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.
oh no no no... they're all full up on edumication. There's no need to lean something that may damage their calm. The heroes of the AGW cause have spoken, and logic, common sense and different theories cannot be allowed to exist.I am sorry to tell you this but the actual science does not support this. Below are some papers you can look up that will educate you further on the subject.
R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed. That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics. It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme also published a report titled "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics"
There are plenty of others but that will get you started.
Cheers!
The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. More CO2, more trapped energy. Where's it going, if not to heat the earth? If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop. Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!
oh no no no... they're all full up on edumication. There's no need to lean something that may damage their calm. The heroes of the AGW cause have spoken, and logic, common sense and different theories cannot be allowed to exist.I am sorry to tell you this but the actual science does not support this. Below are some papers you can look up that will educate you further on the subject.
R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed. That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics. It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme also published a report titled "Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics"
There are plenty of others but that will get you started.
Cheers!
The science clearly shows that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation. More CO2, more trapped energy. Where's it going, if not to heat the earth? If warming is actually creating more CO2, that would be a positive feedback loop. Hardly something for the deniers to crow about as it PROVES they've had their heads up their ...es!!!
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed. That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics. It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed. That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics. It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
Turns out the paper is a piece of crap. What this, the deniers' version of the Hockey Stick Grasph? LOL!!!
arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists
Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner published a paper in the 2007 International Journal of Modern Physics which (unlike most of the IPCC drivel) was peer reviewed. That article showed that the greenhouse gas effect violated a fundamental law of physics. It was updated in 2009 I believe as the paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics"
Turns out the paper is a piece of crap. What this, the deniers' version of the Hockey Stick Grasph? LOL!!!
arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_arrogance_of_physicists
What about prior to 1880? We have 130 years of temperature records to attempt to prove man-made global warming; but what about the 4.5 billion year life span of our planet? Was the earth's global temperature steady for billions of years, then we pollute for 100 years and it increases?
Layers of snowfall extracted from the arctic provided excellent data for temperature records and CO2 levels over the past 400-500,000 years. They concluded that, during this time, the earth had experienced approximately a dozen warming periods as well as a dozen cooling periods. Strange, considering SUV's, private jets and evil corporations were non-existent then. There is a major difference between global warming and "man-made" global warming. Our global temperature varies. But, it is natural.
Strange that you are so damned ignorant.
The ice core record, from the Antarctic, go back accurately, about 650,000 years. There are cores being studied right now that will extend this a bit further. However, at no time in that period has the CO2 been above 300 ppm, nor CH4 above 1000 ppb. We are above 385 ppm of CO2 right now, with 1800 ppb of CH4. On top of that we have introduced many millions of tons of industrial GHGs, some of which are 10,000 to 20,000 times as effective GHGs as CO2.
We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2.
Science: CO2 levels havent been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland, said the papers lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
OMG!!!!!
Dude twice now in as many days you have been caught red-handed lying about what an article you link to states...... DO you have any excuse at all for this?
Above you said this, either in regards to the article claims or you just wanted to make crap up.....
"We are past the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2."
Your words... Correct??? Of ocurse they are we can see that just above and in the post in question. You said that and that was your claim....
The article YOU linked to as reference or to give weight to your claim.
Science: CO2 levels havent been this high for 15 million years, when it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in CO2 levels
The article says a lot of things and after reading it carefully I found the only mention of that 450 ppm to be here in this statement....
"So we need to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 as low as possible and if we do go above 450 ppm, we need to get back to under 350 ppm as rapidly as possible, preferably by centurys end, though that would be no easy feat."
WTF man? You going to outright lie like that you shameless pig???
The only real reference to today's actual ppm was much later when they said this....
A slightly shocking finding, Tripati said, is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.
Now you lowlife lying little hack! You are a proven and documented liar and completely unethical POS.... YOU deliberately lied again just like before over the qualifications of the AMS certification.
You are going to be remembered by me for this instance for as long as I am a member here. Twice I have caught you lying intentionally to push your BS agenda on people..... Good day to you sir....
* sorry if this is considered spamming but I am going to re-post this to force old socks to respond to it....
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gslack again
Westwall;
R.W. Wood demonstrated that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist and his peer reviewed work was published in 1909 and can be found in the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95
..............................................................................
