Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[jon_berzerk]

Not only anti-science but anti-everything that has to do with science. Believe me we have the tools on mars to measure that mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner.

In such a atmosphere molecules can't hit each other to warm up the surface temperature....Still near the equator temperatures do get above freezing. The reports of temperatures up to 60f in rare cases...

so now it is the bumping of molecules that globally warms us

--LOL

yesterday it was the fire of a fireplace that cause heat to drawn to heat

--LOL

 

[SwimExpert]

If that 6 caused a chain reaction that caused nature to move 110ppm of co2 from the carbon sinks to the atmosphere. Does it really make that much of a difference?

Fanciful speculation, completely devoid of any scientific merit.

Brainless denial of reality, completely devoid of any intelligence or understanding of science. Very typical of ol' SwineExlax.

You don't even see what you did there, do you? Sad, so sad.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not only anti-science but anti-everything that has to do with science. Believe me we have the tools on mars to measure that mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner.

In such a atmosphere molecules can't hit each other to warm up the surface temperature....Still near the equator temperatures do get above freezing. The reports of temperatures up to 60f in rare cases...

so now it is the bumping of molecules that globally warms us

--LOL

yesterday it was the fire of a fireplace that cause heat to brawn to heat

--LOL

No idiot,

The molecules bump/run into each other and release energy causing the warming of the air. This has always happened. The closer together they're the more hits = the more the energy can be fault as temperature.

Co2 just reflects more energy back to the surface that would otherwise would escape to space.

Goddamn you conservatives are a joke!

 

[SwimExpert]

Co2 just reflects the more energy back to the surface....

And yet water is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Co2 just reflects the more energy back to the surface....

And yet water is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect.

Sure,

only very short term as the water cycle is a matter of days. If it wasn't for co2 water would slowly freeze out to land ice....So water being 75% is a feed back of co2.

 

[SwimExpert]

Co2 just reflects the more energy back to the surface....

And yet water is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse effect.

Sure,

only very short term as the water cycle is a matter of days. If it wasn't for co2 water would slowly freeze out to land ice....So water being 75% is a feed back of co2.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI0RoJz7Tno]Billy Madison - Best insult ever! I award you no points - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

Our planet would be -18c if not for the green house effect. Sun isn't powerful enough without the greenhouse effect at this distance. One of the videos of snowball earth was arguing this case I was watching last night...

co2 made the difference.

 

[polarbear]

But that's a really stupid thing to say. 280 ppm is keeping your ass and the asses of everyone else on this planet from freezing to death. This Arctic cold snap would be the weather in July.

That's a really stupid thing to day. The primary greeehouse gas in the atmosphere is water.

That's a really stupid thing to SAY. I never said CO2 was the only GREENHOUSE gas and the CO2 in the atmosphere is most certainly warming the planet.

You are one dumb ****..!
Just before Christmas you were arguing that a solar radiation increase of 1.5 watts/m^2 is not enough to account for "climate change".
This is from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC),
http://sidc.oma.be/

http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

1.6 watts/ m^2 s all the extra "global warming" wattage the MODTRAN will give you for the difference from 278 ppm CO2 and the 400 ppm CO2 we have now.


MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere

output for 278 ppm CO2 (pre-industrial) = 289.23 w/m^2 upward IR heat flux and for 400 ppm it`s 287.56 W/m^2

So now you are saying that an extra 1.6 W/m^2 from CO2 can raise the temperature at the same rate your sacred hockey-stick religion has it...???
But 1.5 more W/m^2 more solar can`t possibly do anything like that ???

Your hockey-stick religion gets even more ridiculous attributing a sharp rise in Temp. in just 10 decades to CO2 , considering that solar went up by 3.1 w/m^2 from what it has been 340 years ago.

None of you freaks are playing with a full deck, that`s for sure !

 

[westwall]

If the Greenhouse Effect is real, how can you say that man - who has irrefutably pumped billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has raised the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to in excess of 400 ppm - has had no effect?

Because man is not responsible for that increase. Man's contribution to the global CO2 budget is a paltry 5%. That means that of that 120 point increase, man is responsible for 6 of it. That's all. The rest is nature baby.

Retarded drivel - the walleyedretard's speciality.

Natural CO2 emissions get balanced by natural CO2 sequestration. Mankind's artificial "contributions" are on top of that natural balance. Both through analysis of the amount of fossil fuels being burned every year and through isotopic analysis of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, scientists have shown that mankind is responsible for the 43% increase in CO2 levels that has happened since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Then explain past times when the CO2 levels were far greater than today. How exactly did that happen? By your logic (albeit of a limited and amateurish nature) It could not have happened because man wasn't there to add his literal five cents.

 

[westwall]

Not only anti-science but anti-everything that has to do with science. Believe me we have the tools on mars to measure that mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner.

In such a atmosphere molecules can't hit each other to warm up the surface temperature....Still near the equator temperatures do get above freezing. The reports of temperatures up to 60f in rare cases...

