the fact that we are allow more heat in is already bad
Ummm...how do we keep heat from getting in? Big umbrellas?
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.
the fact that we are allow more heat in is already bad
Ummm...how do we keep heat from getting in? Big umbrellas?
the fact that we are allow more heat in is already bad
Ummm...how do we keep heat from getting in? Big umbrellas?
There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.
Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?
Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:
1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earths temperature;
2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
You got a lot of nerve man.
I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW.
....
"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted"
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.
Yep, the article is biased. The data, however, proves that the Earth is losing more heat than climate models predict. That means that all the models that are predicated on the Earth retaining heat at a higher rate are actually wrong.
Yeah, but it's all they've got.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?
Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:
1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earths temperature;
2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
You got a lot of nerve man.
I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW.
....
And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.Yeah, but it's all they've got.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW.
....
And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.Yeah, but it's all they've got.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.
Seriously, it is all they have.
So the reason that less energy is going into space is because of the sun is putting less energy into the system, which could become OLR. RIGHT?
I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW. If you notice in the article, it doesn't say that energy isn't being trapped, just that the rate is slower than some expect. Well, that's really a go-hum conclusion, since AGW proponents aren't unanimous in their predictions of how fast warming is coming, anyway. Just that it's coming.
So the reason that less energy is going into space is because of the sun is putting less energy into the system, which could become OLR. RIGHT?
Don't forget that water vapor actually can absorb and store heat. The reason less energy is going into space than the models predict is that the models can't account for relative humidity across the globe. Tenberth can't find his missing heat because he has no clue that a fair amount of it is moving through the atmosphere trapped in water vapor. Of course it doesn't radiate down to earth, but it is still there.
Glad to see that you read the paper regarding the failure of current models to even attempt to model reality. Stands to reason that if you model a fantasy, the results that model will produce will reflect a fantasy doesn't it? I find it very interesting that if you model reality, a greenhouse effect is not necessary.
How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.
Yep, the article is biased. The data, however, proves that the Earth is losing more heat than climate models predict. That means that all the models that are predicated on the Earth retaining heat at a higher rate are actually wrong.
Maybe, because the very idea of the green house effect has been proven to be a crock of crap. Here is the math and the physics proving it. The DEBATE IS NOW OVER!!!! http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf
You can't go against a law of physics!
And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.Yeah, but it's all they've got.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.
Seriously, it is all they have.
Yes, I am still 'tooting that horn'. No matter how much you cry about it, equating correlation to causation is a logical fallacy.And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.Yeah, but it's all they've got.
Seriously, it is all they have.
LOL. Sis, you are still tooting that horn? What a fucking moron you are showing yourself to be. ....
I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
Not so much nerve as tunnel vision. You simply can't see the data, and real world observations that prove your hypothesis wrong.
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
Really? Show me some of that documentation. I have been asking for months and no one seems to be able to provide it, or anything like it. Rocks produces a piece of scripture that doesn't even start to prove anything and the rest of the congregation is no more helpful. If this property is so well documented, you should have no problem providing some of it and if you can't provide it, then that fact should clue you in to one of the problems with your hypothesis.
But nowhere near as high as at various times in history. Times in which we were in ice ages even. And the fact that CO2 concentrations are higher doesn't prove anything but CO2 concentrations are higher. That is not evidence that man is causing climate change.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
The trend has continued but the warming hasn't. CO2 concentrations keep rising but the heat doesn't. We have seen this before in paleohistory. CO2 doesn't drive the climate. It isn't even a back seat driver. CO2 is the fuzz on the carpet in the trunk as far as driving the climate goes.
That's the logic behind AGW. If you notice in the article, it doesn't say that energy isn't being trapped, just that the rate is slower than some expect. Well, that's really a go-hum conclusion, since AGW proponents aren't unanimous in their predictions of how fast warming is coming, anyway. Just that it's coming.
Water vapor traps energy, not CO2. The models don't account for water vapor. The models can't because relative humidity across the globe is to complex to model at this point in time. The heat being trapped is due to water vapor which isn't being modeled.
There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?
Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:
1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earths temperature;
2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
You got a lot of nerve man.
I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW.
....
Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!
The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
That's the logic behind AGW.
....
That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!
This is just a scream. Konnie and Crocks suddenly have their two favorite sources turn against them and shatter their foundations for their faith.Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.
That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!
Moron.
Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.
That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!
Moron.
This is just a scream. Konnie and Crocks suddenly have their two favorite sources turn against them and shatter their foundations for their faith.Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!
Moron.
But of course, it's just deniers spouting nonsense.