Refute this if you can AGW deniers:

[Dot Com]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

 

[alan1]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

See blue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes. Let's just ignore anything them thar pointy headed librul scientists say. After all, hasn't ol' Rush shown how stupid them thar scientists are? They were making such a big deal out of Sandy, and he showed them that it was just a minor Cat 1 storm that didn't amount to nuttin'.

 

[alan1]

Science isn't political, it's science.
Yer argument failed the moment you tried to make it so.

 

[westwall]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

It took forever to find the stupid study but once again it is based entirely on computer models. FAIL. And to make things worse for the revisionists, the seal level is actually a tad lower than it was 10 years ago. Yet again the real world refuses to support the alarmist claptrap designed to terrify the savages...but it works on you guys real well!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

 

[Oddball]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

Trapped greenhouse gasses may make monkeys fly out my butt...Or they may not.

Good luck refuting that, dumbbell.

 

[Dot Com]

deniers- swing & miss. I'll give you people some more time to try to use your pretzel logic to discount it

 

[Mad Scientist]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

See blue.

They need more money so they can study it further. Like, until they retire.

 

[westwall]

deniers swing & miss. I'll give you people some more time to try to use your pretzel logic to discount it

Really? Do tell. Since when are computer models "data". You demonstrate your scientific illiteracy every time you post. Repeat after me.....correlation does not equal causation. Of course the correlation shows that warming happens first AND THEN the CO2 levels rise, but hey, you don't need science...you have "faith".

 

[Lumpy 1]

Just thought I'd help you out a bit Cot Com, I did shorten it up a bit but I did provide a link..

----------------------------------------

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming - Global Warming Hysteria

 

[SSDD]

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

It that's the best you have, then you really don't have anything. "MAY" experience bigger storm surges. "Suggests the US may". Come on guy. My grandaughter could do better than that.

Once again, you guys are accepting the output of rediculously flawed computer models as if it were actual data. Using physics as flawed as what goes into those models, pigs "may" fly and hell "may" freeze over.

Did you even read the idiot study? For the storm surge effect described, we will have to see a half a meter rise in sea level. 19+ inches when they can't even honestly claim a millimeter per year. Yet another story about how the sky is falling. How many of these epic fails are necessary to clue you guys in to the fact that you are being led around by your noses by a bunch of crooks?

 

[editec]

Refute this if you can AGW deniers:

There isn't a sole here who can REFUTE that.

Neither is there a sole here who can PROVE that.

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

 

[Papageorgio]

Refute this if you can AGW deniers:

There isn't a sole here who can REFUTE that.

Neither is there a sole here who can PROVE that.

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

That's all I got out of it. No proof either way, by either side. So it seems to cancel the other out and a lot more money is spent.

 

[konradv]

Science isn't political, it's science.
Yer argument failed the moment you tried to make it so.

Where's the politics? You're the one that introduced it. You headed straight for it without discussing the science at all, blue notwithstanding. Typical, because the deniers know they lost the scientific battle a long time ago.

 

[polarbear]

Refute this if you can AGW deniers:

There isn't a sole here who can REFUTE that.

Neither is there a sole here who can PROVE that.

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

That's all I got out of it. No proof either way, by either side. So it seems to cancel the other out and a lot more money is spent.

There is a ton of proof that does point the "other way" which is the right way, the scientific way, in short the truth....which is always the first casualty when the media "debates" science.
It does not seem to register what kind of crap Roy Spencer`s "back-radiation" assertions are. Every engineer can easily show it`s the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine and Roy has back pedaled from that silly "a cold plate can make a heated hot plate even hotter" :
http://www.tech-know-group.com/archi...ry_21Mar12.pdf

From: Roy Spencer
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:14 AM
To: Claes Johnson
Cc: Pierre Latour; Dick Lindzen; S. Fred Singer; Tom Sheahen; Larry Bell
Subject: Re: Open Letter Exchange v4
My blog post simply points out that less infrared energy escaping from the Earth to space leads to net energy accumulation, and a temperature increase.

