Because you made a claim. It is forum policy that if you make a claim you back it up with links to support your perticular delusion...whatever that may be. i think you have lots of them!
Why did you doubt my claim?
Your argument is with daveman. Address your questions and delusions to him. I was telling you why he wants a link to this particular delusion of yours.
LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.
LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
Still keeping your head rammed firmly up your ass, I see. Gotta admit tho', it is a great way for you to blind and deafen yourself to reality and avoid having to look at the facts. Doesn't the smell bother your nose though?Still screaming I see. Doesn't that hurt your ears?LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
Still keeping your head rammed firmly up your ass, I see. Gotta admit tho', it is a great way for you to blind and deafen yourself to reality and avoid having to look at the facts. Doesn't the smell bother your nose though?Still screaming I see. Doesn't that hurt your ears?LOL...."found" by who exactly, dimwit??? Since you provide no citation or references to back up your delusional claim (as usual), I guess we're left to conclude that you found the studies disproving Harries when you had your head up your ass and were feeling around with your tongue.
LOLOLOLOL....or perhaps the paper was "found to not be accurate" in your own little denier cult fantasy world, walleyed, but in the real world, it has been repeatedly verified
The results of the paper I cited, (Harries 2001), "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect", was confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra data that Harries used were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers basically confirmed Harries findings and found that the observed differences in CO2 bands matches the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Moreover these results are mirrored and complimented by studies of the surface measurements of downward longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere. One study, (Wang 2009), looking at the relevant data from the period from 1973 to 2008, found an increasing trend of more longwave radiation returning to earth linked to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, air temperature, and humidity. Other regional studies also confirmed the results, such as Philipona 2004, which found an increase in downward longwave radiation over the central Alps due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. An analysis, (Evans 2006), of all of the high resolution spectral data that had been gathered, allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. The results lead the authors of that paper to conclude that: "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
But of course, in your own little deranged denier cult brain, you imagine that you're way smarter and more knowledgeable than all of those actual scientists who've been studying this for decades. LOLOLOLOLOL
I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.To see if you could provide them. Moron.
Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?
Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?
I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.To see if you could provide them. Moron.
Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?
Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
How the fuck were you not aware of it? You claim the entirety of AGW is based on a single experiment in 1861, and you're unaware that experiment has been repeated dozens of times (in the literature) using differing techniques?
What is your point exactly? Who cares if Tyndall's experiment is faulty or not when the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well established by multiple groups since then?
I keep explaining this to you, and you STILL keep getting it wrong.I was not aware of the research. As I predicted, you had no problem providing links.
Nevertheless, my original point has not been disproved: Tyndall's experiment does not prove what is claimed it does.
You wanna give that a shot?
How the fuck were you not aware of it? You claim the entirety of AGW is based on a single experiment in 1861, and you're unaware that experiment has been repeated dozens of times (in the literature) using differing techniques?
What is your point exactly? Who cares if Tyndall's experiment is faulty or not when the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been well established by multiple groups since then?
It's certainly not helping your claims of intelligence or honesty any.
As I've told you, whenever I've asked for proof of CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Roxy pointed to Tyndall's experiment. No others. When I read the paper myself, I found it proved no such thing.
Get it now, or are you going to keep being stupid and dishonest?
Of course you don't.
