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.
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Yeah a denier offers to pay but only if you can teach him the science, first.
And given that he's already dismissed the science, he's telling you that he's never gonna pay.
Could he just be a tad more circular with his logic?
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Already covered, before Man made Global warming started to be the catch word it was a well established SCIENTIFIC fact as CO2 goes up in the atmosphere there is a diminishing effect on heat retention.
Further the basic fact is that through out history as we can study it, CO2 FOLLOWS, does not LEAD, rising temperatures. Another well established SCIENTIFIC FACT.
You seem to have your facts backwards. It's a well-known scientific fact that CO2 and other gases absorb energy in the infra-red range. How would extra retained energy result in lower temps? That seems to violate CofE. What you claim as "SCIENTIFIC FACT" is no more than the opinion of some, with even less actual scientific backing than the theory you're trying to discredit. Nice try, but mere declarations don't cut it. You've proven nothing. At least try to answer a simple question, "where does the energy go, if not to heat the earth?"
Ohh I don't know, perhaps that ICE COLD void that SURROUNDS the Earth?
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Once again, a comment blazes over your head at Mach 2.6.
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Once again, a comment blazes over your head at Mach 2.6.
Just as my questions blaze above yours? Why don't you answer them, instead of trying to muddy the water with irrelevancies? I missed a comment? ELUCIDATE!!! Otherwise this just seems to be another attempt to distract from the real issues.
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Already covered, before Man made Global warming started to be the catch word it was a well established SCIENTIFIC fact as CO2 goes up in the atmosphere there is a diminishing effect on heat retention.
Further the basic fact is that through out history as we can study it, CO2 FOLLOWS, does not LEAD, rising temperatures. Another well established SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Once again, a comment blazes over your head at Mach 2.6.
Just as my questions blaze above yours? Why don't you answer them, instead of trying to muddy the water with irrelevancies? I missed a comment? ELUCIDATE!!! Otherwise this just seems to be another attempt to distract from the real issues.
The real issue is that you have no knowledge of what you speak. You ignore the result of hundreds of years of scientific thought and philosophical thinking that has been done to derive the scientific method. No one has denied that CO2 is a GHG. We know it is. The question is does it have a measurable effect. All evidence we have shows it is not. There is not one single piece of empirical data that supports your contention. Not one. There are many that support ours. There is a well documented paleoclimate history which supports our contentions.
That is not true for the alarmists side. The alarmists on the other hand must distort the historical temperature record to support their ideas. That is fraud. That is the alarmists legacy...fraud.
Already covered, before Man made Global warming started to be the catch word it was a well established SCIENTIFIC fact as CO2 goes up in the atmosphere there is a diminishing effect on heat retention.
Further the basic fact is that through out history as we can study it, CO2 FOLLOWS, does not LEAD, rising temperatures. Another well established SCIENTIFIC FACT.
You seem to have your facts backwards. It's a well-known scientific fact that CO2 and other gases absorb energy in the infra-red range. How would extra retained energy result in lower temps? That seems to violate CofE. What you claim as "SCIENTIFIC FACT" is no more than the opinion of some, with even less actual scientific backing than the theory you're trying to discredit. Nice try, but mere declarations don't cut it. You've proven nothing. At least try to answer a simple question, "where does the energy go, if not to heat the earth?"
Ohh I don't know, perhaps that ICE COLD void that SURROUNDS the Earth?
Correlation is causation? It's more than mere correlation that proves that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. What happens to that radiation, given the LAW (no theory here!) of Conservation of Energy? What happens when you get more radiation-absorbing gases around, given the ~1/3 rise in concentrations since the advent of the IR? Usually..., more absorbed energy. Where's THAT energy going?
Already covered, before Man made Global warming started to be the catch word it was a well established SCIENTIFIC fact as CO2 goes up in the atmosphere there is a diminishing effect on heat retention.
Further the basic fact is that through out history as we can study it, CO2 FOLLOWS, does not LEAD, rising temperatures. Another well established SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Established by whom and when? You are pulling shit out of your ass. Come on, give us a link. You cannot do that.
The link between glaciation and inter-glaciations, and the CO2 levels are explained by a real scientist here;
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Just as my questions blaze above yours? Why don't you answer them, instead of trying to muddy the water with irrelevancies? I missed a comment? ELUCIDATE!!! Otherwise this just seems to be another attempt to distract from the real issues.
