Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[otto105]

This is what ssdd has to support his denier belief on Global Climate Change...


Not much

Just to point out what a liar you are...I will provide links to the posts where I have provided evidence to support my position in this thread....

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

See a trend developing here?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

See the trend yet?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

How about now?

Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....
Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....


Now compare that to the amount of actual science which you posted...which is zero...The bulk of mine was peer reviewed...I don't think you even posted a single published paper... Maybe you meant to say that big blank space is the amount of science that I posted which you actually understood...

Why tell a big assed lie like that when it is so easy to prove that you lied?

The only thread I see here is the fact that you can’t produce one scientific organization which supports your denial.


You have produced tons of meaningless junk science from dubious sources and presented them as your facts.


Sorry, not buying until you have a credible scientific organization to counter all the actual ones that I have presented.

 

[SSDD]

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.

What a doofus...

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue4/Version-3/O0904038289.pdf

clip:

• the second law of thermodynamics is defined to explicitly account for radiation thermodynamic effects.
  

And you have no source, none at all, that agrees with your claim that photons cannot be emitted from a cool object toward a warmer object. Weird.

So long as the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, what else could I possibly need?

And no one agrees with your even more ridiculous claim that objects at equilibrium will cease all radiating.

Again, I hold my position based on what the second law says...it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...who am I to disagree?

 

[SSDD]

We have an apples and apes conflict.

Do you deny we will not suffer from super storms, floods and earthquakes in the future?

Since there were super storms (if you want to use such a ridiculous term), floods and earthquakes in the past, there is no reason to suspect that they won't happen in the future...business as usual on planet earth.

Did I state human behavior created these natural events?

AGW believers think so...climate science makes the unsupportable claim.

Do you want me to name some empirical evidence? Katrina, Sandy (annual events in tornado alley; hurricanes on the south coast, earthquakes on the West Coast,and potential volcanic activity o the west coast and Hawaii, + a super volcano below Yellowstone).

How is any of that physical evidence that the warming we have seen since 1970 is attributable to mankind and our production of CO2?

 

[SSDD]

1. That CO2 would continue rise.

Got any real evidence that we are responsible for the rise? I provided plenty of peer reviewed science that says that we are not. You think just because you say it that it must be true?

2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.

The ice has been melting for 20,000 years...and right now, there is more ice in the world than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age.

3. World temperatures would continue to rise.

The earth continues to warm out of the little ice age and it isn't even as warm as it was when the little ice age began...what would make you think that it would't get at least that warm again...or warmer since there have been far warmer periods in the past 10,000 years?

4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.

That is due to population, and cost of labor, materials, and insurance and nothing to do with the weather events themselves.

So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.

Actually the truth is inconvenient to you..not me. Everything you name is just business as usual on planet earth.

 

[SSDD]

This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

Additionally, still looking for a scientific organization willing to sell their souls to the alter of denial.

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

 

[otto105]

1. That CO2 would continue rise.

Got any real evidence that we are responsible for the rise? I provided plenty of peer reviewed science that says that we are not. You think just because you say it that it must be true?

2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.

The ice has been melting for 20,000 years...and right now, there is more ice in the world than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age.

3. World temperatures would continue to rise.

The earth continues to warm out of the little ice age and it isn't even as warm as it was when the little ice age began...what would make you think that it would't get at least that warm again...or warmer since there have been far warmer periods in the past 10,000 years?

4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.

That is due to population, and cost of labor, materials, and insurance and nothing to do with the weather events themselves.

So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.

Actually the truth is inconvenient to you..not me. Everything you name is just business as usual on planet earth.

Nothing in your post is either true or relevant.


Why is that?

 

[otto105]

This should be fun, what is your "natural" catalyst?

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

Additionally, still looking for a scientific organization willing to sell their souls to the alter of denial.

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

So post one that goes thru 2018.

 

[SSDD]

The only thread I see here is the fact that you can’t produce one scientific organization which supports your denial.

And for all those organizations who are lined up at the funding trough....you can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you name a single published paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...

I would rather have evidence to support my position than a tired assed logical fallacy...tell me, if it isn't money that has the political heads of those organizations in line, what is it? It certainly isn't evidence since you don't seem to be able to produce any.

You have produced tons of meaningless junk science from dubious sources and presented them as your facts.

Sorry guy...you are only describing yourself...only it wasn't tons you produced...it was mere ounces...and none of it was peer reviewed...

Sorry, not buying until you have a credible scientific organization to counter all the actual ones that I have presented.

Without actual evidence your logical fallacy is meaningless....if those organizations you worship are so right, by all means, lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence from any of them that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The 2nd Law doesn't mention radiation.

What a doofus...

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol9-issue4/Version-3/O0904038289.pdf

clip:

• the second law of thermodynamics is defined to explicitly account for radiation thermodynamic effects.

And you have no source, none at all, that agrees with your claim that photons cannot be emitted from a cool object toward a warmer object. Weird.

So long as the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, what else could I possibly need?

And no one agrees with your even more ridiculous claim that objects at equilibrium will cease all radiating.

Again, I hold my position based on what the second law says...it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...who am I to disagree?

the second law of thermodynamics is defined to explicitly account for radiation thermodynamic effects.

