Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[jc456]

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the **** a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

you aren't the brightest bulb I see. you said floating melting ice. now does floating ice melting raise water levels. it was a test to see how stupid you really are.

Then I guess it means nothing.

so you won't answer what happens to water levels when floating ice melts? hmmmmm, I guess that's the smart thing to do since you don't know the answer.

 

[Flopper]

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the **** a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

you aren't the brightest bulb I see. you said floating melting ice. now does floating ice melting raise water levels. it was a test to see how stupid you really are.

Then I guess it means nothing.

so you won't answer what happens to water levels when floating ice melts? hmmmmm, I guess that's the smart thing to do since you don't know the answer.

A melting ice cube in a glass of water has nothing to do with AGW nor is it analogous to changes ocean level.

The water level remains the same when the ice cube melts. A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water.

 

[SSDD]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..

 

[SSDD]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

so, when you have a glass of ice, fill that glass with liquid, and the ice then melts, how bad is the spill?

An ice cube melting in a glass of water is not analogous to what is happening in our oceans. The two major causes of global sea level rise are:

• Thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean since water expands as it warms.
• Increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. Freshwater is not as dense as saltwater. Freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water.

Is sea level rising?
Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level | National Snow and Ice Data Center

And can you provide any real evidence that what we are seeing is anything other than natural variability? Any observed, measured, quantifiable evidence?

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect was demonstrated more 150 years ago.

Actually, it wasn't, but I suppose you can't be blamed for believing the fiction...It was demonstrated with a glass greenhouse...professor Woods soon after did the experiment using panes of salt which are transparent to IR and demonstrated that the hypothesized greenhouse effect was false.

In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation reflected back into atmosphere from the earth.

The improvements were adding cooling to the instruments so that they were cooled to temperatures lower than that of the atmosphere.. They were not measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth which would have been a violation of the second law of thermodynamics...they were measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...set an uncooled instrument right next to the cooled one and it will not be reading any discrete wavelengths of energy from anything that is cooler than itself.

At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation.

Actually, it was hypothesized...nothing more...and eventually computer models demonstrated it although it has never been actually measured out here in the real world...Like I said...there is not one single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas, and warming in the atmosphere.

There is, however, about a million hours of experiment, development, testing, and commercial and residential application by the infrared heating industry that prove pretty convincingly that infrared radiation does not, can not, and never has warmed the air. Leave it to engineers to not believe in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and get to work at actually seeing how things are in the real world.

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming.

And then NASA launched the OCO-2 satellite and rendered all those land based measurements claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere false...CO2 is not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise.

The latter part of the 20th century saw the sun at its most active in over 200 years...one would expect warming under such conditions...

Bottom line....not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...not a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses, and not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...absent those things...what exactly might the claimed consensus be based on?

 

[SSDD]

As I said, the two factors which cause the global rise in sea level are increasing temperature of the oceans and melting freshwater glaciers.

the oceans are cooling and glaciers are growing..

Didn't whoever gives you your opinion tell you that?

 

[Flopper]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..

As I said, you guys could be witnessing world wide coastal flooding, high global temperatures, and complete disappearance of arctic ice all evidence of global warming and predicted by scientist and you would still be denying AGW. I know, it happen 10 million years ago, so it's a natural event or it's an act of God.

I've wasted enough time on this thread.

 

[SSDD]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..

As I said, you guys could be witnessing world wide coastal flooding, high global temperatures, and complete disappearance of arctic ice all evidence of global warming and predicted by scientist and you would still be denying AGW. I know, it happen 10 million years ago, so it's a natural event or it's an act of God.

I've wasted enough time on this thread.

Yep..if you can't learn anything, then it is indeed a waste of time...warming, melting ice, flooding, whatever you care to mention is only evidence of warming, melting ice, flooding and whatever...it isn't evidence of what caused it.....simply assuming that it is us, is political, not scientific ..

