Wow some Yale/Harvard guy agrees with my argument on climate change

[skookerasbil]

Oy

I've been reading the same exact st00pid shit from alarmists for 10 years in here! Calling everybody else an idiot, stupid ass or dumb ****!!


10 years of bomb throwing and still the public doesnt give a flying **** about climate change!!!!

It's all about who's winning and who's not winning!

Every single time I've logged on to come in here.....for the past 10 years.....I'm winning.

 

[Pilot1]

The "Debate is Over!". The "Science is Settled!" Man made climate change is a HOAX!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Pilot 1, when your IQ goes above room temperature, get back to us with some evidence.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Penelope]

Oh they all believe in it, they just deny it like good little Republicans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me repeat, I am so shocked a Republican denies global warming.

Let me repeat Democrats assert they have temperature data for the huge gap when and where nobody recorded any data. And Democrats assert that "a Republican" denies global warming because without that data you don`t have a case that global warming is caused by Republican CO2 emissions.
It`s as simple as that but not simple enough for Democrats !
They can`t see the difference between natural and man made global warming.
Of course they can`t afford to acknowledge that, else they can`t use a label like "deniers"
They do that with everything where they can`t win a debate on substance, from race relations, gender equality, crime, immigration, taxation etc. And if all fails then it`s down to smearing the opponent any way they can.

No, stupid ass, Democrats do not assert that they have temperature data for the past, scientists do. Or are you implying that all scientists are Democrats? Could be correct, after all, being a scientist requires an above average intellect.

Past Climate | NOAA Climate.gov

How Do We Study Past Climates?
Paleoclimatology is the study of climate records from hundreds to millions of years ago. Information for paleoclimate studies come from natural records rather than instruments: these indirect records of climatic conditions are called proxy records.


Coring a tree to gain access to tree ring data.
Image source: Penn State Department of Meterology

One of the most easily recognized type of paleoclimate records is tree ring data. Trees that grow a single annual ring can preserve a record of the conditions they experienced each year. Rocks deposited by glaciers are another example of proxy records. Scientists can recognize the distinctive pattern of sediments in rocks formed by glaciers. Wherever they find glacial rocks then, they know that glaciers were present in that location at some point in the past. Once they examine fossils and other clues about when the rocks were deposited, they use the information to reconstruct the climate story for that location. Other sources of proxy data for climate include lake and ocean sediments, layers of ice (cored from ice sheets), corals, fossils, and historical records from ship logs and early weather observer

One of the most easily recognized type of paleoclimate records is tree ring data.

Do tree rings work the same if you read them in either direction?

 

[SSDD]

Which mountains of evidence would those be? I keep asking for just a single piece of observed measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you guys can't even provide a single piece of it. Not a single solitary piece.

Who cares what some uneducated slob is sitting around on the internet begging for? Nobody, that's who.

Any thinking person who happens to notice that you wack jobs who don't seem to be able to produce a single piece of observed measured evidence in support of your beliefs should care...

You hold a belief which isn't supported by any observed measured evidence...you are suggesting that trillions of dollars be spend based on little more than your faith. Any thinking person should care about that...not you of course, because you have made it abundantly clear that you are not a thinking person.

"We wack jobs"

Yes, there is a reason you losers are here, screeching at nonscientists. This is because you uneducated slobs would get laughed out of the room in the company of scientists. Whatever greases your pole, "professor"....

I have asked for that bit of observed, measured evidence supporting AGW over natural variability from climate scientists as well as uneducated people like you...they can't provide it either when put in such terms...models aren't observed measured data and climate science is built upon models even though the climate is an observable, measurable quantity.

You have been given that evidence many, many times, you lying whack job. You are simply to obtuse to understand any of it. Go spread your stupidity somewhere else. Maybe lecture some first graders about intelligent photons.

Sorry old liar...but I have not....but you do love telling that lie don't you? But feel free to prove me wrong and post a single piece of it here for viewing.

My bet is that you won't...because you can't...because it doesn't exist...prove me right.

 

[Wuwei]

I have asked for that bit of observed, measured evidence supporting AGW over natural variability from climate scientists as well as uneducated people like you...they can't provide it either when put in such terms...models aren't observed measured data and climate science is built upon models even though the climate is an observable, measurable quantity.

Still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...you can't produce it because none exists...feel free to prove me wrong by posting a single piece of such data.

