H2O vs. CO2 Yet another observation the AGW Cult will ignore

[Dagosa]

do CO2 molecules get hotter than what they absorb? Does the CO2 absorb a hotter IR than what the surface radiates? How does that work exactly?

I posted a reference twice explaining everything. Now you’re trolling someone else. Get a life.

 

[jc456]

Cop out….

Way to go

 

[jc456]

I posted a reference twice explaining everything. Now you’re trolling someone else. Get a life.

Still making shit up. Post #

 

[Dagosa]

Still making shit up. Post #

Post 257....was the second one.

 

[jc456]

Post 257....was the second one.

Post the paragraph that says co2 gets hotter than the surface?

 

[Dagosa]

Post the paragraph that says co2 gets hotter than the surface?

Read it. Don’t be useless pOS troll. Everything is explained in easy to understand terms. Dufus, you can’t say that any particular surface area in general is hotter or cooler than the CO2 in the atmosphere. It depends upon the surface content. You make stupid general statements with no attention to the science involved. Read it bubba.

 

[EMH]

with no attention to the science involved.

There is "the science" again.

Science starts with theory and test theory with data. Your theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 will warm the atmosphere. We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Science says, during a period of rising Co2....

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"

Gotta love the word "suggested" in there. You woke up, checked the outside thermometer, and it SUGGESTED it was 57 degrees outside.... but you really need a taxpayer funded climate "scientist" to see if ORBIT WOBBLE justifies marking it up to 75F....


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."

No conflict of interest there. Admit the highly correlated satellite and balloon data is accurate = THEORY REJECTED, lose job, file for unemployment...


"The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles."

Unreal. And then "the science" fudged the data and suggested there was "warming" because of ORBIT WOBBLE when the actual data had NO WARMING....

 

[Dagosa]

There is "the science" again.

Science starts with theory and test theory with data. Your theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 will warm the atmosphere. We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Science says, during a period of rising Co2....

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"

Gotta love the word "suggested" in there. You woke up, checked the outside thermometer, and it SUGGESTED it was 57 degrees outside.... but you really need a taxpayer funded climate "scientist" to see if ORBIT WOBBLE justifies marking it up to 75F....


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."

No conflict of interest there. Admit the highly correlated satellite and balloon data is accurate = THEORY REJECTED, lose job, file for unemployment...


"The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles."

Unreal. And then "the science" fudged the data and suggested there was "warming" because of ORBIT WOBBLE when the actual data had NO WARMING....

Total BS. I referenced a reliable source that practices climate science in an accredited science research institute that agrees with every other climate science institute in the world. You are saying you know mare then every other climate science institute in the world. You are full of shit and blowing smoke up everyones @$$.

 

[Dagosa]

Unreal. And then "the science" fudged the data

What bullshit. You aren’t that smart.

 

[Dagosa]

There is "the science" again.

Science starts with theory and test theory with data. Your theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 will warm the atmosphere. We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Science says, during a period of rising Co2....

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"

Gotta love the word "suggested" in there. You woke up, checked the outside thermometer, and it SUGGESTED it was 57 degrees outside.... but you really need a taxpayer funded climate "scientist" to see if ORBIT WOBBLE justifies marking it up to 75F....


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."

No conflict of interest there. Admit the highly correlated satellite and balloon data is accurate = THEORY REJECTED, lose job, file for unemployment...


"The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles."

Unreal. And then "the science" fudged the data and suggested there was "warming" because of ORBIT WOBBLE when the actual data had NO WARMING....

Boy, you are stupid. You can’t even read your own reference. How dumb are YOU. Even the title says it all.
IGNORAMUS , it doesn’t say science or the data is wrong, your own reference says THE SKEPTICS ARE WRONG.
Read it dumbo. It was faulty analysis by you bozos.
“For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.”
Go ahead , read it again....you never did the first time did you. You can’t read !!