Which part of that paper supports your claim that photons are never emitted by matter toward warmer matter?

When a radiation field is also present, we need to consider that there is a radiative entropy flow in the radiative field, and a radiative entropy flow associated with the absorption-emission of radiation heat by matter [9, 10].

It wasn't this part, was it? LOL!

So long as the second law of thermodynamics supports my position, what else could I possibly need?

Because it doesn't, actually, is why I'd like to see some backup.
And that's why you can't provide any.

Any luck finding a source that agrees "matter at equilibrium ceases radiating"?
Even one? No?
 
Again, I hold my position based on what the second law says...it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...who am I to disagree?

You should have hundreds of sources that agree with your unique misinterpretation......but you have none.
Weird.

Did you ever ask Dr. Raeder, explicitly, if photons can move from cooler to warmer?
Or any of the other college professors you correspond with? Not one, eh? Weird.

And still no list of spontaneous photon emitters in the solar system either.
             

 

[SSDD]

1. That CO2 would continue rise.

Got any real evidence that we are responsible for the rise? I provided plenty of peer reviewed science that says that we are not. You think just because you say it that it must be true?

2. Ice loss from glaciers and poles.

The ice has been melting for 20,000 years...and right now, there is more ice in the world than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age.

3. World temperatures would continue to rise.

The earth continues to warm out of the little ice age and it isn't even as warm as it was when the little ice age began...what would make you think that it would't get at least that warm again...or warmer since there have been far warmer periods in the past 10,000 years?

4. Weather events to come more impactful and costly.

That is due to population, and cost of labor, materials, and insurance and nothing to do with the weather events themselves.

So he largely has truth and inconvenience right.

Actually the truth is inconvenient to you..not me. Everything you name is just business as usual on planet earth.

Nothing in your post is either true or relevant.


Why is that?

It is all true...and all relevant...but feel free to provide some credible evidence that calls anything I have said into question..

Nothing in your post is honest...clearly you realize that you can't score any points based on evidence so you have decided to just lie your ass off...typical warmer tactic...of course lies are even more easy to discredit than junk science...you are going to lose no matter what you do.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that ion the latter part of the 20th century, the output of the sun was at its highest point in several hundred years...then the sun started to go quiet and as a result, the pause in warming is about 20 years old now...

That logical fallacy is never going to make AGW real....it is a piss poor substitute for actual evidence...

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

So post one that goes thru 2018.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support...it is clear what sort of nut job sites you get your information from if you are unaware of a pause in warming that has gone on for damned near 20 years now... Note the temperature is at 1999 levels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What pause are you referring too?

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

So post one that goes thru 2018.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support...it is clear what sort of nut job sites you get your information from if you are unaware of a pause in warming that has gone on for damned near 20 years now... Note the temperature is at 1999 levels.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support..

Now there's a laugher!!!!

 

[SSDD]

You really are out of it aren't you?

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

So post one that goes thru 2018.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support...it is clear what sort of nut job sites you get your information from if you are unaware of a pause in warming that has gone on for damned near 20 years now... Note the temperature is at 1999 levels.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support..

Now there's a laugher!!!!

Sour grapes because the physical laws don’t support your claims? You are as tedious as wuwei...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s 2019, not 2015.

Pick a graph more current

And the pause continues...by the way....the graph goes to 2106...not surprised that you can't even read a simple graph like that.

So post one that goes thru 2018.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support...it is clear what sort of nut job sites you get your information from if you are unaware of a pause in warming that has gone on for damned near 20 years now... Note the temperature is at 1999 levels.

Sure...unlike you, I don't make claims I can't support..

Now there's a laugher!!!!

Sour grapes because the physical laws don’t support your claims? You are as tedious as wuwei...

Why would your complete lack of backup give me sour grapes?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out.

You posted this point many times. Of course the greenhouse effect does not heat the earth. It's the sun that heats the earth. The greenhouse effect prevents the earth from loosing much of it's heat.

and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm

Radiation can move both ways between cool and warm objects. That was covered many times before.

.

What about the OTHER 95% of outgoing IR that CO2 doesn't absorb?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Alert.....Alert.....

THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE.

IF THERE WAS IT WOULD BE THE TOP HEADLINE IN EVERY NEWSPAPER EVERY DAY.

THERE IS ONLY A SUPPOSITION.


JO

Agreed there is evidence of change but none for agw

...........Except for the direct correlation between climate change and Chinese GDP growth which I just showed you and you're too stupid to grasp.

Correlation in no way infers causation....The past 2 decades have seen a grand increase in chinese prosperity, and atmospheric CO2...but the temperature has been on hold...there has been no warming for the past 2 decades beyond the tiny fractions of a degree that climate science has been able to torture the data into saying via massive homogenization, infilling, and plain old data tampering.

You should probably get out of your 1998 denier bubble mindset.

Sorry guy...but the pause is real...every attempt from climate sceince to prove it isn't real has ended in disaster...

22 years 2 months... the pause is getting real long..

 

[flacaltenn]

There's now an Official Thread for this GroundHog Day debate... USE IT !!!

Basically ANY 10 page redundant repetitive argument over the 2nd law of Thermo -- belongs there...