If there was any observed, measured data which supports AGW over natural variability, any one of these goofballs could slap me down and make me his ***** any day of the week...

You have been cross posting that same crap literally dozens of times. The reason that you don't believe there is observed, measured evidence supporting AGW is that you don't don't believe modern physics, nor textbook thermodynamics. The models of quantum physics have been tested by observed, measured experiments to parts per billion accuracy, yet you still reject their worth.

Your quest for evidence has been given to you time and again. Before you can understand climate, you have to understand physics. You don't.

 

[SSDD]

You have been cross posting that same crap literally dozens of times. The reason that you don't believe there is observed, measured evidence supporting AGW is that you don't don't believe modern physics, nor textbook thermodynamics. The models of quantum physics have been tested by observed, measured experiments to parts per billion accuracy, yet you still reject their worth.

Not dozens....hundreds and the reason no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability is because no such observed, measured data exists. But by all means do step on up to the plate and slap me down with that single piece of evidence I keep asking for...just one.

I predict that no such evidence will be coming from you either because again, it doesn't exist. Step on up and once again prove me right.

Your quest for evidence has been given to you time and again. Before you can understand climate, you have to understand physics. You don't.

Same old lie over and over. Of course no such data has ever been provided because no such data exists....anywhere. But feel free to prove me wrong...lets see a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. And here is a clue for you goober...such evidence, luckily for you, probably wouldn't require any knowledge of physics at all...lucky because your version of physics requires lots of magic.

Either you can provide that single bit of evidence or you can't...if you can't, buzz off. If you can, then do it and stop jawing about it. You know the old saying about bullshit walking?....take a walk because we both know you can't provide any real data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Wuwei]

no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis

CO2 scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is evidence. Those who understand physics and thermodynamics can comprehend the evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis

CO2 scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is evidence. Those who understand physics and thermodynamics can comprehend the evidence.

He'll find a source that backs up his claim that IR doesn't move from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface..

Any day now.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, I was curious if he still uses that comedy scheme.

 

[SSDD]

no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis

CO2 scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is evidence. Those who understand physics and thermodynamics can comprehend the evidence.

Can you show me a measurement of discrete wavelengths emitted by CO2 being radiated back towards the earth made with an instrument that is not being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the surface they are supposedly being emitted back towards?

Didn't think so.

You can certainly point an uncooled instrument towards the ground and measure discrete wavelengths of CO2 traveling upwards, sideways, etc...but turn it up towards the sky and you get nothing. Care to hazard a guess as to why that is?

Cleary you don't grasp the difference between actual observed, measured evidence and the output of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. And you have already demonstrated in spades how easily you are fooled by instrumentation,

 

[Wuwei]

Can you show me a measurement of discrete wavelengths emitted by CO2 being radiated back towards the earth made with an instrument that is not being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the surface they are supposedly being emitted back towards?

Didn't think so.

You can certainly point an uncooled instrument towards the ground and measure discrete wavelengths of CO2 traveling upwards, sideways, etc...but turn it up towards the sky and you get nothing. Care to hazard a guess as to why that is?

Cleary you don't grasp the difference between actual observed, measured evidence and the output of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. And you have already demonstrated in spades how easily you are fooled by instrumentation,

You are still cross-posting the same crap. We went through this many times before. The measured, observed laws of physics cannot prevent back radiation. However, you don't believe the measured, observed laws of physics. Ergo you can make up crap.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis

CO2 scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is evidence. Those who understand physics and thermodynamics can comprehend the evidence.

Can you show me a measurement of discrete wavelengths emitted by CO2 being radiated back towards the earth made with an instrument that is not being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the surface they are supposedly being emitted back towards?

Didn't think so.

You can certainly point an uncooled instrument towards the ground and measure discrete wavelengths of CO2 traveling upwards, sideways, etc...but turn it up towards the sky and you get nothing. Care to hazard a guess as to why that is?

Cleary you don't grasp the difference between actual observed, measured evidence and the output of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models. And you have already demonstrated in spades how easily you are fooled by instrumentation,

Can you show me a measurement of discrete wavelengths emitted by CO2 being radiated back towards the earth made with an instrument that is not being cooled to a temperature lower than that of the surface they are supposedly being emitted back towards?

Smart photons "know" they can only move from warmer to cooler.

