UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sistah, you have been caught in way too many lies to even speak.
and unlike the one single instance that yo keep referring to, you have not been exonerated and cleared of all wrongdoing by 8 independent agencies.
Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable
- Thread starter sheskunk
- Start date
and unlike the one single instance that yo keep referring to, you have not been exonerated and cleared of all wrongdoing by 8 independent agencies.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Speaking of boners, I was ready about a condo selling out in Hong Kong. But, you know, working class, like.you have my attention now.
seriously, 80% total efficiency?
Each unit has a small fuel cell on natural gas. It is enough for a small family's modest, but totally modern needs. Hot water, AC, Fridge, home electronics, etc. And instead of using the gas for heating the building, the fuel cells share a clever semi-passive heating system and the waste is warm air, only, out the top.
Pretty cool. Maybe a $1M usd. Such a deal. (higher floors with view, more costly)
Doer
Well-Known Member
And neither have I, so there. ..............phhhtttt.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Now you're denying that you're denying it..?
Lol, when does it end?
Why aren't the temperatures on Mercury and Venus consistent with the increases in temperatures on Earth over the past 120 years? If the Sun is the main contributing factor to climate change, then why is there no evidence on any other planets consistent with Earth?[/QUOTE]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
unsourced image is unsourced.
but i bet you got it from Skeptical Science.
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm
ohh look... different data/
but i'm not hiding my sources.
lets check an "authoritative" source and see what they say?
http://www.biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html
ohh my. looks like your graph may disagree with these two.
lets see who NASA says is right?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
looks like NASA says youre full of shit, and solar irradiance HAS been increasing since the 1900, OUTSIDE the sunspot cycle. maybe Mister Maunder was right? nahhh he was a Pre-Denilaist
try a new tack, this one is luffing your sheets.
as to why theres no warming on other planets, well, i am sure, like a hamster, you have forgotten when i demonstrated that this canard was a failure too, so shere it is again, just for you
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
anthropogenic global climate change on mars right?
nope. more sun = less cold. even on mars.
damn, this is too easy.
if you are simply going to recycle already demolished arguments from previous exchanges i may just start answering with meaningless memes and recursive interrogatives
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
lets see who NASA says is right?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
looks like NASA says youre full of shit, and solar irradiance HAS been increasing since the 1900, OUTSIDE the sunspot cycle. maybe Mister Maunder was right? nahhh he was a Pre-Denilaist
try a new tack, this one is luffing your sheets.
3 paragraphs down, doc..
"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect."
Are you this guy?
24 years? Science! 120 years, NOT ENOUGH DATA!@!
Using NASA to try to discredit anthropogenic climate change is like using Richard Dawkins to discredit evolution
It's so stupid, I can hardly believe the attempt was made..
"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."
Holy shit!! 3 whole summers in a row?!!
And that lone, brave Russian astrophysicist standing against the goliath money hungry scientific community, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the author of that 2007 study, what's his story anyway?...
"Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity." This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity. He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated." He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055."
LOL!
Your ego damages your character more than your ignorance ever could
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
so, you didnt read the material, you didnt understand it, and thus you do your victory dance.
3 paragraphs down, doc..
"Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect."
Are you this guy?
24 years? Science! 120 years, NOT ENOUGH DATA!@!
Using NASA to try to discredit anthropogenic climate change is like using Richard Dawkins to discredit evolution
It's so stupid, I can hardly believe the attempt was made..
"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row."
Holy shit!! 3 whole summers in a row?!!
And that lone, brave Russian astrophysicist standing against the goliath money hungry scientific community, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the author of that 2007 study, what's his story anyway?...
"Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity." This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity. He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." This assertion has not been accepted by the broader scientific community, some of whom have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."
Abdussamatov also contends that the natural greenhouse effect does not exist, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated." He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." He has stated that more work is needed to model the effect. However, this effect cannot happen because the mean free path of molecules in the atmosphere is very short, transferring energy by collisions and preventing greenhouse gases from retaining the excess energy they absorb.
In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-iceage" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055."
LOL!
Your ego damages your character more than your ignorance ever could
nice job dillhole.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century."
the solar irradience increase has been modeled going back to the NINTEENTH CENTURY!
all the rest of your histrionics are irrelevant.
even the "controversial" (lol Nasa is expected to be very careful when differing with the administration';s political opinions) study was PUBLISHED IN A REPUTABLE JOURNAL, while your regurgitated talking pooints from wikipedia and "Skeptical Science" are published by any asshole with an HTML editor.
flail blindly in the dark all you like, just as with Bucky, im tired from paddling your ass over and over, and refuting the same specious claims again and again.
nobody who examines the material will accept your juvenile tantrums as fact.
