The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

This is what is known as a “Freudian Slip”. It’s when a person inadvertently says what they are actually thinking.

I asked you to list some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs.

You couldn't provide any.

There is apparently no data of any sort that could falsify your beliefs, which puts your beliefs in the category of "religion".

While I hope your religion brings you fulfillment, you need to understand that science doesn't care about your religious beliefs, no matter how devout your belief is.
 
Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.
 
Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.
Dude...who are you talking to?!? Can you ask an adult to show you how to use this website? There is a reply button. Start using it so that this thread is actually coherent. Man alive, you lefties are so damn dumb I can’t take it anymore. No wonder the left finds it so easy to dupe you people.
 
Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.

there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere...this precludes the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Now, if you would like to show the description of the greenhouse effect offered by climate science which states that most of the energy that reaches the top of the troposphere gets there via conduction rather than radiation, I would be interested in seeing it...every description of the greenhouse effect I have ever seen describes radiation from the cooler atmosphere, warming the actual surface of the earth...and nothing at all about the fact that most of the energy in the troposphere is moving via conduction..

Maybe you would like to describe how the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science works when most of the energy moving in the troposphere is moving via conduction and not radiation...it should be both interesting and entertaining...
 
.the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.

You have said that many many times. Air is a very poor conductor of heat. Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/m.
The lapse rate is 9.8 K/km
So the flow of heat is the product: 0.255 Watts per kilometer

Updrafts, downdrafts, winds, polar vortex etc, are much more powerful than conduction. I would think that you would say that the bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection, not conduction.

.
 
.the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.

You have said that many many times. Air is a very poor conductor of heat. Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/m.
The lapse rate is 9.8 K/km
So the flow of heat is the product: 0.255 Watts per kilometer

Updrafts, downdrafts, winds, polar vortex etc, are much more powerful than conduction. I would think that you would say that the bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection, not conduction.

.

If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..
 
If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..

Your answer is unclear. Are you saying that conduction is more efficient at moving energy to the top of the troposphere than convection?

.
 
If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..

Your answer is unclear. Are you saying that conduction is more efficient at moving energy to the top of the troposphere than convection?

.

Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
 
Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.
 
Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...
 
Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake. All I am saying is that convection is a much much more significant process for moving heat in the troposphere. If you disagree you are wrong. You have been harping on the significance of conduction for a long time and I just wondered if that was a typo or a belief.

.
 
Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake. All I am saying is that convection is a much much more significant process for moving heat in the troposphere. If you disagree you are wrong. You have been harping on the significance of conduction for a long time and I just wondered if that was a typo or a belief.

.


So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
 
So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
The prerequisite for any discussion with you is that you understand and accept basic science. Since you don't, it will digress into many arguments on basic physics and not climate science.

Specifically, since you don't accept the fact (both theoretical, and also measured, and observed) that CO2 that has absorbed IR energy can transfer it to air as kinetic energy (heat), then there is no point of further tedious discussion.

.
 
Aaaand she doubles down...

And the piss-gargling bottom runs again. He always runs when I show up. He's always been my sweet little bitch. Let's go another round of making him squeal and run again. Pusstriot is such a pussy, he's running from his own topic, in front of the whole board.

Pusstriot, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?

Oh look, you can't name any. You literally can't even imagine any facts that would falsify your beliefs. That demonstrates how your beliefs on climate science are entirely religious, and this thread is just butthurt religious preaching on your part.

Your religion seems interesting. Let's start listing its sacred dogma.
1. Climate science is all a fraud.
2. Being a predatory old queer is superior to monogamous heterosexuality.
3. ? (Please expand the list for us.)

If you'd care to prove you're not a religious fanatic, tell us what sort of hard data could falsify your beliefs, and then swear off buggery.
 
Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.
Dude...who are you talking to?!? Can you ask an adult to show you how to use this website? There is a reply button. Start using it so that this thread is actually coherent. Man alive, you lefties are so damn dumb I can’t take it anymore. No wonder the left finds it so easy to dupe you people.


I was replying to you. My post followed immediately after yours. Copying yours (aaaand, she doubles down) would have added very little.
 
.the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.

You have said that many many times. Air is a very poor conductor of heat. Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/m.
The lapse rate is 9.8 K/km
So the flow of heat is the product: 0.255 Watts per kilometer

Updrafts, downdrafts, winds, polar vortex etc, are much more powerful than conduction. I would think that you would say that the bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection, not conduction.

.

If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..

HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaa... when was the last time you did any math in a post? Ummm... never?
 
So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
The prerequisite for any discussion with you is that you understand and accept basic science. Since you don't, it will digress into many arguments on basic physics and not climate science.

Specifically, since you don't accept the fact (both theoretical, and also measured, and observed) that CO2 that has absorbed IR energy can transfer it to air as kinetic energy (heat), then there is no point of further tedious discussion.

.

So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...
 
.the bulk of energy that leaves the surface of the earth is conducted to the top of the atmosphere.

You have said that many many times. Air is a very poor conductor of heat. Thermal conductivity of air is 0.026 W/m.
The lapse rate is 9.8 K/km
So the flow of heat is the product: 0.255 Watts per kilometer

Updrafts, downdrafts, winds, polar vortex etc, are much more powerful than conduction. I would think that you would say that the bulk of energy leaving the surface is carried by convection, not conduction.

.

If I were you I might say that...but since I am me, I tend not to interpret, or just make shit up to suit what I believe...the fact of the matter is that most energy is conducted to the top of the troposphere...so if you want to explain that in terms of the radiative greenhouse effect described by climate science, go right ahead...I'm listening..

HAHAHAHAHAHaaaaa... when was the last time you did any math in a post? Ummm... never?

Laughing in your face skidmark....every time I provide math...it takes 75 pages to get you poor cretins to acknowledge what it says...pearls before swine and all that...and then 3 pages later, you are right back to pushing your previous error...it just isn't worth the effort...
 
Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...
Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...
You seem to be arguing for argument's sake. All I am saying is that convection is a much much more significant process for moving heat in the troposphere. If you disagree you are wrong. You have been harping on the significance of conduction for a long time and I just wondered if that was a typo or a belief.

.


So describe the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the context of the bulk of energy moving via convection....show me where the greenhouse hypothesis accounts for most of the energy moving via anything other than radiation. Even if convection were the primary means of energy movement, (which it isn't) that still precludes a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.
since when can jet streams move IR around? Hly fk dude, this guy Wuwei, is truly a whack-a-moler
 

Forum List

Back
Top