See, Spencer no longer says that photons coming from the colder body can heat a warmer body. He changed it to "can accumulate more energy".
...After he has been driven in a cul de sac by engineers..!
But any engineer can tell You that "net energy accumulation" does not give You an increase in TEMPERATURE.
The cop-out Roy has used to opt out from his miracle photon effect that only happened in his strange "Yes Virginia" conception what a photon is has boxed him in even further. No matter which way You slice it if You add another cold mass to a hot mass, yes it can "accumulate" more energy...but first You have to add this energy...before You can accumulate more.
And 380 ppm CO2 does not "accumulate" the extra energy Roy and everybody else needs to show the temperature increase their beloved computer models predict.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ot-that-he-is-stupid-to-boot.html#post6403529

The question is now, can it do that...with only 380 ppm CO2 ?
according to the Youtube video guy that does that Gov. sponsored "experiment" video not even 100 % CO2 confined in a corked bottle and only 40 cm from a chicken roaster heat lamp could do that...
It took him 55 minutes to heat it up by 9 degrees...= 0.0027 deg C per second.
That`s 500 times too slow...with 100% CO2,..!!! But according to Roy Spencer if You use 2631 less CO2 than the guy in the video it can keep up.

It follows then according to Roy Spencer that all these CO2 absorption measurements that have been made ever since Infrared Spectrophotometers existed are all wrong too:

That`s it for Roy`s "energy accumulation" as far as CO2 is concerned.
We ( engineers) haven`t even began yet to publish just what kind of crap "science" the climate models use when it comes to the albedo effect these flat earth discers have been using (so far) in conjunction with Roy`s idiotic photon concept:

Here they say:
Climate model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a is the Earth's average albedo, measured to be 0.3

And here they say:
Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%...As the total amount of reflected radiation cannot be directly measured by satellite, a mathematical model of the BRDF is used to translate a sample set of satellite reflectance measurements into estimates of directional-hemispherical reflectance and bi-hemispherical reflectance (e.g.[9]).

The Global warmists need an albedo as low as possible to get to the doomsday scenario...so naturally they opted to an albedo of 0.3

But in "media science" TV like the crap this guy quotes:

good luck

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges
A recent study published in the journal ‘Nature’ suggests the U.S. may experience a 5 ft. rise in sea level given all of the fossil fuel that has already been burned. NBC’s Anne Thompson reports.

Trapped greenhouse gases may bring bigger storm surges - Video on NBCNews.com

....an albedo difference of 5 % is not a big deal, no more than huge solar outbursts that dump enough energy to power the entire U.S. for a whole year. Yet the same "climate expert" computer models also make this claim:

Solar radiation management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By intentionally changing the Earth's albedo, or reflectivity, scientists propose that we could reflect more heat back out into space, or intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth through a literal shade built in space. A 0.5% albedo increase would roughly halve the effect of CO2 doubling.

I hope You know the difference between a .5% albedo and 0.5% albedo INCREASE .
They stated that if the albedo effect were to increase from 30% just to 31.6 % that would cancel out what they claim CO2 doubling allegedly does

Which goes to show how massive the cheat is by cherry picking the 30 % albedo over the 35 % albedo or not using the mean between the 2 for their computer model predictions.
Just to show You how far out of whack these wackos have been:
A new albedo parameterization for use in climate models over the Antarctic ice sheet

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D05114, 10 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JD015113
A new albedo parameterization for use in climate models over the Antarctic ice sheet
The agreement between modeled and observed albedo at Neumayer, Dronning Maud Land, is very good, and subtle variability in albedo is well captured by the model. December–February mean differences in modeled and observed net shortwave radiation range from −8.7 to +3.8 W m−2 between 1995 and 2004, with a mean value of −2.7 W m−2. This is a considerable improvement compared to the previous albedo parameterization in the model, which led to overestimates of the net shortwave fluxes by +15.0 to +22.7 W m−2, or 40–55% of the observed net shortwave flux, in the same period.

