The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[jc456]

Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.

Dude...who are you talking to?!? Can you ask an adult to show you how to use this website? There is a reply button. Start using it so that this thread is actually coherent. Man alive, you lefties are so damn dumb I can’t take it anymore. No wonder the left finds it so easy to dupe you people.

I was replying to you. My post followed immediately after yours. Copying yours (aaaand, she doubles down) would have added very little.

dude I've told you countless times to use the quote feature in the tool. and you still don't. you are the poster child to stupid.

The most prominent guide to the scam

 

[Wuwei]

So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...

You are wrong. I never assume all the IR from the warm earth moves via radiation. Only the IR that is not absorbed by a GHG can radiate to space. I do assume the GHGs absorb some of the earth's IR and is turned to heat. Otherwise the conservation of energy would be violated.

 

[Crick]

Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...

Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...

Let's take a cubic meter of air. The lower surface of the cube is 1C warmer than the upper surface. In the time it will take that energy to move 1 meter upward by conduction, the entire cube could have been elevated a thousand meters. Which mechanism moves more energy?

You're a fucking idiot or a liar or both,

TROLL

 

[SSDD]

So that would be a no...you can't describe the greenhouse hypothesis in terms of convection...or conduction because it assumes that nearly all of the energy moves through the troposphere via radiation...you know this isn't true, and yet, you still defend that failed hypothesis...

You are wrong. I never assume all the IR from the warm earth moves via radiation. Only the IR that is not absorbed by a GHG can radiate to space. I do assume the GHGs absorb some of the earth's IR and is turned to heat. Otherwise the conservation of energy would be violated.

But that is what the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science claims...and you believe the radiative greenhouse hypothesis to be true, so of course you assume that...if you didn't, you would have to find that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has been falsified by the very nature of energy movement through the troposphere..

 

[SSDD]

Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...

Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...

Let's take a cubic meter of air. The lower surface of the cube is 1C warmer than the upper surface. In the time it will take that energy to move 1 meter upward by conduction, the entire cube could have been elevated a thousand meters. Which mechanism moves more energy?

You're a fucking idiot or a liar or both,

TROLL

It doesn't matter....all that is moving is air...the energy is still moving from molecule to molecule via conduction...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your claim is specious. When you made it a few posts back I posted the data showing it to be incorrect. As we've all heard, you've a right to your own opinion. You've no right to your own facts.

Even your own graphing shows the loss has stopped and we are now on the increase globally..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Im saying that is the mode of movement whether it is more efficient or not....that is simply how most of the energy moves through the troposphere...

Yes, convection by far overpowers conduction as a method heat movement in the troposphere.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that movement of air is convecting, energy, but the energy within the air is still conducting from molecule to molecule... So conduction is still the primary mode of energy movement...

Let's take a cubic meter of air. The lower surface of the cube is 1C warmer than the upper surface. In the time it will take that energy to move 1 meter upward by conduction, the entire cube could have been elevated a thousand meters. Which mechanism moves more energy?

You're a fucking idiot or a liar or both,

TROLL

All Righty... Come on Troll..

Post up your source...

Convection and conduction are inseparable. For one to be happening the other must as well in any gas. Tell me how the energy is transferred within the gas during convection. Water vapor is a good example of a molecule that does not release its energy during convection until it cools enough to return to it solid state as water.

 

[Wuwei]

But that is what the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science claims...and you believe the radiative greenhouse hypothesis to be true, so of course you assume that...if you didn't, you would have to find that the radiative greenhouse hypothesis has been falsified by the very nature of energy movement through the troposphere..

IR radiation from the earth is totally absorbed by GHGs within the first hundred meters and turned into heat. GHGs scatter radiation by isotropic emission within that distance and also everywhere throughout the atmosphere. Convection and of course a tiny bit of conduction can also occur within that distance and also throughout the atmosphere.

.

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation. You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.

The critical point is that GHGs absorb a significant portion of the IR radiated by the heated surface. That energy does NOT transit directly to space, as it would in an atmosphere devoid of GHGs.

 

[jc456]

The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation. You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.

