Global warming, my ass!

[abu afak]

How much lab work was done on tobacco? Lots

How much lab work was done on manmade global climate warming change? None

They have done Both lab and field work on GW/AGW...
and there is still no proven mechanism for Smoking causing Lung Cancer. Just it happens alot/high corrleation.
Plenty for a Warning even more than 20 years ago.

The debates were similar, with Tobacco execs/'scientists'/deniers claiming there was just correlation... correctly.

It's a surer bet Greenhouse Gases cause warming (by definition) than tobacco causes Lung Cncer.
`

 

[cnm]

Science has lab work, cults have consensus

In which case, according to rightard dumb fuck 'thinking', as no lab work has been done on black holes they are a figment of a cult.

 

[cnm]

I wonder where rightard dumb fucks imagine the core samples of ice get analysed for CO2. In lumber yards, maybe?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science has lab work, cults have consensus

In which case, according to rightard dumb fuck 'thinking', as no lab work has been done on black holes they are a figment of a cult.

CERN has actually done the lab work and created a mini balck hole. Your AGW Cult avoids the lab like Dracula avoids sunrise and for the same reason, it will melt you

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I wonder where rightard dumb fucks imagine the core samples of ice get analysed for CO2. In lumber yards, maybe?

You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?

The lab seems unkind to your Moonbat "theory"

 

[cnm]

CERN has actually done the lab work and created a mini balck hole

Really? Link?

 

[cnm]

You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?

What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?

 

[cnm]

I think this might be from where dumb fuck rightards get their science...

CERN admits black hole ripped in space by Large Hadron Collider

 

[cnm]

The lab seems unkind to your Moonbat "theory"

The theory of greenhouse gases?

Are you saying it is false and the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?

Really?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?

What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?

No, that's not the lab work that tests for changes in temperature controlling for a 120ppm increase in CO2.

Do you happen to have that handy?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How much lab work was done on tobacco? Lots

How much lab work was done on manmade global climate warming change? None

They have done Both lab and field work on GW/AGW...
and there is still no proven mechanism for Smoking causing Lung Cancer. Just it happens alot/high corrleation.
Plenty for a Warning even more than 20 years ago.

The debates were similar, with Tobacco execs/'scientists'/deniers claiming there was just correlation... correctly.

It's a surer bet Greenhouse Gases cause warming (by definition) than tobacco causes Lung Cncer.
`

Plenty for a Warning even more than 20 years ago.


Say what? Prove it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You mean the ice cores that show how increases and decreases in CO2 lags corresponding increases and decreases in temperature by 1,000 years?

What's this? Are you now saying lab work for AGW has been done?

What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?

 

[cnm]

What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?

What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?

But you haven't given the link to the CERN lab work which you say validates the existence of black holes that are otherwise the figment of a cult. Reality got your tongue?

That was rhetorical. Really I know you are playing 'Invincible Ignorance' where no answer is satisfactory, the default position of rightard dumb fuck AGW deniers.

This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.

Go to it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?

What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?

But you haven't given the link to the CERN lab work which you say validates the existence of black holes that are otherwise the figment of a cult. Reality got your tongue?

That was rhetorical. Really I know you are playing 'Invincible Ignorance' where no answer is satisfactory, the default position of rightard dumb fuck AGW deniers.

This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.

Go to it.

Lab experiments try to limit condition to a single variable which in the case of AGW would be varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm to test for effect on temperature.

Get to it

 

[Sunsettommy]

I wonder where rightard dumb fucks imagine the core samples of ice get analysed for CO2. In lumber yards, maybe?

He is asking for lab work in support of the AGW conjecture, you came up with ice core samples for CO2.

This is why warmists fail so often in debates, since they can't go beyond the climate models stage.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What was the controlled experiment in this imaginary "lab work"?

What? Measuring CO2 in ice cores is 'imaginary'?

But you haven't given the link to the CERN lab work which you say validates the existence of black holes that are otherwise the figment of a cult. Reality got your tongue?

That was rhetorical. Really I know you are playing 'Invincible Ignorance' where no answer is satisfactory, the default position of rightard dumb fuck AGW deniers.

This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.

Go to it.

Lab experiments try to limit condition to a single variable which in the case of AGW would be varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm to test for effect on temperature.

Get to it

It will never happen as they have yet to go beyond modeling stage into a working hypothesis.

Their climate model failures are getting in the way.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.

Your 'green house' gas theory is crap... Please show where any of the theory has been proven correct and the links made with empirical evidence.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is shown by your refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory.

Your 'green house' gas theory is crap... Please show where any of the theory has been proven correct and the links made with empirical evidence.

He has no idea what the AGW conjecture is about.

 

[expat_panama]

...refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory...

Maybe we can pause to agree on terms. Let's say we're talking about the "greenhouse effect"--

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) they will radiate energy in all directions.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia​

--and if we went with that definition we'd have to say that virtually all atmospheric constiuants are 'radiatively active gases' to one degree or another. From there we could agree on how such an effect goes, but my bet is that none of us dispute the existence of the effect

 

[Billy_Bob]

...refusal to address the basic greenhouse gas theory...

Maybe we can pause to agree on terms. Let's say we're talking about the "greenhouse effect"--

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) they will radiate energy in all directions.

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia
Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia​

--and if we went with that definition we'd have to say that virtually all atmospheric constiuants are 'radiatively active gases' to one degree or another. From there we could agree on how such an effect goes, but my bet is that none of us dispute the existence of the effect

You simply described MASS, nothing more. The mass of the atmosphere will slow energy release.

This is why wiki is bad source for most everything.