More losing for the k00ks...........
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005).
Dangerous business, rocks, for a hand wringing warmist, to start examining the paleoclimate. The unfortunate (for you) fact of the paleoclimate is that it supports the claim of CO2 driving the climate even less than it supports the CERN findings.
And where do you get the idiot idea that there is no evidence to support the CERN findings in the paleo record? Are you trying to claim that there is no period in the paleo record in which there were 314 months of consecutive warming? Show me some proof to support any such claim. Hell, in the past 50,000 years there are multiple time periods where temperatures rose more rapidly than the present for many years in a row. You want to claim that it didn't happen because there was no electronic sensor present to record the event?
More losing for the k00ks...........
WE know that the greenhouse effect can effect things as well.
You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.
We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.
We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.
No, actually, we do not know that.
We KNOW that the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses supposedly alter the climate can not be described in any terms that are supported or predicted by any law of physics.
You know...I think you're just wrong.
Science agrees that you're wrong.
But if you want to dismiss basic science, if that make you feel good about yourself and the masters to whom you feel allegiance, that is your right, of course.
But you're still wrong.
So your unsupported yap-yap goes. This is the real story;
A23A
A real scientist, with real arctic experiance, not a pretender like you.
Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........
Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?
Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.
We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.
We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.
No, actually, we do not know that.
Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.
We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.
We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.
No, actually, we do not know that.
You know, I keep hearing that. I keep hearing that we KNOW that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate. The fact is that we KNOW no such thing.
We KNOW that the hypothesis is that greenhouse gasses can alter the climate.
We KNOW that there is no observed, repeatable evidence to support the claim.
No, actually, we do not know that.
So describe the observed, repeatable evidence that supports the claim. If it is there, you should certainly have no problem pointing it out and I, for one, would be damned interested in seeing it.
Well hell, big guy, how about you just step on up to the plate and prove me wrong. I doubt that anyone other than you gives a tinkers damn about what you think. Step on up and describe which physical law supports, and predicts a greenhouse effect as promoted by AGW alarmists.
Then have your "science" provide you with an explanation of the physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect.
But if you want to dismiss basic science, if that make you feel good about yourself and the masters to whom you feel allegiance, that is your right, of course.
Climate science doesn't do basic science. They skip right past all those pesky laws of science and write simulations that ignore them completely then simply accept the output of their terribly flawed simulations as if they were actual data. It is the basic science, the laws of physics and the chemical facts of GHG molecules that dispute and disprove the claims of AGW alarmists.
But you're still wrong.
So step on up and prove it. Prove it at the foundation. Which pysical law supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by AGW alarmists?
Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........
Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?
Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........
Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?
Time for a little science lesson. First, when it comes to the cores they do not know an "exact age." What they have is an estimate based on either depth vs. historical precipiation dating, or carbon14 dating of any organic material found in the core. This is nowhwere near the "Exact date, even down to a single year. At best they have accuracies in the decade/century range.
Second, while they anaylse the content of the air bubble right now, they have to take into account things like diffusion of gasses through the ice, which could or could not be negligble. The relationship between the air now and the air when it was entrapped is not a hard fact, but an inferred value based upon assumptions of time vs. diffusion.
Scientists can take bubbles out of the Antarctic ice and get a very good record of what the earth's atmosphere was for as long as there has been ice at the south pole. They can get the exact age and know what the atmosphere was made of for hundreds of thousands of years.
It's just a huge coincidence the earth's atmosphere mirrors the times the earth's temperature increased or decreased over and over and over and over........
Hey, didn't "comic rays" make the Fantastic Four?
Time for a little science lesson. First, when it comes to the cores they do not know an "exact age." What they have is an estimate based on either depth vs. historical precipiation dating, or carbon14 dating of any organic material found in the core. This is nowhwere near the "Exact date, even down to a single year. At best they have accuracies in the decade/century range.
Second, while they anaylse the content of the air bubble right now, they have to take into account things like diffusion of gasses through the ice, which could or could not be negligble. The relationship between the air now and the air when it was entrapped is not a hard fact, but an inferred value based upon assumptions of time vs. diffusion.
No one claims that it can determine an "exact date", so while interesting that fact doesn't tell us much. Also, the scientists studing bubbles in ice are quite aware of diffusion and take that into account. Why does it always come down to "scientists are screwing up", when those criticizing them usually don't know a tenth of what those they're criticizing do?
Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.
CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.
"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
.
.
.
.
CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.
"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."
Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times
Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?No, actually, we do not know that.
The proof that GHGs can absorb IR is a SIMPLE experiment. Anyone with a specrophotometer can do it. Since there's a principle called Conservation of Energy, where does that energy go, if not to keep heat on earth? Now it's your turn to answer a question. BTW, statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space. What would the other half be doing?
On the planet Earth. Repeatedly.
Methane & Climate — OSS Foundation
There is increasing evidence that the major extinctions of the past several hundreds of millions of years are associated with long lived events following major tectonic disturbances that result in release of greenhouse gases, with associated global warming, ocean anoxia etc.
For example the early Jurassic extinction is associated with events (greenhouse gas induced warming) lasting 200,000 years. Likewise comprehensive analyses shows a coincidence of major tectonic events, and resulting elevation of greenhouse gas levels, are associated with several of the major extinctions of the last 300 million years. Note that CO2 isnt the only player. Methane is implicated in several of these events (see especially the PETM below) and sulphurous oxides and their effects on ocean acidity and oxygen content are also implicated.
Greenhouse environments are associated with the very delayed (millions of years) recovery of biota following these extinctions.
. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.
So what is going with this greenhouse??
All of it.