That's why the corona blocks emission from the Sun's surface.

That's why the thermosphere stops radiation from leaving Earth.

I'm sure you can find a professor somewhere to back your theory.

 

[SSDD]

[
You are still cross-posting the same crap. We went through this many times before. The measured, observed laws of physics cannot prevent back radiation. However, you don't believe the measured, observed laws of physics. Ergo you can make up crap.

So that would be a no...you can not show a single measurement of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

Even though you can measure radiation emitting from the earth with an uncooled instrument, if you flip it over and point it towards the sky, you can't measure any discrete band of IR from CO2 coming back down....even though you believe it is coming down at the rate of more than 300wm^2, and is warming the atmosphere of the earth it can't be measured without a cooled instrument...and you aren't bright enough to wonder why.

Typical....you claim the back radiation is happening...and it is warming the earth...but can't be measured without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....Just how stupid are you?

 

[SSDD]

no one ever post a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis

CO2 scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is evidence. Those who understand physics and thermodynamics can comprehend the evidence.

So again...show me a measurement of a discrete band of radiation from CO2 moving towards the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....if more than 300wm^w is beaming from the atmosphere back to the surface, then you damned well should be able to measure it with an instrument at ambient temperature ....so lets see it.

Saying that CO2 is scattering resonant bands of IR back to earth is one thing....providing measurements of it made with instruments at ambient temperate is actual evidence...lets see it.

What's that? You can't because there are none? Hey...that's what I said. So you have faith that CO2 is radiating towards the earth...Sorry, we are talking science here...not religion. Faith doesn't cut it...lets see the observed, measured evidence.

 

[SSDD]

Smart photons "know" they can only move from warmer to cooler.

That's why the corona blocks emission from the Sun's surface.

That's why the thermosphere stops radiation from leaving Earth.

I'm sure you can find a professor somewhere to back your theory.

So that's a no....you can't show any such measurements either....how unsurprising is that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smart photons "know" they can only move from warmer to cooler.

That's why the corona blocks emission from the Sun's surface.

That's why the thermosphere stops radiation from leaving Earth.

I'm sure you can find a professor somewhere to back your theory.

So that's a no....you can't show any such measurements either....how unsurprising is that?

Radiation knows when an instrument is cooled?
Or the radiation hits the instrument but remains unmeasured?

Inquiring minds want to know...….

 

[Wuwei]

So that would be a no...you can not show a single measurement of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

Even though you can measure radiation emitting from the earth with an uncooled instrument, if you flip it over and point it towards the sky, you can't measure any discrete band of IR from CO2 coming back down....even though you believe it is coming down at the rate of more than 300wm^2, and is warming the atmosphere of the earth it can't be measured without a cooled instrument...and you aren't bright enough to wonder why.

Typical....you claim the back radiation is happening...and it is warming the earth...but can't be measured without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....Just how stupid are you?

Here are measurements of back-radiation. Water vapor was subtracted out. What remains are the usual GH gases. The spectrometer most likely was cooled to reduce internal thermal interference; otherwise the fact that it was cooled is immaterial.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans

 

[SSDD]

So that would be a no...you can not show a single measurement of back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth made with an instrument that is not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere.

Even though you can measure radiation emitting from the earth with an uncooled instrument, if you flip it over and point it towards the sky, you can't measure any discrete band of IR from CO2 coming back down....even though you believe it is coming down at the rate of more than 300wm^2, and is warming the atmosphere of the earth it can't be measured without a cooled instrument...and you aren't bright enough to wonder why.

Typical....you claim the back radiation is happening...and it is warming the earth...but can't be measured without cooling the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....Just how stupid are you?

Here are measurements of back-radiation. Water vapor was subtracted out. What remains are the usual GH gases. The spectrometer most likely was cooled to reduce internal thermal interference; otherwise the fact that it was cooled is immaterial.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, W.F.J. Evans

Sorry guy, that is most certainly not a measurement of back radiation. Can you read at all? The top of your chart states that it is a measurement of surface forcing...meaning that it is a measurement taken looking down on the surface...and yes, there are the discrete bands of radiation. You don't get that when you point the instrument at the sky, however, unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the sky. Ever stop to wonder why?

You are so easily fooled by instrumentation...that and not having the first clue as to what the instruments are actually measuring. No wonder you are such a dupe.