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

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
It contained exactly enough data for the point it was trying to make.....


Your point?

Nitrogen does not absorb infrared radiation

You really really should educate yourself on such basics before entering a discussion like this...

I am not buck or pada... you ranted all that to a quote from me

What was it padding to make it seem like your post had substance?
hooowll......
it was pointless as a demonstration that water is not better at greenhousing that co2, which was why it was posted.
it was part of the pretense that i was arguning co2 doesnt absorb IR radiation. derp derp derp

my point is, (as is obvious to anyone who doesnt have a metal bar through their head) that water IS far more powerful then co2 as a greenhouse gas, and is 100x more abundant.
derp derp derp

meh, but No2 does which was my mistake. i can be wrong now and again, and admit it.

{derping intensifies}
YOU brought it up and smugly asked who i was arguing with. if you pretend to be stupid dont be surprised if you are assumed to be a retard.

awww, no silly cartoon to make a doomsday prediction?
just more baseless personal insults and mindless derpification.

you wanted to inject yourself into this discussion, dont whine about getting a response you so desperately desire.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I don't need to dance for you to show your posts are wrong

Your shocking ignorance does the job perfectly well on its own
really, then get substantive or stfu.

bucky japes and jeers because that is all he knows
pada is all feels, no facts

you like to pretend you have all the answers, so go ahead, run my math, dispute my assertions with facts, or join bucky and pada in their clowncar.
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
it was pointless as a demonstration that water is not better at greenhousing that co2, which was why it was posted.
it was part of the pretense that i was arguning co2 doesnt absorb IR radiation. derp derp derp

my point is, (as is obvious to anyone who doesnt have a metal bar through their head) that water IS far more powerful then co2 as a greenhouse gas, and is 100x more abundant.
derp derp derp
Water vapour also reflects sunlight as well as absorbing infrared

However water vapour is self regulating (you know the natural cycle that ends with rain)
Yet all this is nothing but a red herring an attempt by you to get us to "look over there"
meh, but No2 does which was my mistake. i can be wrong now and again, and admit it.
Now and again? Keynes why your too modest...

{derping intensifies}
YOU brought it up and smugly asked who i was arguing with. if you pretend to be stupid dont be surprised if you are assumed to be a retard.
I brought it up because you mentioned it in a post from me
awww, no silly cartoon to make a doomsday prediction?
just more baseless personal insults and mindless derpification.
personal insults? Yeah that you feel personally insulted by my posts does not mean I have posted "personal insults"
you wanted to inject yourself into this discussion, dont whine about getting a response you so desperately desire.
Howl....
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
really, then get substantive or stfu.

bucky japes and jeers because that is all he knows
pada is all feels, no facts

you like to pretend you have all the answers, so go ahead, run my math, dispute my assertions with facts, or join bucky and pada in their clowncar.
You.'ve done math why how spectacular for you

Show your work....
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
a gas that absorbs irnfrared radiation 5x bettter and appears in concetrations 100x higher would naturally have MUCH MORE impact on the climate than co2.
you're still running with the uncited, unattributed, unproven red1966 claim on drugs?

man, talk about taking the bait and running with it.

what a fucking idiot you are.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
theres no such thin as "opinion sciences" only Scientific Opinions, what you refer to as "opinion sciences" is actually OPINION POLLS which are as scientific as counting up facebook likes to set government policy.
ah, yes.

kynes is also a denier of scientific polling. we saw this back in 2012, and watched the hilarity as the thing he was arguing against got slapped in his face as "REALLY FUCKING TRUE" that very night.

yet he refuses to learn from his own dumbass past.

golden.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Water vapour also reflects sunlight as well as absorbing infrared

However water vapour is self regulating (you know the natural cycle that ends with rain)
ya mean, water vapor doesn't hang around for hundreds and thousands of years like CO2?

i must have been living in portland too long, i was beginning to think kynes' uncited, unattributed, unfounded, red1966 talking point was the missing link that scientists had simply failed to consider yet, despite the massive funding spree that comes with adding "and global warming" to the end of anything, as kynes so love(d) to point out.

guess i'll just have to keep waiting for citation of actual science, rather than kynes1966 talking points scribbled on the back of an eggo box.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Lol so if I hop on one foot while rubbing my head and squinting upside down thru a toilet tube I'll be able to see what you worked out all on your own that
"Co2 by definition can't cause warming"

You should mail the scientists at nasa with your revaluation of co2 properties they'd enjoy the laugh........