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[EMH]

Boy, you are stupid. You can’t even read your own reference. How dumb are YOU. Even the title says it all.
IGNORAMUS , it doesn’t say science or the data is wrong, your own reference says THE SKEPTICS ARE WRONG.
Read it dumbo. It was faulty analysis by you bozos.
“For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.”
Go ahead , read it again....you never did the first time did you. You can’t read !!

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL!!!


DATA vs FUDGE.

Morons who believe in Co2 fraud have never understood the difference....

The "warming" in the atmosphere does not exist in reality, but only in fudge done by completely conflicted liars...

 

[EMH]

I referenced a reliable source that practices climate science

You referenced a source that is dependent on morons like you not understanding the difference between data and fudge, because without morons like you, the Co2 fraud would've died decades ago.

 

[jc456]

There is "the science" again.

Science starts with theory and test theory with data. Your theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 will warm the atmosphere. We have two and only two measures of atmospheric temps, satellites and balloons....

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

Science says, during a period of rising Co2....

"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling"

Gotta love the word "suggested" in there. You woke up, checked the outside thermometer, and it SUGGESTED it was 57 degrees outside.... but you really need a taxpayer funded climate "scientist" to see if ORBIT WOBBLE justifies marking it up to 75F....


"Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."

No conflict of interest there. Admit the highly correlated satellite and balloon data is accurate = THEORY REJECTED, lose job, file for unemployment...


"The Alabama researchers introduced a correction factor to account for drifting in the satellites used to sample Earth's daily temperature cycles."

Unreal. And then "the science" fudged the data and suggested there was "warming" because of ORBIT WOBBLE when the actual data had NO WARMING....

again, two co2 molecules cannot make either hotter than they are. They cool off. Doesn't matter how many molecules are added.

 

[EMH]

again, two co2 molecules cannot make either hotter than they are. They cool off. Doesn't matter how many molecules are added.

All molecules in the atmosphere release energy when the Sun is on the other side. That is why it gets colder as night continues hour by hour...

They will lie about Co2 this and that all they want.

They cannot even explain a map of the Arctic....

 

[jc456]

All molecules in the atmosphere release energy when the Sun is on the other side. That is why it gets colder as night continues hour by hour...

They will lie about Co2 this and that all they want.

They cannot even explain a map of the Arctic....

well they think that 2 CO2 molecules can make each other hotter. haahhahahaahhahaahahahah

 

[EMH]

well they think that 2 CO2 molecules can make each other hotter. haahhahahaahhahaahahahah

and they think Antarctic glaciers are about to "slide off into the oceans," never mind they are already BELOW SEA LEVEL...

And some insist that in the state of FLA, nobody ever uses the word


CANES

 

[jc456]

well they think that 2 CO2 molecules can make each other hotter. haahhahahaahhahaahahahah

And, the more that are added increase that nothing to increased nothing.

 

[Dagosa]

well they think that 2 CO2 molecules can make each other hotter. haahhahahaahhahaahahahah

You’re smarter then ChemEngineer, another troll ?

 

[Dagosa]

Water vapor is a more powerful GHG that CO2. H2O is Mike Tyson and CO2 is Woody Allen

The "theory" of Manmade Global Climate Warming Change is that the relatively recent CO2 increase from 280 to 420PPM will cause an extinction level event rivaled by the dinosaur killing asteroid. "

But..."Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat." Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

If H2O is more powerful where are the studies showing H2O back in 1850? What are they today? Does an additional 100PPM H2O raise temperature more that CO2

More woo woo !

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let me explain what's happening here Low IQ Sukka Butt.
If it was just me and Frank.. the thread would be over/have been over weeks ago.

He's got no place to go without EMPTY third party chat to get him OFF the page and keep the thread going.
You're his helper who thinks he's rebutting anything with your ONE LINE objections and chit/shlt-chat with jc456.
and you OCD humor/answer every post that IN FACT PROMOTES this Thread start/Title and Keeps this Losing headline/Billboard going. You're an addict.
YOU are Frank's Bltch.
`

Serious question, are you on drugs?