This is what happens when flat earth science collides with actual science that uses observed data instead of "model" data.

Tell me how would You even get to an "average" albedo when You consider how reflectivity works, ...7/10 of the earth`s surface is water.

Beyond 60 deg (angular) it has an average albedo effect of 43 %...that`s almost as good as the arctic ice sheet...
But that does not even register in any of the flat earth disc computer model averaging / climate change predictions.

Every day, no matter what season we are in 1/3 rd of their computer model flat disc "average" is wrong by more than 13 % when the sun approaches the 135 Meridian West...13 % wrong for almost 4 out of 12 hours each day, all year long

And that`s only the albedo errors that have been used INTENTIONALLY to arrive at the CO2 doomsday scenario.
So shut up making noises like :

Refute this if you can AGW deniers:
good luck

Because You don`t even have the foggiest notion of physics & engineering.
If You do then show me how You would work out a realistic computer model albedo effect ..like an "average" out of that:
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[2]
Worn asphalt 0.12[2]
Conifer forest
(Summer) 0.08,[3] 0.09 to 0.15[4]
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18[4]
Bare soil 0.17[5]
Green grass 0.25[5]
Desert sand 0.40[6]
New concrete 0.55[5]
Ocean ice 0.5–0.7[5]
Fresh snow 0.80–0.90[5]

And as far as large vegetation covered forested areas are concerned You better work in how the albedo varies with the season.
Last not least don`t omit the overcast albedo effect:
Albedo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The average overall albedo of Earth, its planetary albedo, is 30 to 35%, because of the covering by clouds, but varies widely locally across the surface, depending on the geological and environmental features.

So " Papageorgio " ...Refute that ! before You ask me or anyone else to refute any more stupid global warming "science" claims You have seen on Television

Good Luck

I think You got a severe dose of back radiation watching left-wing media "science lessons" on television

 

[SSDD]

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

Proof?

 

[polarbear]

All anybody here can do is point to some EXPERT whose proof they WANT US to believe.

Proof?

That`s all it boils down to since this junk science reared it`s ugly head and did so almost exclusively in the media instead of the traditional science debating and proving grounds. That made it politics rather than science.If that`s the way "climate science" wants to have it, then lets have a televised debate between Roy Spencer, Singer etc. just like a fair political debate.
We had a few of those in Canada on National TV., cable TV, Sat TV etc.
For some strange reason the CBC which has since then gone way left of center restricted the access after we had a majority conservative Governmnet, that balanced the budget and axed a few Million$ from the CBC`s (like PBS) lush Billion $ a year budget. But there are still lots of copies on the internet, like this one
Freedom Channel: CBC - Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off

There were many such public debates since then.
Roy Spencer M.Mann etc were invited but declined.. since these public debates "climate change science " is finished,...amongst adults and targets little kid`s piggy banks. It`s is reduced to "charity money" scam...and (in Canada) that`s all it is now ...period..!!!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bm3uHduu2s&feature=relmfu

For some strange reason a click on these video links leads to a 404 page not found error when the US message board "http://www.usmessageboard.com/" is auto-added to the video URL, so just right click the video links and paste it into the address line without the US message board header.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ah yes. Let's just ignore anything them thar pointy headed librul scientists say. After all, hasn't ol' Rush shown how stupid them thar scientists are? They were making such a big deal out of Sandy, and he showed them that it was just a minor Cat 1 storm that didn't amount to nuttin'.

WIthin 30 minutes of making landfall, Sandy wasn't even a Cat 1, it was a tropical depression. What made Sandy so destructive was the ICE storm that joined it. It wasn't a hurricane because it didn't rise to the level of being a hurricane. It was a superstorm with an ice core.

 

[Dot Com]

Science isn't political, it's science.
Yer argument failed the moment you tried to make it so.

Where's the politics? You're the one that introduced it. You headed straight for it without discussing the science at all, blue notwithstanding. Typical, because the deniers know they lost the scientific battle a long time ago.

exactly my friend.