The critical point is that GHGs absorb a significant portion of the IR radiated by the heated surface. That energy does NOT transit directly to space, as it would in an atmosphere devoid of GHGs.

well tell us what happens to it?

 

[P@triot]

And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.

And, as you do already know, those scientists were caught discussing how they lie about “Global Warming”.

Thanks for playing, Crick. You are dismissed.

 

[P@triot]

Pusstriot, what are some theoretical examples of hard data that could falsify your beliefs on climate science?

Aaaaand she triples down.

She’s been so thoroughly defeated with facts (all links posted) in this thread that she’s begging me to provide an argument against myself to help her!

 

[P@triot]

Your fellow posters SSDD, Billy Bob, JC456 and Crusader Frank have all claimed that for a small assortment of reasons, the greenhouse effect is not real. Without a greenhouse effect, we certainly do not have any warming from human GHG emissions. That would falsify AGW. SSDD and his sock puppets believe that to be the case. The trouble is, he's convinced no one outside his group of his primary supposition: that there is no greenhouse effect. And, as you likely know, very close to every scientist on the planet would disagree with him.

Dude...who are you talking to?!? Can you ask an adult to show you how to use this website? There is a reply button. Start using it so that this thread is actually coherent. Man alive, you lefties are so damn dumb I can’t take it anymore. No wonder the left finds it so easy to dupe you people.

I was replying to you. My post followed immediately after yours. Copying yours (aaaand, she doubles down) would have added very little.

It would add a lot. People would know who the fuck you’re talking to and what the fuck you’re talking about. Good grief.

 

[Crick]

So, now that you know I was talking to you, do you have anything to say in reply? Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?

 

[jc456]

So, now that you know I was talking to you, do you have anything to say in reply? Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?

as he fails to click the reply option. you are nothing if not stupid.

Hit reply mf.

 

[Crick]

So, now that you know I was talking to you, Patriot, do you have anything to say in reply? Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified?

Anything?

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect does not demand that energy radiated by the surface be transported solely by radiation. You'd like your sock puppets to think that, though, wouldn't you.

Here...from the IPCC whom you believe in so dearly...this is how they describe the greenhouse effect...

IPCC - Working Group I

Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Are you now claiming that the IPCC doesn't know what the greenhouse as described by climate science is? They have evidence to support it but don't know what it is? Is that what you are now claiming?

They say pretty clearly that there is a requirement that radiation be radiated back to the surface...and in fact, that is precisely what they call the greenhouse effect...So who is wrong..you or the IPCC? If it is the IPCC, then all your claims about them having evidence to support the greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild AGW are all the more laughable because of it...

 

[Crick]

There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation. One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air. If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.

 

[P@triot]

So, now that you know I was talking to you, Patriot, do you have anything to say in reply? Do you still believe AGW cannot be falsified? Anything?

Do I have anything to say? Sure! I've filled this thread with indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a scam. To the point where it even forced whack-a-doo mammaries to admit the left lies by crying "but...but....but.... <insert leftist's name here> is NOT a scientist". Uh...ok. Then why are they making shit up? If they aren't a scientist and they didn't quote a scientist (as mammaries claimed) then you just admitted that EVERY single left-wing politician and advocate lied to the American people.

It's a scam, junior. You got duped. I can't blame you for lashing out. I'd be humiliated too if it had happened to me.

 

[P@triot]

There is nothing preventing reradiation of energy absorbed by CO2 and I don't give a shit whether it gets there by conduction or radiation. One problem you've ignored is how poor a conductor is air. If you want to insist that all the energy trapped by CO2 within the first few meters has to make its way to the stratosphere solely by conduction, you're even more in a hole with your claim that this process doesn't trap thermal energy and warm the planet.

Man, that "Global Warming" is a bitch. Check out this news report from today. If I remember correctly, I think they said it hit 212° in Colorado today? Something like 99.791% of all citizens of Colorado died of heat stroke? I don't know - I'm sure Al Gore will tell you about it in a movie a couple of years from now (and I'm sure you and mammaries will believe it).

Storm packing heavy winds, snow slams Plains, Midwest