Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth

[flacaltenn]

In fact, measured data has failed to support the theory that rate of warming would increase in the upper trop as the lower atmos got increasingly saturated..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

It's ADMITTED in the basic physics you dork.. In those curves in the OP. The exponential shape IS the saturation effect. It is accepted in some similiar form by ALL the players involved..

You act like you believe that IPCC warming of 6 to 8 degC is all coming from man-made CO2 additions. It is NOT. The BULK of the catastrophic warming is coming from hand-waving assumptions on Magically Multiplying that warming with feedbacks. A position quite a bit less tenable these days because BTK "discovered" a MASSIVE negative feedback previously UNDISCOVERED by the idiots doing the Energy Diagrams. The main idiot would be the T in BTK..

 

[Crick]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

It's ADMITTED in the basic physics you dork.. In those curves in the OP. The exponential shape IS the saturation effect. It is accepted in some similiar form by ALL the players involved..

You act like you believe that IPCC warming of 6 to 8 degC is all coming from man-made CO2 additions. It is NOT. The BULK of the catastrophic warming is coming from hand-waving assumptions on Magically Multiplying that warming with feedbacks. A position quite a bit less tenable these days because BTK "discovered" a MASSIVE negative feedback previously UNDISCOVERED by the idiots doing the Energy Diagrams. The main idiot would be the T in BTK..

So the thousands of degreed scientists, including a significant number of atmospheric physicists who accept the greenhouse effect as a fact and who believe AGW is taking place and will continue to take place, are all just actually stupid. They failed to listen to you channeling a refuted science experiment from the last century?

Show us a contemporary, peer reviewed study that indicates CO2's greenhouse effect is at saturation.

 

[SSDD]

So the thousands of degreed scientists, including a significant number of atmospheric physicists who accept the greenhouse effect as a fact and who believe AGW is taking place and will continue to take place, are all just actually stupid. They failed to listen to you channeling a refuted science experiment from the last century?{/quote]

Can you spell error cascade? It is much kinder than deliberate fraud...which seems to the the growing trend within climate science.

Show is a contemporary, peer reviewed study that indicates CO2's greenhouse effect is at saturation.

How many studies do you think are out there that say exactly that which couldn't make it past the gatekeepers and their pal review process?

 

[RKMBrown]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

That the same accepted hokey stick science that has been proven wrong again and again by actual temperatures not matching the predictive models?

 

[jc456]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

Nope, I don't trust them, they are all fake!

 

[jc456]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

Nope, I don't trust them, they are all fake!

Tell you what, why don't you prove that CO2 drives climate. YOU CAN'T........... LoSiNg

 

[flacaltenn]

It's accepted science.

Find us a peer reviewed study supporting the contention that CO2 in the atmosphere has reached saturation.

It's ADMITTED in the basic physics you dork.. In those curves in the OP. The exponential shape IS the saturation effect. It is accepted in some similiar form by ALL the players involved..

You act like you believe that IPCC warming of 6 to 8 degC is all coming from man-made CO2 additions. It is NOT. The BULK of the catastrophic warming is coming from hand-waving assumptions on Magically Multiplying that warming with feedbacks. A position quite a bit less tenable these days because BTK "discovered" a MASSIVE negative feedback previously UNDISCOVERED by the idiots doing the Energy Diagrams. The main idiot would be the T in BTK..

So the thousands of degreed scientists, including a significant number of atmospheric physicists who accept the greenhouse effect as a fact and who believe AGW is taking place and will continue to take place, are all just actually stupid. They failed to listen to you channeling a refuted science experiment from the last century?

Show us a contemporary, peer reviewed study that indicates CO2's greenhouse effect is at saturation.

You are incapable of following this discussion -- are you not? I said nothing of the sort about the warming or the GreenHouse theory -- BOTH of which I have repeatedly accepted. You are useless. Go find a better warmer..

But YES -- many of them are EITHER --- lazy or stupid..

 

[Crick]

Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.

The fuck it isn't moron.. If heat comes off the surface for ANY reason, it should have been in Trenberth's diagram.. If heat is put into STORAGE and taken out of the IR radiation and re-radiation budget it is a negative sink on heat surface energy..

I think what happened right there is that you TRIED to think for yourself and failed..

 

[flacaltenn]

Your heroes contend that some mysterious yet to be defined process kicked in at the beginning of the pause to cause the oceans to suddenly have an appetite for heat. They are DEAD WRONG about that since the oceans have been munching the same amount of heat every year since we had the ability to accurately measure it. But to believe what you do -- it is a process likely related to some type of thermal feedback.

If increased surface winds (for instance) caused it -- what caused the excess surface winds? (softball question for a warmer)

At any rate, it is a FORCING that also SHOULD SHOW in the IPCC forcing diagrams because it REDUCES the effective retained heating of the surface --- but it never has --- and still doesn't. Aint that right Bullwinky? No energy should be allowed to go to storage in the deep oceans without the proper accounting for that energy in the forcing budget..

 

[jc456]

Heat energy going in to the deep oceans is not a negative feedback, dork.

The fuck it isn't moron.. If heat comes off the surface for ANY reason, it should have been in Trenberth's diagram.. If heat is put into STORAGE and taken out of the IR radiation and re-radiation budget it is a negative sink on heat surface energy..

I think what happened right there is that you TRIED to think for yourself and failed..

oh crap is that good...