AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

'
It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.

---As Rolling Thunder did with his link to Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I
.

You are asking a guy who recently claimed that conservatism is not a right wing philosophy to demonstrate a knowledge of physics?

Brave.

 

[Saigon]

So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect. Show us some actual measurements of it. It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun. We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?

The sheer dishonesty it must have taken to post this is beyond any human measurement!

We have posted this information for you on a dozen threads - on each why you refuse to look at it.

You know it and I know it.

The evidence is available. In any country, some of these factors will have been recorded -

- rising temperatures

- rising sea levels

- melting glaciers

- increased frequency and severity of drought

- increased frequency and severity of floods

- increased frequency and severity of particular storm types

- changing ocean pH and coral bleaching

 

[westwall]

So lets see some actual observed evidence of the greenhouse effect. Show us some actual measurements of it. It claims that more than twice as much energy is being absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere than is coming in from the sun. We can measure the energy coming in from the sun at ambient temperature...why then, can't we measure twice as much that is supposed to be coming from the atmosphere at ambient temperature?

The sheer dishonesty it must have taken to post this is beyond any human measurement!

We have posted this information for you on a dozen threads - on each why you refuse to look at it.

You know it and I know it.

The evidence is available. In any country, some of these factors will have been recorded -

- rising temperatures

- rising sea levels

- melting glaciers

- increased frequency and severity of drought

- increased frequency and severity of floods

- increased frequency and severity of particular storm types

- changing ocean pH and coral bleaching

And yet the chief warmists all say there has been no warming for at least a decade so what is causing all of these things to happen...if in fact they are. In point of fact, most of the claims if not all, are patently ridiculous.

 

[tjvh]

End of March and rain turned to snow today, the ground has about an inch of snow on it now. Global warming you know.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I did wonder if you'd bother to crawl back to the board after your meltdown last week.

All we will ever need to know about your logic processes are defined in my sig line, where you insist that I must support Stalin, because some journalists supported Stalin.

No one with any interest or background in any hard science or fact-based field could post such an obvious fallacy, surely?

btw. I proved to you last week that in a country YOU chose - we are indeed seeing the droughts, the glacial melts, the rising temperatures, and the floods.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I did wonder if you'd bother to crawl back to the board after your meltdown last week.

All we will ever need to know about your logic processes are defined in my sig line, where you insist that I must support Stalin, because some journalists supported Stalin.

No one with any interest or background in any hard science or fact-based field could post such an obvious fallacy, surely?

btw. I proved to you last week that in a country YOU chose - we are indeed seeing the droughts, the glacial melts, the rising temperatures, and the floods.

My meltdown? You're the one who was made to look like an absolute moron. I love how you try and rewrite history there junior. Goebbels would be proud of you. You follow his model perfectly....unfortunately for you he was a lot smarter than you.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Yes, your meltdown. The one where you insisted that I supported Stalin, remember?

If you think that makes you look cool, then stick with it.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Yes, your meltdown. The one where you insisted that I supported Stalin, remember?

If you think that makes you look cool, then stick with it.

So that's your definition of meltdown huh? I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits. Don't you think?

As far as meltdowns go I think your attempt to use data I presented to you without crediting me for it and getting caught making the catastrophic mistake you did would qualify more...don't you?

Mr. journalist!

 

[Saigon]

I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits. Don't you think?

What you posted is in my sig-line, genius.

I have absolutely no idea at all what data you are talking about, but then I doubt you do either.

 

[westwall]

I seem to recall my pointing out how it was left leaning journalists who supported him and here you are a left leaning so-called journalist so the shoe fits. Don't you think?

What you posted is in my sig-line, genius.

I have absolutely no idea at all what data you are talking about, but then I doubt you do either.

Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around. The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.

 

[Saigon]

Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around. The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.

Opposition to freedom of the press is a hallmark of right wing extremism.

 

[westwall]

Good I'm glad you did that, people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around. The so-called fourth estate has caused more people to be killed than religion has over the last 150 years.

Opposition to freedom of the press is a hallmark of right wing extremism.

I believe in TOTAL freedom of the press. That means all sides get their say...not just one side moron. Funny how it's your side that wants to muzzle sceptics and deny us the ability to present our evidence....What was that about extreme rightwing philosophies? What a nimrod.

 

[Saigon]

people need to KNOW what the journalists thought back then.
Hopefully they will be controlled the next time around

I believe in TOTAL freedom of the press

Well, obviously not.

You believe in the freedom of the press that will tow your line - anything else must be suppressed.

This is absolutely classic right wing extremism.

 

[SSDD]

'
It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.

---As Rolling Thunder did with his link to Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I
.

There is no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is an ad hoc construct.

As I said, there is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the claimed greenhouse effect but since it doesn't really care what the atmosphere is composed of beyond the atomic weights of the various gasses within the atmosphere, there is no money to be made from it as no crisis can be squeezed out of it.

The atmospheric thermal effect is predicted by, supported by, and explained by the ideal gas laws.