I'm going to discuss it with some others (hopefully, today). If I am wrong, they will point out the fault. So far, no one here has done so, and I don't expect anyone to, either. Unless they have some quantum chemistry background.
This doesn't preclude CO2's importance in the "carbon cycle", but the hoopla about it being a relevant GHG-- as far as climate temps are concerned-- is now more doubtful in my eyes.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
theres no such thin as "opinion sciences" only Scientific Opinions, what you refer to as "opinion sciences" is actually OPINION POLLS which are as scientific as counting up facebook likes to set government policy

the humanities are soft "sciences" and really have no basis in empirical evidence.

they rely on feels, not facts.

feels are how lefties interact with the world, and feels are all lefties are good at, so move on back to chattering about franco-prussian pottery in the 18th century, and the study of renaissance german pornographic lithographs.

real science doesnt have time for your bullshit, and doesnt care about your feels.
Keep parroting that bullshit claim, it doesn't make it more true the more you say it

I've already shown evidence that says the majority of scientists lean left, that includes, especially in STEM fields

You deny it. All you have is "that's not a scientific poll!", then I ask "how would you suggest we determine the political affiliation of scientists scientifically?", then you say "it shouldn't matter what their political affiliation is!" .... then why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place in some retarded attempt at failed smugness as if to say "conservatives do all the real math and science, all the hard work, leftists do the bullshit science that nobody cares about and isn't real science". Everybody who is reading this right now can see right past all your bullshit...

You brought it up, I showed you you're wrong, you cry foul and kick over the checkerboard. That's why nobody likes playing with you (nobody agrees with you)
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Keep parroting that bullshit claim, it doesn't make it more true the more you say it

I've already shown evidence that says the majority of scientists lean left, that includes, especially in STEM fields

You deny it. All you have is "that's not a scientific poll!", then I ask "how would you suggest we determine the political affiliation of scientists scientifically?", then you say "it shouldn't matter what their political affiliation is!" .... then why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place in some retarded attempt at failed smugness as if to say "conservatives do all the real math and science, all the hard work, leftists do the bullshit science that nobody cares about and isn't real science". Everybody who is reading this right now can see right past all your bullshit...

You brought it up, I showed you you're wrong, you cry foul and kick over the checkerboard. That's why nobody likes playing with you (nobody agrees with you)
are you retarded?

polls are not "scientific"
NO poll is "scientific"
polls are about "Samples and Statistics" which may SOUND like science but you forgot what the "Samples and Statistics" are about : FEELS
you cannot measure feels, you cannot do double blind experiments on feels, feels dont follow any rules other than those imposed by each individual's Feels Themselves.

i FEEL like you are getting dumber all the time. my sample IS representative of the target group (me) , and the FEEL is statistically significant (approaching 100% saturation of the study group) thus according to the "Scientific Poll" i just conducted, you ARE therefore getting dumber every day.

ohh wait, thats still just MY OPINION, accurate though it may be, and it still isnt proof that you are actually getting dumber every day, but it's a strong indicator that the things you say are getting dumber every day.

when a scientist MUST infer something through a sample or statistic, he does his best to ensure the samples are representative, takes many samples from many areas, does the test many times to ensure it is accurate, and then double checks his math.

pollsters may use "sciencey" sounding sounding words and elaborate jargon but they are NOT engaged in science, they are engaged in feels.

even worse, they are using statistical samples about feels, which is even less reliable than feels themselves.

but then, this whiney bullshit about feels is just a distraction form the real problem,

Co2's weak greenhouse effect (1/5th the effect of the same volume of water vapour), , and intensely low concentration (1/100th the abundance of water vapour) , making Co2 NOT responsible for climate change.

this has been well established, and you have made no attempt to dispute these two simple facts

therefore your continued insistence that Co2 IS in charge of climate regulation, we can only infer that in fact Co2 is a HOMEOPATHIC greenhouse gas, which makes it more effective as the concentration of co2 drops.

