Global Warming Deniers, discuss your theories here!

[flacaltenn]

If the sun did not exist, what would the surface air temperature of the Earth be?

Chicken little dumbasses are too ******* stupid to even fathom that.

Stupid statement, the Sun's irradiance hasn't changed any.

Sure thing junior. Sure thing..

Total Solar Irradiance fluctuates between a 0.5 watt per square meter amount between roughly 1,364 and 1,365 watts per square meter.

LOL you people are really...really stupid.

No -- actually you haven't read enough. Thats the cyclical 11 yr cycle that you're quoting. That's not what causes solar min and maxes. I SWEAR I posted this for you last time -- but in case I didn't ---

Don't ask me where I got this. EDUCATE yourself.. Before you embarass yourself with deniers that actually a bit of the science. Source of the study is in the graph. Come back when you SEE the diff between counting sun spots in 11 year cycles and TRUE TOTAL solar output variation..

 

[flacaltenn]

You appear to be as good at math as mann is... which is to say pretty ******* pathetic!

Better than you. .25 is 1/16th of 4.

.25 is the deviation from the mean of a 0.5 fluctuation.

0.5 watts (min to max) is a very small change compared to 1,365 watts.

You are a shit soaked PMS rag.

Not even close silly person. I do have a question though... are you frothing at the mouth as you fling your poo? Just wondering.... Here is a simple question. Does the Sun control global temp or does CO2?

GO!

Your question is stupid. The Sun contributes an EXTRAORDINARILY STEADY 1,365 watts per square meter to the Earth's energy budget.

CO2 adds 4 watts per square meter for every 250 ppm.

Why do you hate science you buttfucking Holocaust denier?

What mechanism does CO2 use to add that "massive" 4 watts? How exactly does it do its magic?

It absorbs long wave radiation rather than allowing it to radiate back into space. Do you deny this reality?

You're missing an important point.. I think you''re referring to the forcing change for a CO2 doubling . What you're NEGLECTING is that we have not even reached the FIRST doubling since pre-industrial times. And I KNOW for a FACT -- I;'ve been over that with you a week or so ago when I told you that a DOUBLING of CO2 ends up with a surface equilibrium change of about 1.1degC.

So there's not BEEN a 4W/m2 change in forcing and the TSI chart I just showed you accounts for maybe 40% of the observed warming., The CO2 MIGHT account for a similar amount.

But the deal is ---

A) A 1.1degC surface change is NOT the catastrophic GW theory that got this pony ride started. There were all KINDS of exaggerated shit tacked on about speculated accelerations and positive feedbacks. NONE of that is "settled science". And if we GOT to 4W/m2 --- it would never make the front page.

B) We do not KNOW what the natural climate variation WAS for the last Millions of years because tree rings and mud bug shells are NOT THERMOMETERS and they are incapable of measuring short transient warm-ups like the one we've seen since 1700s.

So you need to swap into a dry pair of knickers and come back and tell me sanely and clearly why you're pissy and panicked about this 0.6degC change in your lifetime.. .

 

[ScienceRocks]

2 decade pause is the new warming

Looking at the past 4 years I could of been fooled.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.

Current Conditions | U.S Drought Portal

For the last several decades, every decade the snows come later in the fall, and melt off earlier in the spring. The forests are being devastated by the failure of cold enough winters to kill the parasites that feed on the trees. The warmer and dryer conditions have led to years like 2015 that have had devastating wild fires, fires that actually threatened cities and towns.

Propaganda.

Who would believe such foolishness?

The fact that you think science is propaganda shows the depth of who you're. Sad.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.

Hint:

Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.

Liar.

Anyone who claims that solar output does not affect the Earth's temperature is a complete moron.

It hasn't raised overall since the 50's. When considering the decadal trend in solar flex.

So it can't be the reason for any warming the past 40 years.

 

[gipper]

Yep, I can state where it has become warmer, the whole of the west coast.

Current Conditions | U.S Drought Portal

For the last several decades, every decade the snows come later in the fall, and melt off earlier in the spring. The forests are being devastated by the failure of cold enough winters to kill the parasites that feed on the trees. The warmer and dryer conditions have led to years like 2015 that have had devastating wild fires, fires that actually threatened cities and towns.

Propaganda.

Who would believe such foolishness?

The fact that you think science is propaganda shows the depth of who you're. Sad.

The fact that you think propaganda is science shows how easily the elites can dupe you. Sad but when you grow up and hopefully mature into a thinking adult, you will realize what a dumb ass you where.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thread is another prime example of how progressives who gravitate to the AGW alarmist theories don't connect the dots on this stuff.

They continue to think this is a debate about the science........


The science isn't mattering in the real world!! Anybody with even marginal ability to connect the dots can see it. Its not even debatable.

In 2016, nobody is caring about global warming.....and that's after 20+ years of bomb throwing by the alarmist k00ks with full media support............

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-priorities_1.jpg.html][/URL]


These polls by Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen have shown a steady decline since 2009!! Lower.................lower....................lower.( check the records yourselves s0ns). Nobody is caring........yet these bozos still think the debate is about the science, yuk, yuk!!The jarheads think that they are going to change the landscape on the thinking from nether-regions of the internet........been doing it for 20 years now.........but renewable energy is still beyond laughable and still a decidedly fringe energy!!

