To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

[francoHFW]

Oddly, http://www.Well Source balloon data set doesn't seem to link anywhere.

Unsurprisingly, this one does
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

If anyone wants to see why Roy Spencer has been utterly shunned by the climate research community since publishing that "CMIP5 vs observations" graph (not that he had much to lose at the time), check out the working link above.

LOL!

There is no ******* climate "research" it's just altered data fed into flawed models

What the **** do they "research"?

Where's the lab work form these "researchers"?

A few professors fudged the numbers to make bad experiments fit and you fools think it's all a hoax... Great job Rush Etc... So dumb.

 

[francoHFW]

What the AGW folks fail to recognize is that people who are informed and go out and vote are not seeing the consensus science as very scientific. You can thank Al Gore for that. When all the predictions fell flat on their face year after year people stood up and took notice.... as we say around here, smelling a rat.

Most people don't like to gamble....**** if they are going to open up their wallet and pay big $$$ based upon computer models and some hair brain theory that we can actually do something to alter the climate, thus the spectacular lack of interest. Which really sucks for the agw devotee wasting thousands of hours on an absolutely hopeless endeavor. How dumb really.....

Funny how you dupes love pollution and oil everywhere... So dumb. The GOP alone in the entire world denies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oddly, http://www.Well Source balloon data set doesn't seem to link anywhere.

Unsurprisingly, this one does
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

If anyone wants to see why Roy Spencer has been utterly shunned by the climate research community since publishing that "CMIP5 vs observations" graph (not that he had much to lose at the time), check out the working link above.

LOL!

There is no ******* climate "research" it's just altered data fed into flawed models

What the **** do they "research"?

Where's the lab work form these "researchers"?

A few professors fudged the numbers to make bad experiments fit and you fools think it's all a hoax... Great job Rush Etc... So dumb.

Lemme see: You have no lab work, you fudge and adjust the data to fit your conclusions, when confronted by anyone asking a question you call them a "DENIER!!!!"

Yeah, still absolutely no reason to take your "Science" seriously

 

[francoHFW]

Oddly, http://www.Well Source balloon data set doesn't seem to link anywhere.

Unsurprisingly, this one does
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

If anyone wants to see why Roy Spencer has been utterly shunned by the climate research community since publishing that "CMIP5 vs observations" graph (not that he had much to lose at the time), check out the working link above.

LOL!

There is no ******* climate "research" it's just altered data fed into flawed models

What the **** do they "research"?

Where's the lab work form these "researchers"?

A few professors fudged the numbers to make bad experiments fit and you fools think it's all a hoax... Great job Rush Etc... So dumb.

Lemme see: You have no lab work, you fudge and adjust the data to fit your conclusions, when confronted by anyone asking a question you call them a "DENIER!!!!"

Yeah, still absolutely no reason to take your "Science" seriously

The most popular GOP denier and scientist decided to look at the evidence and switched switched sides. You are just brainwashed. East Anglia professors are morons end of story.

 

[francoHFW]

What the AGW folks fail to recognize is that people who are informed and go out and vote are not seeing the consensus science as very scientific. You can thank Al Gore for that. When all the predictions fell flat on their face year after year people stood up and took notice.... as we say around here, smelling a rat.

Most people don't like to gamble....**** if they are going to open up their wallet and pay big $$$ based upon computer models and some hair brain theory that we can actually do something to alter the climate, thus the spectacular lack of interest. Which really sucks for the agw devotee wasting thousands of hours on an absolutely hopeless endeavor. How dumb really.....

All the predictions that the GOP propaganda machine blew out of all proportion, super duper.

 

[skookerasbil]

What the AGW folks fail to recognize is that people who are informed and go out and vote are not seeing the consensus science as very scientific. You can thank Al Gore for that. When all the predictions fell flat on their face year after year people stood up and took notice.... as we say around here, smelling a rat.