Hmmmm. How then do those nasty CFC's do it in our likewise extraordinarily thin atmosphere at high altitude? See how that works.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is Heat?

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

The atoms and molecules in a gas are in constant motion. Temperature is a measure of the speed with which they move. (More exactly it is a measure of their kinetic energy.) The higher the temperature, the faster the molecules move.

The simulation at right shows an ensemble of identical atoms or molecules in a closed container. You can change the temperature of the gas using the scrollbar.

Move the scrollbar and see the effect that changes in temperature have on the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules.

Let me bring real science to the board

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://www.classzone.com/books/ml_s...05_pg101_kintheory/mem05_pg101_kintheory.html

Click this link and you will see that the molecules are moving fast. Well, within a dense atmosphere there's more of them and that causes them to strike each other more often....This creates warmer temperature.

mars has a thin atmosphere with very few molecules...Co2 can't warm the planet very well.

 

[polarbear]

http://www.classzone.com/books/ml_s...05_pg101_kintheory/mem05_pg101_kintheory.html

Click this link and you will see that the molecules are moving fast. Well, within a dense atmosphere there's more of them and that causes them to strike each other more often....This creates warmer temperature.

mars has a thin atmosphere with very few molecules...Co2 can't warm the planet very well.

You are one dumb **** !
And so is he:

But that's a really stupid thing to say. 280 ppm is keeping your ass and the asses of everyone else on this planet from freezing to death. This Arctic cold snap would be the weather in July.

That's a really stupid thing to day. The primary greeehouse gas in the atmosphere is water.

That's a really stupid thing to SAY. I never said CO2 was the only GREENHOUSE gas and the CO2 in the atmosphere is most certainly warming the planet.

Just before Christmas the same idiots were arguing that a solar radiation increase of 1.5 watts/m^2 is not enough to account for "climate change".
This is from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC),
SIDC - Solar Influences Data Center

http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610.gif

1.6 watts/ m^2 s all the extra "global warming" wattage the MODTRAN will give you for the difference from 278 ppm CO2 and the 400 ppm CO2 we have now.


MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere

output for 278 ppm CO2 (pre-industrial) = 289.23 w/m^2 upward IR heat flux and for 400 ppm it`s 287.56 W/m^2

So now you are saying that an extra 1.6 W/m^2 from CO2 can raise the temperature at the same rate your sacred hockey-stick religion has it...???
But 1.5 more W/m^2 more solar can`t possibly do anything like that ???

Your AGW religion gets even more ridiculous attributing a sharp rise in Temp. in just 10 decades to CO2 , considering that solar went up by 3.1 w/m^2 from what it has been 340 years ago.

None of you freaks are playing with a full deck, that`s for sure !
As for you, just keep on reading "physics for little kiddies"...you need it !
Did you figure out yet when winter starts or the difference between linear and non-linear ?

 

[SwimExpert]

What is Heat?

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

The atoms and molecules in a gas are in constant motion. Temperature is a measure of the speed with which they move. (More exactly it is a measure of their kinetic energy.) The higher the temperature, the faster the molecules move.

The simulation at right shows an ensemble of identical atoms or molecules in a closed container. You can change the temperature of the gas using the scrollbar.

Move the scrollbar and see the effect that changes in temperature have on the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules.

Let me bring real science to the board

*facepalm*

I don't think you even understand what you're copy/pasting.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You're the dumb **** as I posted some links from real scientist and people in the know.

Kiss my ass!

 

[ScienceRocks]

What is Heat?

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

The atoms and molecules in a gas are in constant motion. Temperature is a measure of the speed with which they move. (More exactly it is a measure of their kinetic energy.) The higher the temperature, the faster the molecules move.

The simulation at right shows an ensemble of identical atoms or molecules in a closed container. You can change the temperature of the gas using the scrollbar.

Move the scrollbar and see the effect that changes in temperature have on the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules.

Let me bring real science to the board

*facepalm*

I don't think you even understand what you're copy/pasting.

Really? Retard fool.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Stupid breeding more stupidity!!! This is how the tea party formed.

 

[SwimExpert]

What is Heat?

Temperature and Kinetic Energy

Temperature and Kinetic Energy



Let me bring real science to the board

*facepalm*

I don't think you even understand what you're copy/pasting.

Really?

Really.

 

[ScienceRocks]

*facepalm*

I don't think you even understand what you're copy/pasting.

Really?

Really.

You don't even have a clue about the subject. Temperature is speed of molecules and the reason mars is cold is because it has a thin atmosphere. A thin atmosphere has less molecules and they're further apart from each other which doesn't allow them to strike each other.

Hows that for understanding child? I've spent my life looking at science and discussing it. Who the **** are you?

 

[RollingThunder]

*facepalm*

I don't think you even understand what you're copy/pasting.

Really?

Really.

You silly retard. You don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground, SwineExlax.