And we've been hearing about the 97% for how long????





Ummm...........who's not winning?



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20gif.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2 decade pause is the new warming

Looking at the past 4 years I could of been fooled.

Clearly.

 

[flacaltenn]

Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.

Hint:

Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.

Liar.

Anyone who claims that solar output does not affect the Earth's temperature is a complete moron.

It hasn't raised overall since the 50's. When considering the decadal trend in solar flex.

So it can't be the reason for any warming the past 40 years.

So -- Matthew. I just told you WHY sunspot counts are NOT measures of TSI and you go and post data based on sunspot counts. Are you even analyzing any of this stuff? Sunspots are a proxy for solar activity. But there is no actual measurement of radiant flux. So by NATURE --- they will produce curves for TSI with NO LONG TERM TRENDS. And Solar TSI (long term average) shouldn't change much over 40 or 50 years. But a relative MAXIMUM of TSI can CONTINUE to heat the Earth -- even if doesn't increase during the period if storage mechanisms are present.

 

[LaDexter]

The fact that you think science is propaganda

FRAUD is not science.

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you are a science invalid who knows precisely nothing about Earth climate change.

 

[Crick]

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you are a science invalid who knows precisely nothing about Earth climate change.

The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.

 

[jc456]

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If you cannot answer that question, you are a science invalid who knows precisely nothing about Earth climate change.

The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.

So crick, does CO2 melt ice?

 

[Crick]

As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:

Now if you don't understand what that means, we're perfectly williing to explain it to you. Just say the word.

 

[jc456]

As you've been told over and over and over again jc, CO2 does this:

Now if you don't understand what that means, we're perfectly williing to explain it to you. Just say the word.

explain it to me, your words.

 

[Crick]

CO2 absorbs and retransmits the frequencies of light indicated in the graphic. The Earth, warmed by the light from the sun, transmits an infrared spectrum shown on the upper right. Much of that IR light is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor and CO2. That light is continuously absorbed and retreansmitted, effectively slowing its eventual escape to space. The upper stratosphere has virtually NO water vapor but contains the same CO2 fraction as found close to the surface. At that point, where IR energy finally escapes the planet's atmosphere, it is the level of CO2 that determines the rate.

I repeat an analogy. I have a large water tank into which water pours at a fixed rate. Water can leave the tank through one exit, a pipe mounted at the tank's bottom with a valve. The rate at which water exits the tank is controlled by two things: the depth of the water in the tank (and thus the pressure it produces at the drain) and the setting of that valve. Let's begin with the drain valve wide open. Water builds up in the tank until the water's depth produces sufficient pressure to produce a flow rate in the drain equal to the flow rate of the water pouring in. We are at equilibrium. The level of water in the tank is now stable. Now, close the valve slightly. The rate of flow out the drain is decreased. The water level in the tank rises. Eventually, it rises enough that the increased pressure at the drain drives the flow to once again match the the incoming rate. Equilibrium - now at a greater tank depth - has been achieved.

Does that make sense?

 

[jc456]

CO2 absorbs and retransmits the frequencies of light indicated in the graphic. The Earth, warmed by the light from the sun, transmits an infrared spectrum shown on the upper right. Much of that IR light is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere, primarily water vapor and CO2. That light is continuously absorbed and retreansmitted, effectively slowing its eventual escape to space. The upper stratosphere has virtually NO water vapor but contains the same CO2 fraction as found close to the surface. At that point, where IR energy finally escapes the planet's atmosphere, it is the level of CO2 that determines the rate.

I repeat an analogy. I have a large water tank into which water pours at a fixed rate. Water can leave the tank through one exit, a pipe mounted at the tank's bottom with a valve. The rate at which water exits the tank is controlled by two things: the depth of the water in the tank (and thus the pressure it produces at the drain) and the setting of that valve. Let's begin with the drain valve wide open. Water builds up in the tank until the water's depth produces sufficient pressure to produce a flow rate in the drain equal to the flow rate of the water pouring in. We are at equilibrium. The level of water in the tank is now stable. Now, close the valve slightly. The rate of flow out the drain is decreased. The water level in the tank rises. Eventually, it rises enough that the increased pressure at the drain drives the flow to once again match the the incoming rate. Equilibrium - now at a greater tank depth - has been achieved.

Does that make sense?

I don't see how that explains the graphs you provided. I mean I can see blue, I see red, then i see grey and white and all kinds of different components. you didn't identify any of what the graphs show.

Your analogy is useless.

 

[LaDexter]

The fact that you keep repeating that stupid question months after it was answered by everyone tells us that YOU know nothing about science in general or climate science in particular.

Your side HATES that question, censors it all over the web and on TV. Not even Fox News will ask it...

LOL!!!

That question leads to the correct answer, that the tectonic plate movement drives Earth climate change, a truth that should make you another unemployed person in Obama's economy...

 

[LaDexter]

OK, crick, what percentage of sunlight (em spectrum) ENERGY is from IR??

More than UV?

More than the rest of the spectrum summed together??

LOL!!!

IR is low level energy as part of the EM spectrum, which is why "absorbing it" doesn't warm jack...

 

[PredFan]

Discuss your theories why the Earth is warming here.

Hint:

Volcanoes, Solar output, and Earth Orbit have already been DISPROVEN.

It's the sun stupid!

/THREAD