...what a laugh..

 

[SSDD]

Why did you choose to contend something that you knew would be shown stupidly wrong? Did your ego convince you you could get away with it?

Read "The Physical Science Basis" by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at www.ipcc.ch

The fact that you accept that steaming pile of dung as actual science is just more evidence of what a gloriously large dupe you are.

 

[Crick]

Given two interpretations of SB, that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

 

[SSDD]

Given two interpretations of SB, that, for the most part, provide the same results, why do you choose the one that requires unexplainable phenomena?

Because it is the actual physical law..and is supported by every observation and measurement ever made...we have never recorded "net" energy flow between objects...all measurements ever made show one way gross energy flow. Why do you accept a formula other than the actual SB law...a formula in which Tc can be set to a higher temperature than T which violates a basic tenet of the SB law, and a formula which has no observed, measured evidence to back it up?

We all know why you accept it skidmark...because you are a putz.

 

[Crick]

Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction. ANY REFERENCE? You claim it is a tenet of the law. Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that. Let's see it fool.

 

[Flash]

Peer review doesn't mean jackshit when you have one Environmental Wacko Moon Bat agreeing with the manipulated data of another Environmental Wacko Moon Bat, which exactly what was exposed in Climategate I & II. We also caught NASA, NOAA and the UN Climate Committee manipulating data.

AGW is nothing more than a scam.

 

[SSDD]

Show us ANY REFERENCE that states the temperature inequality in SB has to be in a specific direction. ANY REFERENCE? You claim it is a tenet of the law. Surely someone, somewhere would have told us that. Let's see it fool.

All those times I provided the equation and gave you guys a start on what it said and asked you to finish, I thought that you didn't do it because you couldn't bring yourself to actually state what the law said since it runs contrary to what you believe.

But that statement, tells me that you actually can not read it...and you call yourself an engineer? Laughing in your lying face skidmark...That equation is hardly past junior high level math and you can't read it and determine what it says with regard to energy flow. Still laughing in your face...

Power equals the emissivity of the object, times the Stefan-Boltzman constant times the area of the object times the difference in temperature of the object and its surroundings raised to the 4th power.

That equation only describes energy leaving the object and how much energy it is losing as a result of the difference between its own temperature and that of its surroundings. Show me where you believe there is anything whatsoever in that equation about incoming energy from any other source. Note: I really don't expect you to do it because, hell, you can't even read such a basic equation and describe the physical process it represents.

Still laughing in your face skidmark....and still laughing.

 

[Crick]

Bullshit. Show us a reference that states that inequality can only go in one direction. You've told us this is a tenet of SB's law. For the struggling masses...

TENET:
/ˈtenət/
noun

1. a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.
   "the tenets of classical liberalism"
   synonyms: principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, axiom, dogma, canon;
   theory, thesis, premise, conviction, idea, view, opinion, position;
   ideology, code of belief, teaching(s)
   "the fundamental tenet of the ideology"

Why should you have any difficulty finding someone, somewhere, somewhen stating this very thing? Why, as with so many of your claims, are YOU the only one that can ever be found stating them?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry you can't read an equation...it is right there in black and white if you weren't to stupid to read it.

 

[Flash]

How I know AGW is bullshit?

When someone identifies a problem, declares it to be a big problem, and then proposes a solution which actually serves their own agenda and doesn’t solve the problem, I know it is bullshit.

 

[Crick]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

 

[SSDD]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Climate science has none of those....all they have is lies that they do. As evidenced by your complete inability to provide even one piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge me....the best you could do is prove how easily you are fooled.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
Please explain how a published, peer reviewed, paper is not evidence.

Evidence for what? There are plenty of peer reviewed published papers that provide evidence that the climate is changing....but no one is disputing that. Everyone knows that the climate changes.

What there isn't is a single peer reviewed published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities is measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one....

So there is evidence that the climate changes...big deal...it isn't as if you need to spend much money to figure that one out...but no observed, measured evidence whatsoever that we are causing any change at all.

Then what the fuck is this?

I'm at a loss to understand how atmospheric CO2 is able to warm the oceans 700m deep

Crick thinks his graphs are a reflection of the empirical atmosphere. They are not. They do not reflect waters inability to warm from the atmosphere. No ethical scientist believes what skidmark believes..

 

[Crick]

The vast majority of scientists on this planet believe what I believe (because they are my source). They do NOT believe what you believe and would laugh out loud at the rantings of SSDD.

 

[Crick]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Climate science has none of those....all they have is lies that they do. As evidenced by your complete inability to provide even one piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge me....the best you could do is prove how easily you are fooled.

Let's see your any statement from any authority that SB's inequality can only go one way. Let's see your evidence that matter is able to control its thermal radiation and control it according to where the photons would land, even if that is a moving target billions of light years distant. Let's see your evidence that the ocean obtains no energy from the greenhouse effect. That all energy absorbed at the surface is consumed by evaporation. That there is no significant mixing in the top few millimeters of the ocean's surface. Let's see your evidence for ANY of your fucked up claims asshole. You never present jack shit.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The vast majority of scientists on this planet believe what I believe (because they are my source). They do NOT believe what you believe and would laugh out loud at the rantings of SSDD.

Wrong! The vast majority of climate change scientists say they believe that way because it is in the interest of their livelihood for them to do so.


Derp!

 

[Billy_Bob]

The vast majority of scientists on this planet believe what I believe (because they are my source). They do NOT believe what you believe and would laugh out loud at the rantings of SSDD.

That is an SKS fabricated LIE!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't take scientific evidence, successful predictions, basic scientific principles into account? And what exactly was the "agenda" of thousands of the world's scientists from almost every nation and every political party?

Climate science has none of those....all they have is lies that they do. As evidenced by your complete inability to provide even one piece of observed, measured evidence to challenge me....the best you could do is prove how easily you are fooled.

Let's see your any statement from any authority that SB's inequality can only go one way. Let's see your evidence that matter is able to control its thermal radiation and control it according to where the photons would land, even if that is a moving target billions of light years distant. Let's see your evidence that the ocean obtains no energy from the greenhouse effect. That all energy absorbed at the surface is consumed by evaporation. That there is no significant mixing in the top few millimeters of the ocean's surface. Let's see your evidence for ANY of your fucked up claims asshole. You never present jack shit.

You don't have an honest bone in your lying body... DO you have any empirical evidence to show why we do not see the tropospheric hot spot? This one item alone disproves your fantasy and can easily be shown not to exist.... You have yet to produce even one empirical evidence fact to show mans influence over natural variation... If you cant baffle them with brilliance, baffle them with BULL SHIT... Its all you got..