Most people don't like to gamble....**** if they are going to open up their wallet and pay big $$$ based upon computer models and some hair brain theory that we can actually do something to alter the climate, thus the spectacular lack of interest. Which really sucks for the agw devotee wasting thousands of hours on an absolutely hopeless endeavor. How dumb really.....

Funny how you dupes love pollution and oil everywhere... So dumb. The GOP alone in the entire world denies.

Meh

Only matters who's winning s0n. Gotta get up to speed.... the whole campaign of demonizing people on the right for being uninterested in science has been an exercise in epic fail. Please show us where the campaign has been effective in the real world? Links please

 

[cnm]

Now that is a really dumb statement since the ocean waters already has over 99% of the free CO2 of the planet in it.

Dissolved CO2 is free? Interesting concept.

 

[cnm]

And you're convinced that CO2 is the driver because of the nonexistent lab work

We all know black holes can't exist because no lab work has been done on them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you're convinced that CO2 is the driver because of the nonexistent lab work

We all know black holes can't exist because no lab work has been done on them.

Yeah, the difference between 280 to 400ppm of CO2 would be like creating a Black Hole in the lab. That's why no warmer "scientist" has ever published the lab work.

I'm positive the lab works been done and just certain that there was absolute zero temperature differential.

 

[abu afak]

And you're convinced that CO2 is the driver because of the nonexistent lab work

We all know black holes can't exist because no lab work has been done on them.

Yeah, the difference between 280 to 400ppm of CO2 would be like creating a Black Hole in the lab. That's why no warmer "scientist" has ever published the lab work.
I'm positive the lab works been done and just certain that there was absolute zero temperature differential.

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

[.....]
Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation

So according to Lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASAAIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation.
[.....]

`​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And you're convinced that CO2 is the driver because of the nonexistent lab work

We all know black holes can't exist because no lab work has been done on them.

Yeah, the difference between 280 to 400ppm of CO2 would be like creating a Black Hole in the lab. That's why no warmer "scientist" has ever published the lab work.
I'm positive the lab works been done and just certain that there was absolute zero temperature differential.

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

[.....]
Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation

So according to Lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASAAIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation.
[.....]

`​

Derp derp derp no lab work

 

[abu afak]

Derp derp derp no lab work

The post refers to previous Lab work done, and BETTER, CONFIRMS IT with atmospheric observations.

If it was Just Lab work you would mock it as such!~! This is actual work in the atmosphere confirming trapped heat/radiation at different greenhouse gas wavelengths.

So you not only Lost the battle, you lost the more relevent War Cumstain. (so you want to go back to the battle)

This despite your every 'demand endless detail Fallacy' posts.

You Filthy politico, you can't even win with your endless disingenuous tactics.

Gameover.

(Note the last-word Trolling of [also] Evolution-Denying Frank below.
God and Crusader politics have poisoned his wittle brain.
Funny how they try and make it look like their objections are scientific, but they're indoctrinated)
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Derp derp derp no lab work

The post refers to previous Lab work done, and BETTER, CONFIRMS IT with atmospheric observations.

If it was Just Lab work you would mock it as such!~! This is actual work in the atmosphere confirming trapped heat/radiation at different greenhouse gas wavelengths.

So you not only lost the battle, you lost the war Cumstain. (so you want to go back to the battle)

This despite all your fallacious 'demand endless detail Fallacy' posts.

You Filthy cumstain, you can't even win with your endless disingenuous tactics.

Gameover.
`

Derp, derp, derp, still no lab work showing temperature increase from additional 120ppm increase in CO2

Where's the lab work?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now that is a really dumb statement since the ocean waters already has over 99% of the free CO2 of the planet in it.

Dissolved CO2 is free? Interesting concept.

Tell us how CO2 can leave the waters if it is all "dissolved" ?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oddly, http://www.Well Source balloon data set doesn't seem to link anywhere.

Unsurprisingly, this one does
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

If anyone wants to see why Roy Spencer has been utterly shunned by the climate research community since publishing that "CMIP5 vs observations" graph (not that he had much to lose at the time), check out the working link above.

