HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?
"You did exactly what I predicted"No, I don't waste my time being a dancing monkey for deniers. If you had any desire to see this evidence, you would look it up yourself. of course, you will just call it "not evidence", which is equivalent to calling the global scientific community "all liars". This is so incredibly absurd... how do you not realize how embarrassing your behavior is... as if some know-nothing with zero education or experience in this field has managed to outsmart the entire, global scientific community with noting but a HS diploma and google...Haha... oh my. Maybe, oh just maybe, if you scream this loudly enough at yourself in the mirror enough times, it might become true!
So lets see it hot rod....a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence demonstrating that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming...If such evidence exists, you should have no problem finding it.
I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.
Good luck, find another caretaker to soothe you, I'm not your guy.
Not even a good dodge. You did exactly what I predicted...and do you know why? Because you could do nothing else...exept perhaps cut and run which should be the response that will be coming up shortly. I mean how long can you pretend that such evidence exists but you just "don't feel like" posting it?
you didn't predict anything
I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.
And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]
If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.
your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.
You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.
So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.
you didn't predict anything
Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.
I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.
[/QUOTE]And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]
If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.
your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.
You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.
So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.
you didn't predict anything
Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.
I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.
[/QUOTE]And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]
If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.
your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.
You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.
So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.
Well now, if that were true for the whole world, maybe you would have a point. So, let us look at the whole world;Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?
you didn't predict anything
Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.
I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.
[/QUOTE]And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]
If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.
your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.
You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.
So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.
"ol.......only the climate k00ks think the sun has no influence on our climate."lol.......only the climate k00ks think the sun has no influence on our climate.
The leaders of western nations obviously disagree!!
EIA Outlook: Fossil Fuels Continue to Dominate World Energy Supply - IER
Nobody said it had no influence. When you have to invent absurd lies to have a point, you don't actually have a point. Think of how absurd you sound... solar scientists are the first to admit that a great solar minimum will not be nearly enough to offset global warming. But they are all crazy or lying, because some blog-educated cackler on a message board said so. ooookay!
Well, let me pin you lying scum deniers down first. What year do you liars say Global Warming got changed to Climate Change?LIAR!And this is precisely why they changed the name from global warming to climate change.
It was climate change BEFORE it was global warming!!!!
When??? It's been global warming before an inconvenient truth...
And if that wasn't the case...where did the very popular term of global warming from the inconvenient truth to 5 years ago come from??? That was the buzzword, why did they CLEARLY backtrack?
You lying fuck, you have been given that repeatedly. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall. The absorption spectra of the GHGs.
Of course I can . Any 4th grader could find a shred of the evidence of a robust, accepted theory by using Google. you sound absolutely stupid. Your prancing and dancing just makes it even more embarrassing.
Delusional. Completely delusional
You lying fuck, you have been given that repeatedly. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall. The absorption spectra of the GHGs.
Poor old rocks...always willing to drag what little intellect you may possess through the sewer in an attempt to defend your crackpot religion...
So here, in the 21st century, the best you can manage is quaint 19th century pseudoscience by Tyndall...good old Tyndal who did the best he could with technology being what it was..good old Tyndal who used artificial sources for his IR...good old Tyndal whose photometric measuring equipment consisted of metal tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as radiation sources...and after all this time, climate science has not improved on his experiments as by now, they know exactly what the result would be and that would be no good for the narrative.
That quaint old 19th century science was based exclusively on light measuring methodology...thermal measurements were never, and to date have never been made except by pyrogeometers looking at the whole spectrum...or instruments cooled to temperatures far below the temperature of the emitters...here in the 21st century, no direct coherence between IR absorption and warming effects in the atmosphere have ever been detected.
So no, old rocks...no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has ever been posted because it simply doesn't exist...it is vastly entertaining, however, to see what passes for such evidence in the minds of believers...thanks as always for the chuckle...
Odd, the scientists at NASA seem to have a much different opinion of John Tyndall than you do. Now who should we believe, the purveyor of smart photons or the real scientists at NASA.
Gee what a surprise, n0t!Shit s0n..........you've obviously missed a few memo's.........Well, let me pin you lying scum deniers down first. What year do you liars say Global Warming got changed to Climate Change?LIAR!And this is precisely why they changed the name from global warming to climate change.
It was climate change BEFORE it was global warming!!!!
When??? It's been global warming before an inconvenient truth...
And if that wasn't the case...where did the very popular term of global warming from the inconvenient truth to 5 years ago come from??? That was the buzzword, why did they CLEARLY backtrack?
The Maunder Minimum is overdue and cyclic on an approximately 300 year schedule. Stand by for the new little ice age.[Was watching Science Channel regarding the solar eclipse and a very interesting point was made.
Over the years sunspots have a cycle when there are years when there are many sunspots and years where there are very few if any.
It is called the "Grand Minimum".
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” published on 31 January 2012
From a comment on the Ice Age Now Post:
From what I see on this page it sounds like the researchers are not aware of what causes the increased volcanic activity and earthquakes in the first place. Namely a very weak solar cycle is directly linked to a substantial increase in volcanic activity. The “experts” are still having a hard time connecting the dots.
The Next Grand Minimum
View attachment 145286
Notice the period from 1400 to 1800 known as the "little Ice Age"...
Here are some pictures from that time that the Thames river froze over.
When has the Thames froze over?
In the 200 years that have elapsed since, the Thames has never frozen solid enough for such hedonism to be repeated. But between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 - the ice was thick enough to hold a fair.Jan 28, 2014
View attachment 145288