The real issue is that you have no knowledge of what you speak. You ignore the result of hundreds of years of scientific thought and philosophical thinking that has been done to derive the scientific method. No one has denied that CO2 is a GHG. We know it is. The question is does it have a measurable effect. All evidence we have shows it is not. There is not one single piece of empirical data that supports your contention. Not one. There are many that support ours. There is a well documented paleoclimate history which supports our contentions.
That is not true for the alarmists side. The alarmists on the other hand must distort the historical temperature record to support their ideas. That is fraud. That is the alarmists legacy...fraud.
Oh come on, Walleyes, the real scientists all disagree with you. Here, again, is the American Institute of Phyics with real scientists explaining the history of the investigations of GHGs, and what we currently know. And none of it agrees with your lies.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Well document paleo-climate can be found here, with a real scientist explaining the current knowledge.
A23A
Now you claim to be a geologist and a member of the AGU, so why aren't you up there, stating why this is not true? Because, if you tried it, you would be laughed off of the stage by the membership of the AGU.
Real science by real scientists, not message board blowhards.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch
Hi oldrocks, how are you ? Really brave by the looks of things hiding behind your anonymous posts.
I would state that to your face. Because the fact has already been proven.
Bit like a stallion, "big when they are out."
So I am an asshole who wont pay up ?
We had creationists making these kinds of offers with regard to evolution. And they never paid up. Same mindset, no you will not pay up.
Apart from the fact you would not possess the courage to say that face to face, are you the all seeing Delphic oracle? Do you know me? What basis do you come to that conclusion, the same one that makes you a AGW religionist I suppose, like "the vibe" or perhaps just your "middle-class angst" ?
So come on sweetheart, don't play big swinging dick here, come and take up the challenge if your oh so sure of yourself.
These people have already done the work, silly asshole.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
I went to that pathetic link you posted and unlike yourself i'm not obsequious enough to defer to experts without investigation, so is that the best you can do? They tried to falsely intimate Vostock ice-cores showed a link between CO2 and temperature to prove their hypothesis but failed to mention that the ice-cores show that CO2 TRAILS temperature increase. Priceless, too easy, too mediocre.
You seem to have your facts backwards. It's a well-known scientific fact that CO2 and other gases absorb energy in the infra-red range. How would extra retained energy result in lower temps? That seems to violate CofE. What you claim as "SCIENTIFIC FACT" is no more than the opinion of some, with even less actual scientific backing than the theory you're trying to discredit. Nice try, but mere declarations don't cut it. You've proven nothing. At least try to answer a simple question, "where does the energy go, if not to heat the earth?"
Ohh I don't know, perhaps that ICE COLD void that SURROUNDS the Earth?
God, you are that ignorant! That void has neither heat nor cold. That is a property that requires matter.
Ohh I don't know, perhaps that ICE COLD void that SURROUNDS the Earth?
God, you are that ignorant! That void has neither heat nor cold. That is a property that requires matter.
I suggest you actually uhhh do a little research before you make an ass of yourself yet again there olfraud. The temperature of outer space is around 2.725 Kelvin just a tad above Absolute Zero where all atomic movement ceases. This is the Cosmic Background Radiation. Closer to our planets the tmperature rises to around 40 Kelvin, but that is still awful damned cold. So yet again you are wrong.
Real science by real scientists, not message board blowhards.
NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch
Here's an organization without a pre-concieved bias. Something you clearly have problems understanding.
Page Paleontology Science Center
Then the descendents of Tyndal have a right to that prize. Like previously stated, the asshole will never pay out, in spite of the fact that there is already ample proof of AGW. The parent organization of the AGU, the American Institute of Physics has made unequivacal statements concerning the fact that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming that we are seeing.
Once more, for any new to the debate, here is an article from the American Institute of Physics concerning the history of the study of GHGs and the affect on the atmosphere.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Now real scientists wrote this, not ex-TV weathermen, or dotty English lords. Real scientists, not faceless people on a message board.
You seem to have your facts backwards. It's a well-known scientific fact that CO2 and other gases absorb energy in the infra-red range. How would extra retained energy result in lower temps? That seems to violate CofE. What you claim as "SCIENTIFIC FACT" is no more than the opinion of some, with even less actual scientific backing than the theory you're trying to discredit. Nice try, but mere declarations don't cut it. You've proven nothing. At least try to answer a simple question, "where does the energy go, if not to heat the earth?"
Ohh I don't know, perhaps that ICE COLD void that SURROUNDS the Earth?
Statisically that would only account for half the absorbed energy. Logically, for every photon re-emitted into space another would be emitted toward earth, heating it.