Quaint bit of 19th century "science" that thunder posted was very quickly proven false by another 19th century scientist. In all that time, no measurement has ever been made of a greenhouse effect, no mathematical model has ever been constructed, and no laboratory experiment has ever been devised to prove it exists in an open atmosphere, while literally thousands of experiments, measurements, and observations exist proving the ideal gas laws and they predict the temperature of the earth with startling accuracy as well as the temperatures of every planet inthe solar system with an atmosphere. The greenhouse hypothesis can predict the temperatures of exactly none of the planets in the solar system with atmospheres including earth. If it could, then the computer models wouldn't require constant tweaking in order to reflect the temperature here.

 

[SSDD]

'
It would be nice, SSDD, if you could demonstrate that you know what the Greenhouse Effect is.

---As Rolling Thunder did with his link to Physics of the Greenhouse Effect -- Part I
.

You are asking a guy who recently claimed that conservatism is not a right wing philosophy to demonstrate a knowledge of physics?

Brave.

You lie every time you post, don't you. Why is that? I said that fascism is socialism and all socialism is to the left of conservativism...and proved my point. You got your ass kicked over on your idiot thread and aren't even bright enough to know it.

 

[SSDD]

The sheer dishonesty it must have taken to post this is beyond any human measurement!

We have posted this information for you on a dozen threads - on each why you refuse to look at it.

Sure, you and yours have posted tons of information...but no actual evidence.

You know it and I know it.

Since you have no grasp of the science, I have no doubt that you don't realise that you have not posted any actual evidence of the greenhouse effect.

- rising temperatures

Temperatures have been rising for some 14,000 years now...exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?

- rising sea levels

Sea levels have risen over 100 feet in the past 14,000 years....exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?

- melting glaciers

14,000 years ago, glaciers covered most of the northern hemisphere and since then the ice has retreated almost 2,000 miles....exactly how is that evidence of either a greenhouse effect or AGW?

- increased frequency and severity of drought

False claim, although drought is nothing new on planet earth and proves neither a greenhouse effect or AGW.

- - increased frequency and severity of floods

Again, a false claim but since floods of varying frequency and intensity are part and parcel of the climate history of the world, floods neither prove a greenhouse effect or AGW

- - increased frequency and severity of particular storm types

Again, a false claim, but since storms of various frequencies and intensities are part and parcel of the climate history of the world, storms neither prove a greenhouse effect of AGW.

- - changing ocean pH and coral bleaching

The pH of the oceans are always changing and as such are neither proof of a greenhose effect or of AGW.

No one is arguing that the climate on planet earth is changing siagon...it is, and has always been changing. But pointing to things that have always happened neither prove a greenhouse effect, or AGW.

Since you apparently don't have a clue as to what constitutes proof of a claim, let me show you. Here is some experimental evidence of the ideal gas laws. They show experimental results that are predicted by the ideal gas laws. The observed results prove the accuracy of the ideal gas laws. They constitute evidence of the ideal gas laws. Show me some such proof of either the greenhouse effect or AGW.

Gas Laws: Ideal Gas Law and the Gas Constant
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Fall04/phy2053c/labs/gaslaw.PDF
PASCO : Chemistry : Experiments : Online : Ideal Gas Law
Virtual Laboratory: Ideal Gas Law

 

[Saigon]

You lie every time you post, don't you. Why is that? I said that fascism is socialism and all socialism is to the left of conservativism...and proved my point. You got your ass kicked over on your idiot thread and aren't even bright enough to know it.

Actually, no, you claimed that left wing and right wing both referred to liberalism (you also claimed both referred to socialism in another quote), and that conservatism belonged to neither wing.

I can post the quotes for you if you like...it's interesting that you deny saying them, isn't it?

btw, Evidence of all the aspects of climate change listed here have been presented many, many times. I'm happy to provide them again if anyone missed them.

 

[SSDD]

My meltdown? You're the one who was made to look like an absolute moron. I love how you try and rewrite history there junior. Goebbels would be proud of you. You follow his model perfectly....unfortunately for you he was a lot smarter than you.

Very sad when someone gets their ass kicked as soundly as he did on that thread and still they either don't know it or attempt to bluster the ass kicking away. You have to just shake your head at the abject intellectual poverty of people like that.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, no, you claimed that left wing and right wing both referred to liberalism (you also claimed both referred to socialism in another quote), and that conservatism belonged to neither wing.

Again with the wings...wings of the same house you poor cretin. Try looking up the definition of the word wing....wings constitute parts of the same structure....ie socialism. Conservatism isn't to be found in that house.

Why do you guys try so hard to distance yourselves from hitler whose killing was paltry in comparison to the other socialist biggies...he was no more totalitarian than stalin, lenin, mao, or pol pot....was it the racism? You are still racist today with your affirmitive action and such programs...why try and distance yourself from one of your own?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

The thread on Hitler is one of the most interesting and intriguing threads I've ever seen anyway. It was magnetic for many posters, it seems.

At the end it seemed there were about 5 posters who really struggled to understand why fascism is so irrevocably linked by historians to the right, of which you were quite clearly the poster most lost, because you do not understand what any of the terms involved actually mean. It was good to see quite a number of conservatism posters posting good material and by and large almost everyone agreed, I think.

Unusually, I do think 2 or 3 of the 5 posters mentioned were able to at least considering the facts by the end of the thread, though none were about to admit so publically. But hopefully they will now go off and do some reading and get up to speed.