LOL!

There is no ******* climate "research" it's just altered data fed into flawed models

What the **** do they "research"?

Where's the lab work form these "researchers"?

A few professors fudged the numbers to make bad experiments fit and you fools think it's all a hoax... Great job Rush Etc... So dumb.

A few?

You do realize its was the FEW who were charged with keeping the empirical record, don't you?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oddly, http://www.Well Source balloon data set doesn't seem to link anywhere.

Unsurprisingly, this one does
Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception | HotWhopper

If anyone wants to see why Roy Spencer has been utterly shunned by the climate research community since publishing that "CMIP5 vs observations" graph (not that he had much to lose at the time), check out the working link above.

LOL!

There is no ******* climate "research" it's just altered data fed into flawed models

What the **** do they "research"?

Where's the lab work form these "researchers"?

A few professors fudged the numbers to make bad experiments fit and you fools think it's all a hoax... Great job Rush Etc... So dumb.

A few?

You do realize its was the FEW who were charged with keeping the empirical record, don't you?

They don't want to admit that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And you're convinced that CO2 is the driver because of the nonexistent lab work

We all know black holes can't exist because no lab work has been done on them.

Yeah, the difference between 280 to 400ppm of CO2 would be like creating a Black Hole in the lab. That's why no warmer "scientist" has ever published the lab work.
I'm positive the lab works been done and just certain that there was absolute zero temperature differential.

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

[.....]
Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation

So according to Lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASAAIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation.
[.....]

`​

BWHHHhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Too Funny;

These papers have been shown incorrect. Downward long wave radiation and the calculations they used to make these SWAG's (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) have not been borne out by repeatable science. IF there findings were anywhere close to reality there would be a tropospheric hot spot.... And there isn't.

The empirical evidence shows them to be WRONG!

 

[Old Rocks]

Derp derp derp no lab work

The post refers to previous Lab work done, and BETTER, CONFIRMS IT with atmospheric observations.

If it was Just Lab work you would mock it as such!~! This is actual work in the atmosphere confirming trapped heat/radiation at different greenhouse gas wavelengths.

So you not only lost the battle, you lost the war Cumstain. (so you want to go back to the battle)

This despite all your fallacious 'demand endless detail Fallacy' posts.

You Filthy cumstain, you can't even win with your endless disingenuous tactics.

Gameover.
`

Derp, derp, derp, still no lab work showing temperature increase from additional 120ppm increase in CO2

Where's the lab work?

Now dumb **** hollow moon man can tell us that plate tectonics does not exist because we have never done it in the lab.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Derp derp derp no lab work

The post refers to previous Lab work done, and BETTER, CONFIRMS IT with atmospheric observations.

If it was Just Lab work you would mock it as such!~! This is actual work in the atmosphere confirming trapped heat/radiation at different greenhouse gas wavelengths.

So you not only lost the battle, you lost the war Cumstain. (so you want to go back to the battle)

This despite all your fallacious 'demand endless detail Fallacy' posts.

You Filthy cumstain, you can't even win with your endless disingenuous tactics.

Gameover.
`

Derp, derp, derp, still no lab work showing temperature increase from additional 120ppm increase in CO2

Where's the lab work?

Now dumb **** hollow moon man can tell us that plate tectonics does not exist because we have never done it in the lab.

Where is the "lab work" for CO2?

Many have been waiting and waiting, for YEARS waiting only to see a lot of wild modeling guesses, but NO lab work.

Waiting....... Zzzz....

 

[abu afak]

Where is the "lab work" for CO2?
Many have been waiting and waiting, for YEARS waiting only to see a lot of wild modeling guesses, but NO lab work.
Waiting....... Zzzz....

We not only have Lab Work (won battle), we have the more Important FIELD Work. (won War)

How do we know CO2 is causing warming?

[.....]
Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation

So according to LAB results and radiative Physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:

Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASAAIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.

Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation.
[.....]

`​