And actually, it happened a lot less than 10 million years ago...most of the past 10,000 years except for the little ice age have seen very nearly or completely ice free summers...

You keep wanting to ignore the fact that there is a hell of a lot more ice now than there has been at any time during the past 10,000 years except for the period of the little ice age...

 

[Slyhunter]

dude, why are you worried about the arctic melting then? you mentioned it, not me. come on genius, light us up!

again, if ice is floating, will it cause a spill in the glass of liquid? you seem to keep going back there. Melting of floating ice. hmmmmm.

Please explain what the **** a melting ice cube in a glass of water has to with anything.

you aren't the brightest bulb I see. you said floating melting ice. now does floating ice melting raise water levels. it was a test to see how stupid you really are.

Then I guess it means nothing.

so you won't answer what happens to water levels when floating ice melts? hmmmmm, I guess that's the smart thing to do since you don't know the answer.

A melting ice cube in a glass of water has nothing to do with AGW nor is it analogous to changes ocean level.

The water level remains the same when the ice cube melts. A floating object displaces an amount of water equal to its own weight. Since water expands when it freezes, one ounce of frozen water has a larger volume than one ounce of liquid water.

So water levels would go down, not up, when the ice melts. Great, I always wanted to see Atlantis.

 

[Slyhunter]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..

As I said, you guys could be witnessing world wide coastal flooding, high global temperatures, and complete disappearance of arctic ice all evidence of global warming and predicted by scientist and you would still be denying AGW. I know, it happen 10 million years ago, so it's a natural event or it's an act of God.

I've wasted enough time on this thread.

Dude nobody disputes that climate changes over the course of time. We only dispute how much of it is our fault.

 

[Cosmos]

Essential every major scientific theory over the past 300 years has been subjected to the consensus test of peers. Whenever a new theory is proposed, a paper explaining the theory, along with with assumptions and data backing the theory is presented to peers.

And if ups go back and actually look, you will see that the "consensus" has been wrong early on in damned near everything...and you will also see that the consensus was very slow to give up its belief even as the evidence mounted that it was wrong. Look around you today...how long did it take the consensus among chemists to accept that quasicrystals actually exist? They went so far as to boot the scientist who proposed them, and argued for their existence out of his scientific society and wrecked his career for decades...he was recently awarded a nobel prize for his discovery of quasicrystals...but the fact remains that he spent his prime years on the outside of his field looking in. And on and on it goes back to the eariest days when sceince was called sorcery...then alchemy, etc.

Consensus, in the absence of a body of real evidence that supports the mainstream hypothesis is evidence of a very tragic and unproductive situation, especially in science known as groupthink. At this point, there is no observed, measured evidence that supports the the AGW hypothesis over natural variability......there has not been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empiricically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses......and there is not a single piece of observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. If the scientific method were being adhered to, those 3 things would have been on the top of the list to nail down before anything else. Climate sceince has become politicized, and the pet of environmental activists to the point that even once respected organizations like NASA offer up evidence that the cliamte is changing and hang an assumption that it is due to man on that evidence and call it science....and in a field that is dominated by groupthink, that sort of thing is allowed to pass and is actually cheered.

You actually provided some good evidnece of the presence of groupthink...naming the greenhouse effect and AGW as the consensus theories.....theory in sceince has a specific meaning....as does hypothesis....neither the greenhouse effect nor the AGW hypothesis meet the criteria to be called theories...in fact, they barely meed the critieria to be called hypothesis and were the scientific method being followed neither would exist today in their present form due to the sheer number of predictive failures each has experienced. In real science often a single predictive failure is enough to cause a hypothesis to be discarded....and if not discarded, then at the very least modified in an effort to produce a hypothesis that will not experience predictive failures. Neither the greenhouse nor the AGW hypothesies have been modified in any way. Climate sceince just keeps increasing the size of the margin of error so that they can say the errors are within the margin of error... That is not science...that is pseudoscience

If Wall Street was 4 feet underwater, all arctic ice had melted, and temperatures in the southwest were over 160 degrees, you would be saying the same thing, there is no evidence.