Addendum:
and with all your distractions, i bet you think nobody noticed that you unattributed infographic was WRONG AS WRONG CAN BE even according to NASA and NOAA, and even an idiot can lok at the WELL SOURCED graphs i posted and see that the solar irradience HAS BEEN INCREASING FOR A LONG TIME
the study that you wish to dismiss was abnormal irradience increases OUTSIDE the well accepted sunspot cycle which has ALSO been increasing (as expected, but ignored by hysterical fools like you)
thats right, BONUS warming in ADDITION to the expected, well modeled, and accurately predicted irradience trends
looks like you need to pull your pants up champ.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yeah, nobody except 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of climate experts
Nobody but them..
You deluded sad little man
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Emergency Subject Change!
Engage Bandwagon Fallacy!!
Argumentum Ad Populum Is Go!!
nice try, but my Double Sourced Facts Technique easily defeats your Whirling Distraction Style
More Sun = Less Cold, no matter how hard you try to change the subject.
Less Cold, coincidentally, causes More Co2 to be released from the oceans.
curiously this defeats the spourious "more Co2 will acidify the oceans" claim, since warmer oceans absorb Less Co2
warmer oceans also result in More Water Vapour int eh atmosphere which in turn leads to More warming, until the natural cycle switches back to cooling.
then, the processes reverse.
humans inputting excessive Co2 into the atmosphere will possibly effect warming, but How Much? looks like Not Very Much.
would reducing Co2 Emissions be good?
maybe.
would reducing the sulphur dioxide, ozone, oxides of nitrogen and other pollutants attendant with fossil fuels be good? certainly.
can humans take the blame for all of the warming between 1951 and 2010? even the IPCC says "nope"
ok, MOST of the warming between 1951 and 2010? "Maybe 51%, but around 45% if you want to be really confident in your projections"
even the IPCC is not on your side.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
speaking of changing the topic, kkkynes...
got a citation for that "500x as powerful!" claim yet?
how about "forest fires cause global cooling"? got a citation for that yet?
whatever you do, don't check my latest post in the equal right equal pay thread regarding the BLS and the price of eggs. the reality it contains wil devastate your denialist worldview.
moron.
got a citation for that "500x as powerful!" claim yet?
how about "forest fires cause global cooling"? got a citation for that yet?
whatever you do, don't check my latest post in the equal right equal pay thread regarding the BLS and the price of eggs. the reality it contains wil devastate your denialist worldview.
moron.
kinetic
Well-Known Member
Yes water vapour contributes significantely to global warming, it exacerbates the added CO2 by humans, it does not mitigate it or act exclusively.
and the finding backs up the climate models that predicted such events as NASA was finally able to measure in the troposphere with the ARS instrament in 2008
and the finding backs up the climate models that predicted such events as NASA was finally able to measure in the troposphere with the ARS instrament in 2008
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
review the material presented.
it says you are WRONG, and that water is the prime mover of the greenhouse effect, and is second only to the sun in determining climate.
and just for swank:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
kinetic
Well-Known Member
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html They think otherwise.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
gee, that's kinda what i've been trying to tell him. and i'm not even a NASA scientist.
although they never mention "hundredfold effect" or even "500x effect" though. so sad for kkkynes.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
if your primary assumption is incorrect : Co2 causes warming
then all of your subsequent conclusions will also be incorrect.
it turns out, HEAT causes Co2, rather than Co2 causing heat.
watch the presentation above and gaze in wonder at science evolving.
also, i made a fundamental error myself, accepting the tautology that Co2 is concentrated in the temperate zones (where fossil fuel emissions happen) and neither bucky nor pada (the self proclaimed experts) noted it, despite their thirst to prove me wrong.
unless sub saharan africa and the rainforests of the amazon basin are packed with secret factories, the assumptions dont track.
as much as it chaps bucky and pada's asses, i dont make shit up.
the assumption that Co2 is driving warming is wrong on many frints.
Increased solar radiation levels (rising since the little ice age, as maunder predicts), BONUS increased solar radiation outside the Maunder cycle, the Milancovick cycle, the long running glacial retreat constant since 11000 years ago, the warming oceans (primarily from the preceding) causing increased water vapour concentrations (and a largely insignificant increase in co2) is the main cause of the observed increase in temps, while human produced co2 is a bit player at best.
meh, believe waht you will, but the facts are becoming clearer and clearer, and even the IPCC has been backpedalling their claims.
only the touts and hystericals have been retrenching their positions.