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.
jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Blah blah blahblah
and still no lab work
So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.
Computer models? You mean the kind those non thinking scientific clowns designed? Got it!No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory." Period. Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models. EVERYTHING. Come back when you actually have some real data.
You do know what "data" is...right?
hey Polly, 1901 Herr Koch go find it!jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Blah blah blahblah
and still no lab work
Perhaps if you presented the lab work that you have done, and the documentation, it would lend you a little credibility, and you wouldn't sound so much like an idiot trying to horn in on a conversation that you are clearly not qualified to interrupt.
Computer models? You mean the kind those non thinking scientific clowns designed? Got it!No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory." Period. Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models. EVERYTHING. Come back when you actually have some real data.
You do know what "data" is...right?
qualify? QUALIFY? You used that word on here where you are a Polly Parrot? Qualify?jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Blah blah blahblah
and still no lab work
Perhaps if you presented the lab work that you have done, and the documentation, it would lend you a little credibility, and you wouldn't sound so much like an idiot trying to horn in on a conversation that you are clearly not qualified to interrupt.
hey, more stupid, you certainly are a demanding little stupid. Just provide the experiment heir stup!So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.
Precisely who got 120 billion dollars?
Where did you get that figure?
Name names. Show the documentation. Support your claim. You can support it, right?
Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.
jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Blah blah blahblah
and still no lab work
Perhaps if you presented the lab work that you have done, and the documentation, it would lend you a little credibility, and you wouldn't sound so much like an idiot trying to horn in on a conversation that you are clearly not qualified to interrupt.
again, why must you post the most stupid stuff here? Let's see your credentials to even post something like this troll! Oh wait, you're just trolling, and you have nothing to submit for the thread. don't go away mad, just go away, you add absolutely nothing to the forum.Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.
Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?
Show your work idiot. Idiot.
You are correct. You used the word "view" , and I unfortunately took to mean the same thing as opinion. Please explain the difference. When do you think this silly discussion board became a repository of physical science research results?I don't recall asking or stating anything about your opinion. I stated that you were a lazy parroting left liberal who is unwilling to do research. Not sure how that gets me to stating you aren't allowed to have an opinion. So, since you are nothing but a useless parrot on a message board you can leave us to our discussions with those willing to do research.seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own. Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning. You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here. hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research. Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here. If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. byeOk. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?
First off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.
So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.
Of course I have an opinion. How many people do you know that doesn't? The constant claim is that all the supporters of global warming are being paid off. With such a claim, there should be some evidence. I haven't seen that yet. I don't know any more about the technicalities of climate science than the people parroting fox charts. and it's obvious they don't have the education to know what those few charts mean in light of all the other information available.
s0n, you ain't worth any more time!You are correct. You used the word "view" , and I unfortunately took to mean the same thing as opinion. Please explain the difference. When do you think this silly discussion board became a repository of physical science research results?I don't recall asking or stating anything about your opinion. I stated that you were a lazy parroting left liberal who is unwilling to do research. Not sure how that gets me to stating you aren't allowed to have an opinion. So, since you are nothing but a useless parrot on a message board you can leave us to our discussions with those willing to do research.seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own. Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning. You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here. hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research. Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here. If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. byeFirst off science isn't about OPINION. Science concerns itself with FACTS. When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know. Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.
So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted, and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.
Of course I have an opinion. How many people do you know that doesn't? The constant claim is that all the supporters of global warming are being paid off. With such a claim, there should be some evidence. I haven't seen that yet. I don't know any more about the technicalities of climate science than the people parroting fox charts. and it's obvious they don't have the education to know what those few charts mean in light of all the other information available.
Frank, he isn't worth anymore time.My theory is that these changes are natural and further CO2 lags temperature.
Prove it's not
well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.
No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.
Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot
LOL
You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!
Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.
All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that
Go back to drooling on yourself now
Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.
Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?
Show your work idiot. Idiot.
hey Polly, 1901 Herr Koch go find it!jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Blah blah blahblah
and still no lab work
Perhaps if you presented the lab work that you have done, and the documentation, it would lend you a little credibility, and you wouldn't sound so much like an idiot trying to horn in on a conversation that you are clearly not qualified to interrupt.
jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science. And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
Westwall said:Can you not read?
I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.
I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.
You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.
The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!
Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.
It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.
And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.
Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.
Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.
Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?
Show your work idiot. Idiot.
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?
Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.
well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts. Seems you have an issue with fox. go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks. go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go on now. scurry away. I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting. Love it. It points to their agenda immediately. you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week. Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid. You've been consistent with that.Well, it could be that, or perhaps billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.
Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot
LOL
You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!
Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.
All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that
Go back to drooling on yourself now
You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.
