Search results

OK since you insist. I will post the NOAA chart. You may have heard of NOAA. NO? They are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and they are the world's pre eminent source of science to do with the oceans and the atmosphere. And no, instrument error is not a significant...

So I guess you have forgotten that the oceans are by far the biggest factor controlling the climate and they contain 93 % of the earth's heat and the air only contains 3% and the ocean's heat content has increased without the slightest pause. I guess you "forgot" that. LOL Do...

No.

Can I ask you a simple question?.... If you wanted to measure the heat content of something, which do think is a more reliable measurement; the temperature of 3% of it or the temperature of 93% of it?

The temperature of the atmosphere of the earth has nothing do with the physical properties of CO2. They remain the same regardless. Do you agree that CO2 absorbs long wavelength radiation and then re-radiates it in all directions, or not? This is key.

Well, to be frank, I should have used the terms longer/shorter for clarity when referring to wavelengths. Point taken thank you. The terms higher/lower refer to frequency which essentially the same as wavelength. The higher wavelengths have lower frequency. I got it mixed up. My bad...

Total and absolute bullshit. Do you crazed righties even have a brain? Wow. Talk about gullible.

To quote myself: "Sunlight comes onto the earth at higher wavelengths which then become lower wavelengths when changed to "heat" by the earth's surface. These lower wavelengths then are intercepted by CO2 and some of that is re-radiated back onto the earth and the surrounding atmosphere. Like...

Does this mean that you disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

OK. Let's try this. Does anyone here deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or not understand what the term "greenhouse gas" means?

Well when the first simple demonstrable fact in an explanation is denied, it makes it tough to continue.

Salby is a joke so of course you quote him. He's as confused as you turds are. That's the general consensus among real climate scientists. Salby is not respected. He is one of the 3%. If you want we can into the details of why is wrong but let's try to concentrate on the simple science...

Think about the direction that the heat is coming from the earth's surface, after being heated by sunlight that has passed through the CO2 unimpeded, because sunlight is a higher wavelength than infrared, which CO2 absorbs and then re-radiates.. Sunlight comes onto the earth at higher...

BTW, I made these all up myself. Pretty good huh? :D

Good idea! Here's one I've been posting everywhere that Republicans hang out. Nascar races, dingy bars and their parent's basement.

Yeah, probably. But conditions will probably deteriorate to the point that wars erupt over resources. A pandemic from biological weapons becomes more likely then. I don't think even a full nuke exchange would do it, but a pandemic could.

So let me get this clear. You are denying the simplest most proven fact about the nature of CO2 ? Just please tell me you understand and accept the simple fact that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates heat energy. That's ALL I'm asking about right now. This plain little fact.

So everyone is clear that CO2 absorbs heat (emitted from the earth for example) and then re-radiates it in all directions. This is an indisputable fact. Right? fhl? Are you able to admit any scientific fact at all to do with AGW?