Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Rrog · Jun 5, 2014

Clearly you enjoy this. That answers my question as to motivation. I'll unsubscribe now.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

BigNBushy said:
You don't have to measure the volcanic emissions.

We know what naturally occurring atmospheric co2 looks like.

We know what man made fossil fuel released co2 looks like.

Take many measures throughout the entire planets atmosphere, look for concentrations of each, then divide.

It's just that simple.

co2 is an invisible gas that is always present in the atmosphere. How do we tell which is "man made" and which is not?

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Learn to science, dumbass. It's heavier

co2 is co2. How "heavier" is it? I'll be waiting, Mr. Science-tard.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Either you can't read a chart or you can't accept reality.. They are identical, your political bias makes you believe they're not. Every peak is the same, every valley is the same, the goddam charts are identical and you deny it, this is the strongest proof yet that you are simply a denialist

You deny their cause

aka "8 independent investigations aren't good enough!" OK miss Mangum..

The MLO is very clear on their conclusions, you deny it

They're clearly not the same. No wonder they held you back.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Rrog said:
Sorry this whole global warming thing isn't working for you. You'll understand why I'll listen to the trained scientists

You don't listen to trained scientists. You watch TV.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Rrog said:
I'm not a climatologist. I'm speculating that you're not, either. I'm not going to debate penis graphs with anyone. The fact that nearly all formally trained scientists disagree with you is enough for me.

"The fact that nearly all formally trained scientists disagree with you" is not a fact. You believe it because your mother beat you with a "Chicken Little" book when you were young.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Rrog said:
Agreed. I have to say some of the biggest critics of geothermal Technology are the heating and cooling contractors. It's very solid technology and it's been around for decades in Europe but many contractors here resist change. Claims of faulty equipment etc. etc. perpetuate this resistance. It's all bullshit. It's elegant heating and cooling technology, though I'm not air conditioning the house.

EDIT: Geothermal wells, rather than large expansive fields are becoming very common in residential neighborhoods. The price on these wells has dropped as well (no pun) due to increased demand and competition. All very good news.

The wells are the only practical method for a small lot. And they are generally much cheaper and quicker to install.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Glaucoma said:
Studying the absorption properties of gasses in the 50's started all of this. This question is asked a billion times other places and is backed up with empirical evidence. How you missed them all in your searches is beyond me. I had no trouble at all finding people with this exact same complaint thanking others for showing them the evidence.

Here it is in a nutshell. What they found was that CO2 is almost transparent to short wave radiation and loves to absorb long wave radiation. The incoming radiation from the sun is principally short wave which passes right through the CO2 and hits the surface. The radiation that is emitted from the surface is long wave, usually in the form of infra-red which is absorbed by the CO2 and re-emitted in all directions.. which of course includes back down to the surface. Pretty simple. The reason there might not be a paper putting it all in one place is probably because it's so rudimentary to most scientists in the field that it isn't worth taking the time to publish it. It's a 'water is wet' sort of thing.

The empirical evidence usually begins here:

Yet, glaringly missing, is any reference that common water vapor is much more "greenhousey" than co2.

Harrekin · Jun 5, 2014

Glaucoma said:
Exactly. Different gasses absorb different shit differently. Now apply that data.

The part you are ignoring is that the incoming radiation is short wave and the outbound radiation is long wave. That's why some gases have a greenhouse effect. That's why they are called greenhouse gasses.

Short waves come in and are filtered to some (edit: a large) degree by Oxygen for example and then hit the surface of the Earth. These short waves then excite the molecules on whatever they hit which in turn begin to emit long wave infrared heat which gets blocked by greenhouse gasses.

Do I have to say it a 3rd time?

heckler73 said:
This paper is one that caught my eye when it came out.
If you want I have a rebuttal and response, too. But I don't think the rebuttal was well made (from what I remember when I read it) perhaps because it was done by a chemist who did not address the physics--which is the main argument of the paper--and the response was bordering on petulant (or RIU-worthy).

Click the link to heckler's post and check out the paper he provided.

Hard to have a rebuttal to actual numbers.

Glaucoma · Jun 5, 2014

Red1966 said:
Yet, glaringly missing, is any reference that common water vapor is much more "greenhousey" than co2.

Wow. Seriously? Look at the graph. I see water vapor on there, don't you? It's not about which is more 'greenhousey', don't try to strawman the issue. If you increase any one of those factors that act as a greenhouse gas you'll get a similar result.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Glaucoma said:
Well, I don't study this, but my intuition tells me insulated heat tends to stay near it's origin, ie the surface. That's just my understanding of physics as applied here.

So "green house gas" in the atmosphere above the surface would not have any effect?

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Rrog said:
I guess you're hanging out with the 3% then? Maybe the 97% all went to the bathroom at the same time at this conference and miss this piece of information.

There wa no conference. You don't even know what the "facts" you quote represent. I guess those details don't matter.

Dr Kynes · Jun 5, 2014

Red1966 said:
Yeah, you heard me. Banana theory.

thats a pretty homo-erotic theory ya got there brah

Dr Kynes · Jun 5, 2014

Rrog said:
Clearly you enjoy this. That answers my question as to motivation. I'll unsubscribe now.

you made no substantive arguments, cited no evidence, and simply argued that the Bandwagon was leaving without us

thanks but ill wait for the Pussy Riot Tour Bus
i bet it's a lot more exciting than gloomy dire predictions and stentorian doomsaying from al gore.

Dr Kynes · Jun 5, 2014

Red1966 said:
So "green house gas" in the atmosphere above the surface would not have any effect?

slow your roll red, glaucoma is talking about science, not agenda.

let him make his argument.

Dr Kynes · Jun 5, 2014

Red1966 said:
co2 is co2. How "heavier" is it? I'll be waiting, Mr. Science-tard.

i think BNB is talking about different isotopes in the CO2.

pada didnt say this because he doesnt know anything about sciency things if wikipedia doesnt say it first

i havent heard shit about isolating CO2's source based on "differing weights" of CO2, nor by isotope (which is simply my logical inference), but that doesnt mean the claim is untrue, just UNSOURCED and thus speculative.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Glaucoma said:
Wow. Seriously? Look at the graph. I see water vapor on there, don't you? It's not about which is more 'greenhousey', don't try to strawman the issue. If you increase any one of those factors that act as a greenhouse gas you'll get a similar result.

The water vapor absorbs 20 x as much spectra as co2. In total, co2 is only about 0.5% of the problem. So an increase of 3% of 5% IS 0.15%. in other words,,,nothing.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
i think BNB is talking about different isotopes in the CO2.

pada didnt say this because he doesnt know anything about sciency things if wikipedia doesnt say it first

i havent heard shit about isolating CO2's source based on "differing weights" of CO2, nor by isotope (which is simply my logical inference), but that doesnt mean the claim is untrue, just UNSOURCED and thus speculative.

The claim is untrue.

Red1966 · Jun 5, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
thats a pretty homo-erotic theory ya got there brah

Which one? The string, particle. or banana? I don't keep up on these things.

UncleBuck · Jun 5, 2014

Red1966 said:
Yet, glaringly missing, is any reference that common water vapor is much more "greenhousey" than co2.

ah, this claim again.

you have made this claim before, mind you.

Red1966 said:
Water vapor has a hundredfold effect over co2 on greenhouse effect

and you refuse to provide any citation whatsoever.

hey kynes, this stooge is on your side, you want to track this one down?

Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member