If all you had was the fact that wall street was under 4 feet of water, and the arctic ice had melted, and it was 160 degrees in the southwest...you would only have evidence that some things had happened....you would still not have evidnece of cause...simply assuming that we are the cause of climate change doesn't constitute evidence...and when a whole branch of sceince is operating on that sort of assumption in lieu of actual evidence...you have groupthink...and that is never good in any endeavor...and especially bad in science..

As I said, you guys could be witnessing world wide coastal flooding, high global temperatures, and complete disappearance of arctic ice all evidence of global warming and predicted by scientist and you would still be denying AGW. I know, it happen 10 million years ago, so it's a natural event or it's an act of God.

I've wasted enough time on this thread.

Dude nobody disputes that climate changes over the course of time. We only dispute how much of it is our fault.

Well, that's not really true. The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does. He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is. And he denies the validity of modern measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So I'm going to deny and refuse believe that he has any knowledge of climate science beyond the 3rd grade level and all this nitwit knows how to do is cut and paste garbage off the internet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

 

[Cosmos]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

 

[SSDD]

Well, that's not really true. The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

You really don't comprehend very well do you? As I have said, there is an effect...you can even call it a greenhouse effect if you like, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.

He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is.[/uote]

Really? You can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...so how exactly is it obvious. You ran away before we actually started discussing the science so you wouldn't have your beliefs challenged.

And he denies the validity of modern measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

More lies....I pointed out that the OCO-2 satellites give us an accurate measure of global CO2 which tells a different story than the station on top of mona loa...but since the climate is not driven by CO2 it isn't as if it makes any difference at all.

So I'm going to deny and refuse believe that he has any knowledge of climate science beyond the 3rd grade level and all this nitwit knows how to do is cut and paste garbage off the internet.

Of course you will...that is much easier than actually talking about the science and the fatal flaws housed within the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

 

[Cosmos]

Well, that's not really true. The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

You really don't comprehend very well do you? As I have said, there is an effect...you can even call it a greenhouse effect if you like, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.

He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is.[/uote]

Really? You can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...so how exactly is it obvious. You ran away before we actually started discussing the science so you wouldn't have your beliefs challenged.

And he denies the validity of modern measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

More lies....I pointed out that the OCO-2 satellites give us an accurate measure of global CO2 which tells a different story than the station on top of mona loa...but since the climate is not driven by CO2 it isn't as if it makes any difference at all.

So I'm going to deny and refuse believe that he has any knowledge of climate science beyond the 3rd grade level and all this nitwit knows how to do is cut and paste garbage off the internet.

Of course you will...that is much easier than actually talking about the science and the fatal flaws housed within the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

You're an idiot. You're not here to discuss science that you don't understand. You're here to spread bullshit and propaganda.

 

[SSDD]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

 

[SSDD]

Well, that's not really true. The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

You really don't comprehend very well do you? As I have said, there is an effect...you can even call it a greenhouse effect if you like, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.

He denies that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, even though it is obvious that it is.[/uote]

Really? You can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...so how exactly is it obvious. You ran away before we actually started discussing the science so you wouldn't have your beliefs challenged.

And he denies the validity of modern measurements of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

More lies....I pointed out that the OCO-2 satellites give us an accurate measure of global CO2 which tells a different story than the station on top of mona loa...but since the climate is not driven by CO2 it isn't as if it makes any difference at all.

So I'm going to deny and refuse believe that he has any knowledge of climate science beyond the 3rd grade level and all this nitwit knows how to do is cut and paste garbage off the internet.

Of course you will...that is much easier than actually talking about the science and the fatal flaws housed within the radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

You're an idiot. You're not here to discuss science. You're here to spread bullshit and propaganda.

So you say...but then clearly you have proven yourself to be a liar so everything you say is suspect..

 

[Cosmos]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

 

[Cosmos]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience