PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
Old rocks has more blind faith than many devout catholics
warmest January on record
- Thread starter Old Rocks
- Start date
Old rocks has more blind faith than many devout catholics
driveby
Gold Member
- Sep 6, 2008
- 8,848
- 2,339
- 183
Mindless derision in leiu of any kind of real rebuttal. Simply states your whole case.
I think you meant "faithless derision" .......
DiamondDave
Army Vet
Really?
Sure, cyclical, as in spirally upward.
Come on, Dave, give us some good science that states that we are not changing the climate. Show us that the Ice Caps are not melting. The the area of alpine glaciers is not shrinking rapidly and at an accelerating rate.
You are good at flapping yap, but never back up what you state with any real data.
You have given us no good science that man is the culprit... we'll wait for your burden of proof instead of being asked to prove a negative
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #24
Dave are you truly that stupid? American Institute of Physics. History of the research concerning GHGs.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically? - LINKS -
For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles
One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”
rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically? - LINKS -
For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles
One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”
rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.
get over yourself, rocks. your just a guppy in a big pond
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.
Liability
Locked Account.
February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.
And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.
Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!
And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.
Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #30
February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.
And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.
Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!
Where you live, probably. Where I live, most of the days have been 50 F or above. Been a warm February for us.
Charles Stucker
Senior Member
- Oct 13, 2009
- 2,071
- 226
- 48
February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.
And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.
Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!
Where you live, probably. Where I live, most of the days have been 50 F or above. Been a warm February for us.
You have to understand Global Cooling will cause some areas to heat up.
Use your imagination to add the appropriate smiley.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.
He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.
Still, the troposphere is where it is.
SFC Ollie
Still Marching
It's very difficult to believe in any type of Global Warming while buried under record Snowfall.
And it isn't just one area.
And it isn't just one area.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Crickets chirping!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Of course, you don't need record cold to get record snowfall in the dead of Winter, now do you!
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,082
- 78,304
- 2,645
So the reason its cooler where we live is because it's warmer miles above us and deep in the Arctic Ocean???
Am I learning this "science" Brother Warmer
Am I learning this "science" Brother Warmer
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
Um....Yes we do.
He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.
Wiggle, spin,
Shall I go quote where you ADMIT you are not discussing ground temperature?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.Um....Yes we do.
He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.
Still, the troposphere is where it is.
So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?
Last edited:
Similar threads