R. W. Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse
Refutation.
WOW, you must be the resident forum slack jawed idiot or something. The article clearly said: "Last month was the warmest March on record worldwide, based on records back to 1880". Do you understand what "worldwide" means, little slack jawed idiot? Many area got warmer and some area got cooler but overall there was more warming to the point where the planet experienced the warmest March on record. OMG! you're stupid.LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
LOL. The glaciers are melting. That is observed reality. Your inability to understand what is happening doesn't make it not happen. It is obvious that you are retarded to the point of lunacy.Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month? or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just reatrded to the point of lunacy now...
the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are unbelievably moronic. CO2 levels are around 390 parts per million now which is 3.9 (or "a few") parts per ten thousand. This mistake of yours alone shows that you are a clueless numbskull with pretensions of knowing something and makes everything you have to say from now on worth less than a cup of warm spit.Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.
WOW, you must be the resident forum slack jawed idiot or something. The article clearly said: "Last month was the warmest March on record worldwide, based on records back to 1880". Do you understand what "worldwide" means, little slack jawed idiot? Many area got warmer and some area got cooler but overall there was more warming to the point where the planet experienced the warmest March on record. OMG! you're stupid.LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
LOL. The glaciers are melting. That is observed reality. Your inability to understand what is happening doesn't make it not happen. It is obvious that you are retarded to the point of lunacy.Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month? or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just reatrded to the point of lunacy now...
the gas is only a few parts in ten thousandLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are unbelievably moronic. CO2 levels are around 390 parts per million now which is 3.9 (or "a few") parts per ten thousand. This mistake of yours alone shows that you are a clueless numbskull with pretensions of knowing something and makes everything you have to say from now on worth less than a cup of warm spit.Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.
Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?WOW, you must be the resident forum slack jawed idiot or something. The article clearly said: "Last month was the warmest March on record worldwide, based on records back to 1880". Do you understand what "worldwide" means, little slack jawed idiot? Many area got warmer and some area got cooler but overall there was more warming to the point where the planet experienced the warmest March on record. OMG! you're stupid.LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
LOL. The glaciers are melting. That is observed reality. Your inability to understand what is happening doesn't make it not happen. It is obvious that you are retarded to the point of lunacy.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are unbelievably moronic. CO2 levels are around 390 parts per million now which is 3.9 (or "a few") parts per ten thousand. This mistake of yours alone shows that you are a clueless numbskull with pretensions of knowing something and makes everything you have to say from now on worth less than a cup of warm spit.Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.
LOL. I do believe you're even more retarded that I first thought. LOL. I see you have no real response when your nonsense gets demolished.Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
WOW, you must be the resident forum slack jawed idiot or something. The article clearly said: "Last month was the warmest March on record worldwide, based on records back to 1880". Do you understand what "worldwide" means, little slack jawed idiot? Many area got warmer and some area got cooler but overall there was more warming to the point where the planet experienced the warmest March on record. OMG! you're stupid.LOL, first the OP is just an example of one area getting warmer and another getting colder more or less. Seriously it states as much. As far as overall warming 1.39 degrees above the month average for the 20th century.. WOW! OMG! we are all dead now!
LOL. The glaciers are melting. That is observed reality. Your inability to understand what is happening doesn't make it not happen. It is obvious that you are retarded to the point of lunacy.Dude seriously... 1.39 degrees? How many glaciers you think melted due to that 1.39 degrees for one month? Do you really think that a place where temperatures routinely double digits below zero can melt uncontrollably over a 1.39 temp rise over a month? or even worse over a total 1.4 degrees temp rise the last 150 years? Give me a break this whole premise is just reatrded to the point of lunacy now...
the gas is only a few parts in ten thousandLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....you are unbelievably moronic. CO2 levels are around 390 parts per million now which is 3.9 (or "a few") parts per ten thousand. This mistake of yours alone shows that you are a clueless numbskull with pretensions of knowing something and makes everything you have to say from now on worth less than a cup of warm spit.Second the math is just plain wrong in regards to volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its part per million or PPM not parts per then-thousand. And that alone shows the fact this article is fudged.
LOL. I do believe you're even more retarded that I first thought. LOL. I see you have no real response when your nonsense gets demolished.Hey Old Rocks, How many fake supporters are you going to create to try and bolster your silly position?