Z. O. M. G.

Holy Mother Fucking Christ On A Cracker. maybe that is it.
thats the lizard people's endgame.
convincing us to foolishly reduce our co2 levels, which will (under the "laws of homeopathy") cause our global temp to skyrocket, making the earth more comfortable for Reptilian Aliens!~!

and you are in on it.
you sunuvabitch!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
are you retarded?

polls are not "scientific"
NO poll is "scientific"
clearly you are retarded, and a liar, since scientific polling does exist.

i FEEL like you are getting dumber all the time. my sample IS representative of the target group (me) , and the FEEL is statistically significant (approaching 100% saturation of the study group) thus according to the "Scientific Poll" i just conducted, you ARE therefore getting dumber every day.
that's not how scientific polling works, moron.


...Co2 NOT responsible for climate change.

this has been well established

hope NOAA is good enough for you.




and just to piss you off, some skeptical science.




CO2 and temps move in basically lockstep.

and you are a retarded white supremacist.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Water vapour also reflects sunlight as well as absorbing infrared
water vapour's greenhouse effect is 5x that of Co2, mole for mole, and that is AFTER "baselining away" ice snow and ocean albedo effect, evaporative cooling, effects, etc etc etc etc.
5x more effective than co2 is the MOST CONSERVATIVE (and by that i mean lowest) estimate of it's "adjusted" greenhouse power

However water vapour is self regulating (you know the natural cycle that ends with rain)
Yet all this is nothing but a red herring an attempt by you to get us to "look over there"
Water vapour's concentration in the atmosphere is 100x that of co2 NOW
the concentration of water or co2 two weeks from now, or 6 months or 5 years is irrelevant to it's power to trap IR radiation and heat. \
if it is a red herring, then why are you not simply disproving these assertions with your mighty AGW ninja skills?


Now and again? Keynes why your too modest...
wow, you really showed me who's boss.
oh waitm no ya didnt. it's just more of your usual hot air.

I brought it up because you mentioned it in a post from me
you brought it up, because i brought it up, in response to you bringing it up in a thristy ass desperate attempt to get a response from me?
yeah, youre retarded.

YOU are the one who injected yourself into this discussion, you are the one who, (in your very first foray into this thread) smugly asked "who are you arguing with" and then pretended to be offended by my telling you who i was arguing with and why.

personal insults? Yeah that you feel personally insulted by my posts does not mean I have posted "personal insults"
ohh so youre not actually attempting to insult me, you are simply incapable of preventing your lips from flapping, and unable to make those flapping noises take a substantive form.

good to know.

yep. as substantive as ever, which is to say, you havent dipsroved any of the assertions made in this thread, you havent even ATTEMPTED to dispute any assertion save one obvious (been up too late) error which was only HALF wrong, since nitrogen may not trap IR radiation, it STILL HOLDS HEAT
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I would like to thank Uncle Buck for posting a temperature graph that clearly shows we have been much hotter than present and that the temperature constantly is rising and/or falling thus proving the complete MYTH that humans are CAUSING climate change.

Were the dinosaurs driving SUV's when the earth was +4 degrees above normal?? And what is Normal anyway??? Who came up with that exact temperature where earth was (QUOTE) NORMAL (UNQUOTE)... What data did they base that off of??
 

Ra$p0tin

Well-Known Member
I seem to notice that you science folks are focusing on IR light. How do the other spectrum's of light fit into this problem and in what way?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
I seem to notice that you science folks are focusing on IR light. How do the other spectrum's of light fit into this problem and in what way?
They don't really.
clearly you are retarded, and a liar, since scientific polling does exist.



that's not how scientific polling works, moron.





hope NOAA is good enough for you.




and just to piss you off, some skeptical science.




CO2 and temps move in basically lockstep.

and you are a retarded white supremacist.
I might be too high, but your graph seems to imply CO2 follows temperature and not the other way around.
 
Top